Why are they trying to ban online ammo purchases?

Antis don't want private firearm ownership, period. So if making it more difficult or expensive for you to get ammo means you'll shoot less or have less ammo, that's a positive for them.

The ultimate goal is to limit the quantity of ammunition that you can purchase over a particular period. Buying in person will better allow the government to track individual purchases and perhaps establish a registry of who has what and how much of it they have. It's also impossible to verify a person's age when they purchase online. You pretty much just take their word for it when they click the box that says they are old enough.

yep that pretty much sums it up

increments. little by little chipping away at our rights.....

Because the Aurora shooter purportedly purchased 1k rounds online, trained with a very small amount of them, and used less than 100 of them in the shooting.

Thats the cause. The reasons are outlined well above, about as well can be.

In some parts of europe they have yearly maximum amounts of ammo a person can buy, sometimes limited to calibers of guns they are registered as owning.
These amounts are actually relatively small compared to what many go through target shooting here.
Some places require they go through a formal process to purchase a fixed quantity of ammunition, including giving a reason or need for such ammunition, or showing they have a place to hunt or some other demonstratable use.
They can also restrict some ammunition based on the use they specify. For example someone buying shotgun shells to hunt birds may not be permitted to purchase shotgun slugs.


It also allows the government to keep track of who has what and where.
It has no real connection with mass shootings, but would be more useful to a government in situations like rebellion or civil unrest. They can limit stockpiles, theoretically more easily deal with insurection or rebellion, and starve an enemy of such well tracked supplies.
Most conflicts require large amounts of ammunition, and such things can better insure government will always win if a conflict lasts long enough.
It also allows easier identification of 'gun nuts' based on large purchases that seem larger than what they deem is normal.
It also has little impact on criminals, as most of them use very little ammunition.

In places with firearm registration is also limits people to either purchasing ammunition calibers just for firearms they have registered, or when not restricted can help red flagging people buying calibers they have no firearm on record as owning that can use them.



Overall it is just part of an extensive strategy to limit arms of the people.
Sometimes each piece of the puzzle makes less sense on its own, or does not become very useful until another piece of the puzzle connects to it.
At which point something that seemed mundane can become very effective at enforcing draconian restrictions.

At the consumer level it also means firearms in calibers which are not often available at the local gun store would be difficult to feed, and when someone can locate such ammunition will have to pay whatever excessive price is asked.

What's also bad is that where I live no company stocks ammo by the case. Try to buy a box of Eley or any of the high end ammo. Just does not exist. Same way for reloading materials. The person who intends to do harm with his or her weapon will still go to a big box store and buy a few boxes of ammo to do whatever they plan. Eliminating mail order will do nothing except make it more expensive for the serious and frequent shooter to enjoy their sport.

It's also because the legislators are very stupid. Look at the differences. Buy ammo online, you have to give a credit card number, name and address, and that's verified before the transaction is completed. Everything but your fingerprints.

Buy in person at a retail store, pay cash, walk away with the ammo. No name, no age unless they happen to ask for it, no address or veification of anything. Pay and scoot.

No one ever said gun laws have to make any sense or do any good. We just have to do something.

It is not about solving illegal violence. It is about fulfilling the anti gun agenda. The ends justify the means to them.

medalguy said:

It's also because the legislators are very stupid. Look at the differences. Buy ammo online, you have to give a credit card number, name and address, and that's verified before the transaction is completed. Everything but your fingerprints.

Buy in person at a retail store, pay cash, walk away with the ammo. No name, no age unless they happen to ask for it, no address or veification of anything. Pay and scoot.

No one ever said gun laws have to make any sense or do any good. We just have to do something.

Click to expand...

Yeah I thought I heard something about having to "register" to buy ammo.

because they think they can

Medalguy - you got it. If I were trying to be more restrictive, I would WANT more online sales of ammo because one, you get identifying information via credit card, two, you get all of the additional information that comes with the credit card record, and three, you have the ability, if necessary, to intercept delivery.

B6

Because they want to, and think they can get away with it, same as online sales of fire arms, magazines and firearm parts, they are after anything they can do to ban the shooting sports, and civilian gun ownership. It would be especially painful for folks who shoot .22lr in bench rest, offhand, silouhette competition, because local gun stores, seldom stock any match grade ammo. I buy all my match .22 ammo online as None is available locally. It would also hit reloader hard as most components bought in bulk are from online sources.

I do not like the idea of banning online sales of ammo because there is certain ammo, like .257 Roberts, that is hard to find at gun shops.

On the other hand, a ban on online sales, or a law that online sales require a NICS check, will make it somewhat more difficult for convicted felons to acquire ammunition.

The anti's want all ammo sales registered and recorded and dealer sales will do that. It is harder with on-line/mail order sales.

They are also looking forward to universal ammo serial numbering (the micro-stamping proposal) and again requiring dealers to keep records and limit the amount of ammo sold will be easier.

Jim

bushmaster1313 said:

I do not like the idea of banning online sales of ammo because there is certain ammo, like .257 Roberts, that is hard to find at gun shops.

On the other hand, a ban on online sales, or a law that online sales require a NICS check, will make it somewhat more difficult for convicted felons to acquire ammunition.

Click to expand...

It's already illegal for convicted felons to have guns and ammo so making law abiding gun owners jump through hoops is ok?

It's already illegal for convicted felons to have guns and ammo so making law abiding gun owners jump through hoops is ok?

Click to expand...

Inconvenient, yes, but IMHO not unconstitutional.

A law making it illegal for convicted felons to have guns and ammo has no teeth if they can buy them through the mail without a background check.

I see an online ammo ban coming, and it will not be overturned.

Paradoxically, it's not the person who has enough money to buy 10,000 rounds of centerfire ammo who is scary. A person who only has enough money to buy 3 or four bullets is probably a thousand times more likely to commit a crime with a gun than a well-heeled bulk ammo buyer.

control, control,control

Also, it's something for us to give in to. The chipping away.:banghead:

The first thing a would be Dictator does is ID and punsh his enemies. Obama spells enemy NRA.

as said, increments.

Remember their true goals: registration, draconian taxing, draconian registration to the point where taking too much tylenol is a instant DQ from gun rights, no carry, 500% ammo price, can't have more than one mag of ammo ever, microstamped ammo and firing pins, no semi-autos, no self-defense clause, off-site storage only, etc. etc. etc.

Banning online anything is a small stepping stone toward that.

Pure and simple TAXATION.

Most internet sales go untaxed. Forcing you to buy locally assures that you are taxed for your purchase.

Voters see Aurora, and they cry, "Do something!" Holmes is said to have bought the ammo on line, so they push to stop us from buying ammo on line. It doesn't matter whether that will actually stop a future theatre shooting; it's all about how the legislator thinks his/her action will be seen by the media and by the next election's voters and contributors.

Voters see Sandy Hook, and they cry, "Do something!" Lanza is said to have stolen those guns after murdering his mother, meaning they were not kept securely locked up, so they push to force us to keep all firearms unloaded and locked up. It doesn't matter whether that will actually stop a future school shooting; it's all about how the legislator thinks his/her action will be seen by the media and by the next election's voters and contributors.

See the pattern? It comes down to being able to present the appearance, for their constituents, that they did something that can be tied directly back to the latest incident. That's about as far as the average anti can see. Heck, if Lanza had used an XD with an OD frame, they'd be trying to ban green.

think of it this way. they can,t outlaw cars(yet) but they can raise the price of gas to the point only the very rich can afford it. by "outlawing" online ammo sales, the price at the brick and motar store will double. and then you have a backdoor ammo control. best stock up now before the price goes out of sight and can,t be had at any price.