1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Ammo Ban-->Crack Down on Reloading Tools & Components?

Discussion in 'Handloading and Reloading' started by JustAnotherPlinker, Oct 7, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JustAnotherPlinker

    JustAnotherPlinker Member

    Aug 30, 2008
    So its pretty obvious that something is going to go down next year if/when Obama takes over. My suspicion is a backdoor gun ban via ammunition ala Chris Rock's "$5,000 Bullet!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juLQBeZXmPU

    The only way to enforce this ban IMO would be to regulate primers! Lots of people cast their own bullets (and probably make gas checks too with some ingenuity), brass can be reused for a long time, and powder lasts for a long time if stored well. What is the single most complicated part of any centerfire round of ammo? The primers!

    People talk of regenerating these with matchheads... get real, you need factory fresh and consistent primers to ensure reliable ignition.

    I'd like to hear how you all plan to keep reloading if sales of primers to the public are banned.
  2. mallc

    mallc Member

    Apr 28, 2007
    FFL in Muscatine, Iowa 52761
    We hane bigger problems.

    I'm not overly concerned that legal gun ownership is either candidate's biggest worry.

    If I were President in today's world, I'd like nothing better than to have a few million, well armed, loyal Americans ready to take action to protect the country, our borders, or more likely, harvest meat to feed the poor and elderly in the event of economic collapse.

    By now you should be totally prepared to live for six months with minumal access to cash, grocery stores, and fuel. You should have at least one year supply of any commodity necessary to protect your Second Amendment rights; AND, regardless of who is elected, you should begin to reconcile yourself with the fact that current economic conditions represent the greatest threat to national security we've faced in the last ninty years.

    You had four years to prepare. it's a little late to worry about primers now.

  3. ultramag44

    ultramag44 Member

    Aug 15, 2008
    Lubbock, Texas
    Quite frankly, I think Obama & a filibuster proof congress has bigger fish to fry then primers (like turning us into a socialistic, lazy wellfare state...think france). They will be establishing the "Fairness Buearo" , tell you what low-income faimly will be moving in with you, what man your daughter will marry...as Joe Bidden said: "Where I come from it's called fairness."

    But, to answer your question, there will be a run on EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY primer left in the country before your law takes effect.

    What to do: Make a nice $$ donation to the Mcain/ Palin campain...I did.

    We have to win the white house, flip the congress. Failure is not an option.

    Then, and only then can we open hearings on "the usual suspects", and get some entertainment for our 700 bliion theatre ticket. Make 'em dance!
  4. JustAnotherPlinker

    JustAnotherPlinker Member

    Aug 30, 2008
    Not really, I've been in college for four years with little to no resources or space to prepare on the scale you laid out. I don't think we're going to have an economic collapse in the next year... 2-3 years out? Maybe. Then again, my education (process engineer) and skills would probably be worth MORE down the road during a rebuild.

    I don't want this to turn into a SHTF post, I just want to know how many other people agree with my assessment of what's coming ammo-wise.
  5. Walkalong

    Walkalong Moderator

    Nov 20, 2006
    If the wrong folks get in there will be all kinds of attacks on our gun rights from every angle we suspect, and a few we have not thought of.

    You should always be well stocked on all things anyway. Guns, ammo, water, food, a bit of cash stuck back, etc.
  6. evan price

    evan price Member

    Dec 7, 2005
    http://www.ohioccw.org/ Ohio's best CCW resour
    Primers store for just as long as gunpowder. They were not successful in getting an "expiring" primer to market. I'm not worried right now.
    Of course, I do have a stockpile.

    Anyone remember the Great Primer Scare of 1991-1992? That was when they were making noise about making primers chemically expire. Man, you could not FIND primers in any store for any price. People bought them by the 50,000 lot.
    There are people STILL stockpiled from that scheme.
  7. Eric F

    Eric F Member

    Jul 23, 2007
    I so hate these what if, the sky is falling threads. so they ban guns make it illegal, then bubba says well I'm gonna stock pile guns and ammo. ok here is what makes no sense to me. you have guns and ammo illegaly now, you cant shoot them because you will get caught easily enough, now your a criminal. Then in 4 years or far less the next president comes in with fresh congress and such and repeal the ban. Now guns and ammo are available again but you cant partake because your a criminal and to add another slap to you you just waisted all that money for nothing.

    My point dont stock pile, keep a good supply on hand and shoot what you can when you can and but supplies when you need them. You will find life more enjoyable and shortages wont get created by panic purchasing.
  8. JustAnotherPlinker

    JustAnotherPlinker Member

    Aug 30, 2008
    evan price,
    Primer scare of '91? I'll have to read up on that, wasn't really "aware" then (I was 9).

    Eric F,
    With all do respect, counting on the 2012 congress/administraton to repeal new gun laws or bans is just plain foolish. Even Bush said he'd sign a renewal of the AWB! When was the last time a major piece of gun control legislation was repealed on the federal level? The Heller decision says absolutely nothing regarding munitions.

    If you're not prepared to be self sufficient (insofar as possible short of producing your own powder/primers) with regards to your ammunition supply, then you are vulnerable.

    We're already seeing lead hunting projectiles banned in California (protect the vultures) and IIRC environmentalists in Washington are also pushing for this too. $5000 bullet indeed.
  9. Galil5.56

    Galil5.56 Member

    Dec 20, 2007
    I was selling reloading components/reloading gear during the "primer scare", and supply was hard to get, and all I did was answer questions about these expiring primers... Then shortly after we had the import ban on Chinese guns and ammo. Shudda seen what Norinco 7.62x39 ammo did. Wish I would have bought more Norinco 1911's, M-14's, Mak 90's... Talk about a great investment with little start-up capital.
  10. Eric F

    Eric F Member

    Jul 23, 2007
    thanks that is nice.
    When was the last time the Federal government banned any ammunition? I see stock piles as a waist of space and time. I'm not talking about a few thousand of this or that I am talking 100 pounds of powder and 1 million primers here or even 10k+ of ammo. I think its a bit out of hand.

    You dont stock pile penicillin do you? your more likely to get strep throught before you see an ammunition ban.

    And lead ban on the left coast.....go figure bunches of tree huggers out there.
  11. Walkalong

    Walkalong Moderator

    Nov 20, 2006
    Ammo doesn't go bad. :D

    Everybody has a different view of where a good supply leaves off and a stockpile begins. To each their own. I have a good supply. :)
  12. Otto

    Otto Member

    May 14, 2007
    Lone Star State
    Threads like this needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger and doom.

    I'ts really a disservice to everyone...
  13. Eric F

    Eric F Member

    Jul 23, 2007
    2 well said statements, and with that I say IBTL
  14. LubeckTech

    LubeckTech Member

    Sep 13, 2006
    Parkersburg, WV
    It is quite possible the socialists will try something with ammunition but they are more likley to come after us with registration. In the name of "reasonableness" they will push for registration of ALL firearms. Wtih this will come a fee of probably $250 - $400 per gun which will need to be renewed every 2 - 3 years. They will say that they are not against the RKBA but must take reasonable measures like this for a safe society and if you don't agree you are just an unreasonable nut. Of course the won't mention the fee.
  15. JustAnotherPlinker

    JustAnotherPlinker Member

    Aug 30, 2008
    Well I did some digging, here's a copy of the speech Kerry gave pushing "The Ammunition Safety Act of 1997". While it doesn't pertain to primers, it does shed light on how these sneaky SOBs plan.

    I apologise for the format. I highlighted anything I thought important.

    I'll see if I can find any other examples.

    It should be clear that if this law had gone into effect, it is doubtful any "reloading loopholes" would be let to slip through. "Armor Piercing" hard cast .454 Casull anybody?


    "By Mr. KERRY:
    S. 553. A bill to regulate ammunition,
    and for other purposes; to the Committee
    on the Judiciary.
    Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, no gun
    works without a bullet. Yet for no good
    reason, Congress in the early 1980’s—
    which were marked by terribly troubling
    increases in gun-caused fatalities
    and injuries—repealed laws that regulate
    ammunition. And while a background
    check is required to stop felons
    from purchasing guns, no such background
    check is required to stop them
    from buying ammunition for guns they
    already may have. In the meantime,
    bullets are getting meaner and more
    deadly. Law enforcement officers know
    all too well the danger they face each
    and every time a gun is pointed at
    Advances in technology only promise
    to make matters worse. When a large
    percentage of gun-related deaths involve
    handguns, and a larger percentage
    of gun-related deaths is accidental,
    it is not sensible to allow unrestricted
    manufacture, sale, and use of new,
    more destructive bullets. In 1994, 157
    police officers and State troopers were
    killed in this country. Five lost their
    lives in my home State of Massachusetts.
    Additionally, more than 200 people
    die from the accidental use of handguns
    every year. In 1992 alone, 233 accidental
    deaths occurred because of
    handguns. This included 6 babies, 36
    children under the age of 14, and 8 senior
    citizens, 2 of whom were over the
    age of 80.
    In light of these sad and disturbing
    facts, there is no good reason to permit
    ever more dangerous bullets to come
    on the market. And there is every good
    reason to keep off our streets and out
    of our homes bullets that supply handguns
    with the approximate destructive
    power of assault weapons.
    That is why I am today reintroducing
    the Ammunition Safety Act that I introduced
    previously in the 104th Congress.
    The Ammunition Safety Act of
    1997 does two things: it reestablishes
    reasonable regulations for the sale of
    handgun ammunition, and it outlaws
    all exceedingly destructive handgun
    ammunition by expanding and updating
    the ban on armor-piercing handgun
    ammunition. This bill would provide a
    weapon for law enforcement to crack
    down on crime and would make ordinary
    people safer from handgun violence
    and accidental shootings. The
    bill accomplishes these goals in three
    First, the bill reinstates and
    strengthens ammunition control language
    that Congress repealed during
    the Reagan era. The bill would require
    dealers of handgun ammunition to be
    licensed by the Federal Government
    and would restrict interstate sale and
    transportation of handgun ammunition
    to licenced dealers.
    The bill also would
    double the maximum penalties for sale
    of handgun ammunition to and possession
    of such ammunition by felons and
    persons under age 21.
    Second, the bill would apply Brady
    Bill provisions to handgun ammunition.
    To prevent the sale of handgun
    ammunition to felons, every purchaser
    of ammunition would have to pass a
    background check before ammunition
    could be sold to him or her.
    These regulations
    would be a vital tool for law enforcement
    to use in investigating
    crime, and would provide equity to a
    system that currently monitors and restricts
    the flow of guns, but,
    inexplicably, not of ammunition.
    Third, the bill expands the definition
    of illegal armor-piercing handgun ammunition
    to include any new conceivable
    kind of armor-piercing bullet. The
    bill establishes a new method to accomplish
    this goal. To date, no law has
    been able to effectively ban all armorpiercing
    bullets. It is impossible to ban
    what cannot be defined because vague
    laws are constitutionally void—and
    definitions to date have failed to cover
    all armor-piercing bullets. All that existing
    law does is ban bullets based on
    the materials of which they are made.
    Consequently, bullets made of hard
    metal are illegal in the hope that this
    definition will cover most armor-piercing
    bullets. But the existing composition-
    based definitions fail to prevent
    the sale of certain bullets that pierce
    armor like large lead bullets that are
    not intended for handguns but can be
    used in them.

    This bill calls on the Treasury Department
    to define major armor-piercing
    bullets. Fulfilling this new responsibility
    would entail four steps:
    First, within 1 year, the Treasury Department
    is charged to determine a
    standard test to ascertain the destructive
    capacity of any and all bullets.
    This will probably result in something
    along the lines of a system that has
    been employed for some testing purposes
    that calculates the width times
    the depth of the hole a projectile bores
    in a block of gelatin when it is shot
    with no extra powder from a standard
    handgun at a distance of 10 feet.
    Second, utilizing this destructive capabilities
    rating test, the Treasury Department
    would then test and determine
    the destructive rating of every
    bullet available on the market.
    Third, all manufacturers of bullets
    for sale in the United States would be
    required to cover the costs incurred by
    the Treasury Department in this testing

    Fourth, the bill would make it illegal
    to manufacture, sell, import, use, or
    possess any bullet—existing or newly
    invented—that has a destructive rating
    equal to or higher than the armorpiercing
    threshold. This would be in addition
    to the existing compositionbased
    This bill contains reasonable exemptions.
    Those bullets exclusively manufactured
    for law enforcement would be
    exempt; so would be those bullets designed
    for sporting purpose that Congress
    specifically exempts by law; and
    so would be those bullets that are proven
    by their manufacturer at its expense
    to have a destructive rating below the
    armor-piercing threshold.
    By setting the legal standard at the
    armor-piercing threshold, all armorpiercing
    bullets would be illegal. And
    there is an additional advantage to setting
    a legal threshold in this fashion:
    The threshold would ban more than
    armor-piercing bullets. It would ban
    any bullet invented in the future that
    explodes on impact, that turns to
    shrapnel, that does things today’s technology
    cannot yet fathom, or that by
    any other means is exceptionally destructive.

    Setting a legal standard this way
    draws a hard and fast line between
    those bullets currently on the market
    and future bullets that do more damage
    that we can image today. This bill
    says that America is satisfied that the
    bullets of today are dangerous enough
    and America will tolerate no greater
    likelihood of accidental death as a result
    of new bullets.
    This bill recognizes the fact that regulating
    only guns is naive. Those who want to kill or injure others will always
    be able to find guns, but they
    must purchase ammunition.
    When they
    do this, this bill will be there to stop
    Mr. President, I recognize that there
    is a limit to what the Government can
    do to stop gun violence and accidental
    death. But today, our Government is
    shirking its responsibility. This bill is
    a vital step toward ensuring that our
    Government does what is necessary to
    save lives.
    The law enforcement community and
    the public will never again have to
    react to advertisements like the one
    for the famous Rhino bullet. This ad
    states: ‘‘The Rhino inflicts a wound of
    8 inches in diameter. Each of these
    fragments becomes lethal shrapnel and
    is hurled into vital organs, lungs, circulatory
    system components, the heart
    and other tissues. The wound channel
    is catastrophic. Death is nearly instantaneous.’’
    If this bill is enacted, opportunistic
    manufacturers like the one who created
    the Rhino bullet will have nothing
    to gain from advertising the dramatic
    innovations of their bullets. If an advertisement
    claims that a new bullet is
    unusually destructive, the public will
    know that the advertisement is either
    an outright lie or that the product is
    illegal. Either way, the public will
    know in advance that no such bullet
    will ever hit the street, and the public
    will have no cause for alarm.
    When this bill becomes law, no new
    bullets that are more dangerous than
    those of today will make it to market.
    When this bill becomes law, bullets
    now available for purchase end up in
    the wrong hands.
    This bill is a solid step toward returning
    sanity and safety to our Nation’s
    streets and households. The Government
    has no greater responsibility
    than to work toward this goal. I welcome
    the support of colleagues who
    share my concerns, as many do. I urge
    them to join me in sponsoring this legislation.
    Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
    that the full text of the legislation
    appear in the RECORD."
  16. pilot teacher

    pilot teacher Member

    Oct 29, 2005
    Spring Hill, Florida
    I think there will be civil disturbances within 6 months of Obama's election, IF elected. I also believe there's also a possibility of a military coup.
    These anti-American morons should be rounded up now.:cuss:
  17. JustAnotherPlinker

    JustAnotherPlinker Member

    Aug 30, 2008
    Oh yeah, here we go. Here's a Law Review put together in 1998 that details the difficulties of regulating ammunition and explicitly discusses reloading:


    A quote:
    "There are other practical problems with bringing bullets to Brady. For one, it is relatively easy to make bullets, and gun owners can circumvent regulations by doing so. [143] Using a reloading machine, a gun owner can put together hundreds, if not thousands, of live cartridges in a day. [144] Reloading machines are relatively cheap and are becoming increasingly sophisticated. [145] Reloading machines do not leave a bullet regulation system completely hamstrung, though. Although reloading machines allow gun owners to reuse cartridges, the other parts of a live round are more difficult to fabricate. Making smokeless powder is particularly difficult for the home craftsman. [146] [Page 27]

    In any of the proposed ammunition-related legislation discussed herein the drafters simply will need to recognize that a potential loophole exists for the people who buy the constituent parts of ammunition rather than the bullets themselves. One way to make sure this loophole stays closed is to maintain the definition of ammunition now under federal law--a definition that encompasses the components of a live cartridge. [147] This definition might be too broad and considered overly intrusive, but remains a viable option if it turns out that the proposals made herein are hamstrung by home ammunition makers. The ease with which ammunition can be made at home is a drawback in almost any scheme of bullet regulation. Homemade bullets are an endemic problem in ammunition control that is almost impossible to eliminate.

    Because Congress's power to pass Brady was based on the Commerce Clause and Congress's ability to regulate interstate commerce, Brady might not apply to intrastate firearm sales. This jurisdictional limitation could also apply to intrastate ammunition sales. Currently, this is not a major limitation because most people buy bullets that have moved in interstate commerce. [148] Those ammunition dealers determined to get around Brady, however, could bypass the regulations by manufacturing and selling bullets in-state. The could set up what essentially would be "bullet boutiques," akin to beer microbreweries. Sales of locally produced bullets might not require a background check, although the federal government could argue, and correctly so, that under the historically expansive reading of the Commerce Clause such transactions nonetheless "affect" interstate commerce. [149]

    Finally, there is a political dimension to Brady. The bill experienced a torturous history before it passed. It was proposed in three separate sessions of Congress before finally passing on the fourth try in 1993. [150] Brady has remained controversial since its [Page 28] passage, as shown by the almost immediate court challenges to its validity. [151] The basis for the court challenges--mandated CLEO participation as a violation of federalism--is avoided by waiting to implement changes until the national background check system is in place. However, public opinion against Brady will remain an ongoing hurdle. The naysayers will have to be convinced that Brady is here to stay, and that it may as well be given the opportunity to fulfill its promise by denying the "bad guys" access to ammunition."
  18. ReloaderFred

    ReloaderFred Member

    Apr 28, 2005
    Oregon Coast
    At the risk of further feeding the "panic", I'll relate the experience of a shooting friend who is an advisor to TTN, the importers of Chinese copies of various antique firearms.

    He told me that on his various trips to China to advise the Chinese manufacturers on how to better make the shotguns, it was necessary to test fire all the guns they had completed. He said there was very little control over the actual guns, but that each and every round of ammunition had to be signed for and accounted for. This was overseen by "government quality inspectors" on site. He told me they were especially concerned that no ammunition left the plant.

    The Chinese have figured out how to control firearms through ammunition regulation, so I suppose it could happen here. And yes, I do remember the primer scare of '91 & '92, and the most recent one.

    I'm like Walkalong, I have a decent stock on hand.

    Hope this helps.

  19. rcmodel

    rcmodel Member in memoriam

    Sep 17, 2007
    Eastern KS
    If anything gets banned it is going to be lead, and lead for bullets.

    It is already happening in Komiefornication and a few other states.

    You know what they say in political circles, "As California goes, so goes the Nation!"

    All the primers & powder in the world won't help you if you can't afford to buy non-toxic bullets!

  20. Johnny Guest

    Johnny Guest Moderator Emeritus

    Dec 20, 2002
    North Texas
    Interesting discussion but really off-topic for this forum

    It probably more properly belongs in the Legal forum.

    The alarm has pretty well been sounded in this venue, so the thread is CLOSED.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page