Does the 2nd Amendment Cover Ammo?

[B. Kidd]

I've heard some say that it does and others say that POTUS is able to sign an executive order banning ammo.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Yeah right. No chance in hell that will happen. He might as well hang himself with his own rope if pulled something stupid like that.

 

[B. Kidd]

I have often thought that is the way they will eventually go after gun control, with ammo being considered a seperate commodity from guns. If not by executive order then the EPA going after lead in ammo that has lead or taxing ammo so high that the average consumer cannot afford to buy it.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Exactly, the won't come straight out and ban it. They'll be deliberately sneaky and underhanded about it.

 

[MikeK]

Exactly, the won't come straight out and ban it. They'll be deliberately sneaky and underhanded about it.

Actually, if the Congress were so inclined it could pass a law limiting us to "keep" one single-shot .22 rifle and allowing us to "bear" it to and from a federally supervised range in a locked container. Add to that a limit on possession of no more than ten .22 short rounds.

That would satisfy the requirements specified in Amendment Two. The right to "keep" and "bear" arms. It doesn't say what kind, or how many, or under what circumstances.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It also clearly states that the right shall not be infringed. That means that the federal government has absolutely no powers to remove any firearm at all from citizens. If we're only allowed ones that they deem ok, then that is infringement. The only way that comes into play is based on SCOTUS ruling.

 

[B. Kidd]

It also clearly states that the right shall not be infringed. That means that the federal government has absolutely no powers to remove any firearm at all from citizens. If we're only allowed ones that they deem ok, then that is infringement. The only way that comes into play is based on SCOTUS ruling.

Ammo itself is not a firearm.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It's rather elementary, even from the time in which the constitution was penned, that without load for a firearm, it's a walking stick or bludgeon at best. You're simply looking for an end run around the obvious. That's what Statists do.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Regardless, go ahead and have a ban on ammo. We'll just begin making our own underground. Prohibition never works. Not for drugs, not for alcohol, not for firearms.

This is of course, the reality that Statists desperately want to not be true and will try again until the end of time to control people.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I've heard some say that it does and others say that POTUS is able to sign an executive order banning ammo.

First of all, there is zero chance of that happening which any person of even minimal intelligence understands. Furthermore, Executive Orders have to be Constitutional and banning ammunition would not be Constitutional because it would be an act of the president legislating unilaterally. Legislation has to be passed by the Congress. The president can't write and declare his own laws.

 

[B. Kidd]

It's rather elementary, even from the time in which the constitution was penned, that without load for a firearm, it's a walking stick or bludgeon at best. You're simply looking for an end run around the obvious. That's what Statists do.

Please, don't get all stressed out.

I'm not looking for an end run around anything and you've mistakenly judged me as a statist.
I just brought up an honest question for insights.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually, if the Congress were so inclined it could pass a law limiting us to "keep" one single-shot .22 rifle and allowing us to "bear" it to and from a federally supervised range in a locked container. Add to that a limit on possession of no more than ten .22 short rounds.

That would satisfy the requirements specified in Amendment Two. The right to "keep" and "bear" arms. It doesn't say what kind, or how many, or under what circumstances.

Despite the wet dreams of you totalitarians, it most certainly could not infringe on the right of the people in such a manner, no more than they could pass a law limiting us to worship only Obama, and declare this freedom of religion - we are free, but limited to worshiping the god of your choice.

Shall NOT be infringed - it's a concept you totalitarians need to learn.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The question seems self evident. But again, it will not surprise me when it happens.

 

[B. Kidd]

The question seems self evident. But again, it will not surprise me when it happens.

Me neither. Unreasonable searches and seizures also seemed self-evident and we've recently seen how that is going.

 

[bripat9643]

Exactly, the won't come straight out and ban it. They'll be deliberately sneaky and underhanded about it.

Actually, if the Congress were so inclined it could pass a law limiting us to "keep" one single-shot .22 rifle and allowing us to "bear" it to and from a federally supervised range in a locked container. Add to that a limit on possession of no more than ten .22 short rounds.

That would satisfy the requirements specified in Amendment Two. The right to "keep" and "bear" arms. It doesn't say what kind, or how many, or under what circumstances.

Only a true moron could make a statement like that. What part of "shall not be abridged" don't you understand? Limiting the type of arms, the amount of ammo you can buy, the places where they can be used is abridging your right to bear arms.

 

[bripat9643]

It also clearly states that the right shall not be infringed. That means that the federal government has absolutely no powers to remove any firearm at all from citizens. If we're only allowed ones that they deem ok, then that is infringement. The only way that comes into play is based on SCOTUS ruling.

Ammo itself is not a firearm.

Firearms are useless without ammo. If you ban ammo, you have effectively banned firearms. That's like saying that the government can't violate the freedom of the press but it can prevent them from buying ink and paper.

 

[Geaux4it]

They don't need to ban. Just have DHS continue buying it all up and none is available for the consumer

-Geaux

 

[Little-Acorn]

Does the 2nd Amendment Cover Ammo?

Of course.

Why would you think it doesn't?

Have you been listening to liberals again?

 

[Little-Acorn]

It also clearly states that the right shall not be infringed. That means that the federal government has absolutely no powers to remove any firearm at all from citizens. If we're only allowed ones that they deem ok, then that is infringement. The only way that comes into play is based on SCOTUS ruling.

Ammo itself is not a firearm.

Neither is a firing pin, or a trigger. (yawn)

 

[B. Kidd]

Does the 2nd Amendment Cover Ammo?

Of course.

Why would you think it doesn't?

Have you been listening to liberals again?

What is it with some of you when a fucking honest question is asked?

I would not be surprised if progressives would do an end-run around guns and the 2nd amendment under the guise that ammo might be defined as a seperate commodity then firearms.

I saw my OP question asked at a Preppers forum and forum members there did not know the answer, so I thought I'd post it here to see what USMB members had to say.