Does the 2nd Amendment Cover Ammo?

[Darkwind]

The Second refers to the formation of regulated milita, and uses the natural right of self-defense as justification.

No, the formation of a well regulated militia has no bearing on the right to keep and bear arms. Note, the word arms is plural.

 

[Roadrunner]

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.

The Tree of Liberty would get a good watering were that to happen.

 

[Roadrunner]

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.

He says he can, if it is "the right thing to do".

 

[Contumacious]

Does the 2nd Amendment Cover Ammo?

No sir.

Ammo is not covered by the Constitution and 2A.

The Founding Fathers wanted us to carry unloaded firearms.

 

[Roadrunner]

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.

JUST SAY NO TO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT-Nancy Reagan

 

[Roadrunner]

The Second refers to the formation of regulated milita, and uses the natural right of self-defense as justification.

Courts have ruled time and time again that "we the People" are that militia.

 

[Darkwind]

Seems that Free speech doesn't cover pen, ink, typewriter, word processor, writing software....

It also does not cover vocal cords!

I wonder if they'll ban fingers in finger painting? Art is speech, no?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 2nd Amendment covers ammo every bit as much as the 1st amendment covers words.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Good news -- it is unconstitutional to levy a tax on the exercise of the right with the intent to limit the exercise of that right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Your ignorance runs deep.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

No, the president is not 'banning' ammunition with an EO, that's a lie being propagated by many on the right.
And the Second Amendment does extend to ammunition to the extent that any regulatory measure places an undue burden on the Second Amendment right to possess a handgun pursuant to lawful self-defense.

Why do you lie like this?

 

[Kondor3]

In my amateur fly-by-the-seat-of-the-pants way, I would originally vote 'yes' - ammo is covered by the 2nd...

Citizens have the Right to Bear Arms...

Ammo is an integral component of any "arm" - of any arms-system...

Take away ammo, and you take away the "arm"...

That strikes me as un-Constitutional, rightly or wrongly...

I'm all for some sensible limitations on what KIND of arms that our citizens can bear...

But I'm dead-set against any more limitations than are absolutely necessary for public order and safety and the well-being of the Republic and its People...

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm all for some sensible limitations on what KIND of arms that our citizens can bear...

To fit in with current jurisprudence, said ammunition would have to be dangerous and unusual, and unsuitable for any of the traditionally legals uses for a firearm.

HE shotguns slugs? Dangerous, unusual, unsuitable.

.223/5.56x45 rifle ammunition?

 

[Moonglow]

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

There is no law on ammo, but the commerce clause can be brought up...

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

Executive orders have to be constitutional? Have you been paying attention to this president?

 

[Kondor3]

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

There is no law on ammo, but the commerce clause can be brought up...

Hmmmmm... there's always an 'angle', of course, but, when Angle A steps on Constitutional Right B, I'm not so sure it'd hold up under a closer scrutiny or challenge.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

Executive orders have to be constitutional? Have you been paying attention to this president?

There is nothing Constitutional about executive orders, it is a tradition started by George Washington...

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

BATFE wants to lift the AP exemption on 5.56x45 SS109 rounds because there are handguns based on AR-15 receivers.
The justification for this change is utter BS and aims to do nothing more than raise the price of .223/5.56x45 ammo.

 

[Moonglow]

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

There is no law on ammo, but the commerce clause can be brought up...

Hmmmmm... there's always an 'angle', of course, but, when Angle A steps on Constitutional Right B, I'm not so sure it'd hold up under a closer scrutiny or challenge.

I am sure the NRA is working on an angle...

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

The right to bear arms. It's not really an arm without ammo.

So it's IMPLIED that having ammunition is also a right?

LOL, you need to argue with the constitutional literalists around here who claim that such implications are not part of the constitution.

Now that's an interesting argument, that the ratifiers of the Constitution were thinking only of the firearm, not the balls, powder, wadding, or ramrod. Are you seriously posing that argument?