# And it begins: The Ammunition Accountability Act



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Another possible domino. "Saving lives one bullet at a time".

http://ammunitionaccountability.org/Legislation.htm

A small step towards complete abolishment.


----------



## bryan_huber (Aug 3, 2008)

that passes im leaving the country. that is a crock of ****. that will probably mean much higher ammo costs.


----------



## KoneZone (Nov 8, 2008)

It will get worse before it gets better. :******:


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

I believe we tried to warn you


----------



## viking (Nov 18, 2008)

Who would of thought, I mean are not the demy's and libtards are friends. They just want to protect us from evil.

I got so sick of being told they are not anti gun and are friends of sportsman from libs during the last few months. You could show/tell people of voting records and they would say "thats just propaganda". When you talk to a libtard, you might as well talk to the wall. :x


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

What say you Obama supporters????? Anyone??? Buhler???? :eyeroll:


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

Among the normal concerns I am concerned how this will effect non-commercial loaders or handloaders. There are no specific provisions for such and in most cases the interpretation would lead to handloading being illegal or at the very least enormously burdensome. If they interpret ammunition as components it is feasible one could not even cast their own muzzleloader bullets. Forget about stockpiling as most give you a year to use up non coded stock. The .05 tax isn't gonna get it done either. Most likely that would be doubled in a year or two and likely thereafter to support a record keeping program which would be wrought with problems. Nor to mention the "tax" is just gonna be a drop in the ocean compared to the increase in manufacturing cost. I notices a few exempt law enforcement from the tax however they have not accounted for what was mentioned above. Their costs are still gonna be very similar to that of the public. If I were a manufacturer I would seriously consider shutting out law enforcement sales as a protest
We have to fight this tooth and nail. Does it really make sense to code amunition when only 1 in a million rounds will actually be used in a crime. Public safety is being used as a purpose for the application of this law but I'm not sure how the assitance that MIGHT be provided by such a program ,"after the fact" aids in public safety.

If enough of the power states pass this you can be sure it will be federal law and effect all of us. I will contend that such laws in part may be a violation of the second amendment. They may be discriminatory inthe fact that they will prohibit the poor from exercising their rights of the second amendment. I am not aware of any of our other civil rights that are burdened by cost.


----------



## aztec (Oct 27, 2005)

I especially liked this paragraph:

3. *Privacy of individuals is of the utmost importance*. Access to information in the ACSD is
reserved for key law enforcement personnel and to be released only in connection with a
criminal investigation.

What is the over/under on someone cracking that database?

I'll take three minutes.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

I am sorry, but what the _____ does that have to do with Obama. The page I clicked on, and admittedly did not waste a lot of time on was a demo piece of legislation for enaction by STATE legislatures across the country. I saw nothing about it being introduced into the congress for possible federal action, nor anything about such action being supported by the president elect. I agree we need to be watching out for this stuff, but hysteria by any other name is still hysteria.

In fact, by my reckoning legislation like that would probably be no more sustainable in the courts than many such fill in the blank pieces of legislation than many others. I can tell you it would be referred and defeated soundly in my state. Recent rulings in the SC show a movement towards firming up gun rights, even discounting Bush appointements,

Hysteria. Have a fun life watching for the black helicopters.


----------



## dogdonthunt (Nov 10, 2005)

> Hysteria. Have a fun life watching for the black helicopters.


actually they turn white up here in the winter....


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Yea, Democrats never are about anti gun legislation!! :eyeroll:


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

dogdonthunt said:


> > Hysteria. Have a fun life watching for the black helicopters.
> 
> 
> actually they turn white up here in the winter....


 :rollin:


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

tsodak said:


> I am sorry, but what the _____ does that have to do with Obama. The page I clicked on, and admittedly did not waste a lot of time on was a demo piece of legislation for enaction by STATE legislatures across the country. I saw nothing about it being introduced into the congress for possible federal action, nor anything about such action being supported by the president elect. I agree we need to be watching out for this stuff, but hysteria by any other name is still hysteria.
> 
> In fact, by my reckoning legislation like that would probably be no more sustainable in the courts than many such fill in the blank pieces of legislation than many others. I can tell you it would be referred and defeated soundly in my state. Recent rulings in the SC show a movement towards firming up gun rights, even discounting Bush appointements,
> 
> Hysteria. Have a fun life watching for the black helicopters.


Hysteria?? I doubt that. Just posting up some information that may or may not be an issue for gun owners/sportsmen in the near, or not so near future. Keeping a close eye on this isnt "hysteria", its prevention. You change the oil on your vehicle dont you? Even when nothings wrong with it? You must be hysterical! :roll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

tsodak, it's attitudes like yours that enable these people. The writing is on the wall, but you refuse to open your eyes and look at it.

It has a lot to do with Obama. With Obama in and a democrat congress the wacko liberals are emboldened. You better get serious while we still have a chance.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

You have no idea what my attitudes or thought processes are, and in this case assuming you do simply makes the ___ out of u and me!!!

Unfortunately at this point in this country I do not believe we can be a one issue evaluator of our political candidates. You are a fool if you think I do not understand that we have emboldened gun rights advocates. But people who buy 100% into the NRA side of the whole crazytalk (which the Brady Foundation engages in also) simply use the gun rights, or abortion, or same sex marriage, or whatever hot button issue you have to tell themselves the other side is evil incarnate and that ANY idea they put forward is in furthereance of an agenda that deals with whatever issue yanks your crank. I have no problem reading this type of generic fill-in the blank bill, we should be aware of it. But to then use this to close you r mind to other ideas the party has, such as health care or ag policy is simply something we cannot afford as a country to do. It makes me scream at the ceiling when a thread likes this turns from informational to bashing.

But you can never win a conversation like this. I know that and you know that. That is why I seldom if ever post anymore. And that will continue,

Done with this ridiculous topic.

Tom


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Lets try to keep this on topic folks.

Peace.


----------



## gaddyshooter (Oct 12, 2003)

Just another chip in the wall. They are slowly going to make more and more legislation for gun/ammunition control. The anti crowd has goals of registration of ALL firearms (for the people that actually follow laws) and now accountability of ammunition. And it does have to do with Obama. He didn't bother to vote for many laws except as "present" while he was in Illinois, but he did vote for the gun control laws.

Also, Kudos for the Bueller reference.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Hysteria. Have a fun life watching for the black helicopters.


That's the comment that makes it look like you have your head in the sand. If I made a mistake about you trying to make light of the problem sorry.
Another typical liberal comment is to say we shouldn't be a single issue people. No one that I know is single issue. That's silly. It's just that people have priorities. Because the second amendment is someones priority doesn't mean they don't also care about environmental issues or agricultural issues. Your comments about NRA and our concerns would appear your not taking it serious. We all need to take it serious.

If I were to follow your lead with the Hysteria comment and black helicopters (which I take as a jab at the mental health of anyone who believes we are in danger) then I could tell you not to worry so much about the same sex marriage issue and drop the histeria and stop watching for black helicopters. Irritating isn't it?

Ammunition accountability could lead to a restriction on ammunition. If you remember a bill a few years ago it called for people to be restricted to 50 rounds of ammunition. There has also been calls for a 500% tax on ammunition and at one time Ted Kennedy suggested 1000%. All these things chisel away at the second amendment. Take them serious. Simply because there are other serious issues doesn't detract from the seriousness of this one.


----------



## Doogie (Feb 23, 2007)

tsodak, the states in red already have a Ammunition accountability bill introduced in the house and/or senate of that paticular state. If you would of scrolled down and click on a link under one of those states name the bill would of been brought up for you. Its not just a generic form for a bill its ACTUALY being introduced to state legislatures.


----------



## MN goose killa (Sep 19, 2008)

MSG Rude said:


> Lets try to keep this on topic folks.
> 
> Peace.


i second that.
why do people always have to start arguements?(me included)


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think we are on topic. The topic is the Ammunition Accountability Act. The argument is whether it is serious or not. That leads to some making disparaging remarks about the NRA. The difference we see here is a prioritizing of our concerns. Some have other concerns and attempt to minimize the Ammunition Accountability Act because bringing pressure on the liberals they think may endanger them getting what they want.

So here we have perspective again. We have second amendment rights, and people have thrown in abortion and same sex marriage as an example of alternatives to be concerned about. There are a lot of people reading this who will never post. I see it as a sportsman's responsibility to convince others that the second amendment agenda is very important. I wouldn't ask anyone to give up their other concerns, but just to take this one very serious.

It's beyond my understanding why a sportsman would try to deflect the importance of this, hence the debate on whether it's serious or not. I would ask those who make light of this what is your number one priority that is so important you would endanger your rights as a firearm owner and ignore this?


----------



## Bustin Lips (Mar 16, 2008)

Yep, how does a mouse take down an elephant? One bite at a time!!! :******:


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

tsodak said:


> Unfortunately at this point in this country I do not believe we can be a one issue evaluator of our political candidates. You are a fool if you think I do not understand that we have emboldened gun rights advocates. But people who buy 100% into the NRA side of the whole crazytalk (which the Brady Foundation engages in also) simply use the gun rights, or abortion, or same sex marriage, or whatever hot button issue you have to tell themselves the other side is evil incarnate and that ANY idea they put forward is in furthereance of an agenda that deals with whatever issue yanks your crank. I have no problem reading this type of generic fill-in the blank bill, we should be aware of it. But to then use this to close you r mind to other ideas the party has, such as health care or ag policy is simply something we cannot afford as a country to do.
> Tom


Tom I have always respected your posts and your thought process.

If a man can't stand on at least a few principles in life, some of which you espoused, what should we stand for? Here I can knock it down to one word, FREEDOM!

We are at serious risk.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

barebackjack said:


> Another possible domino. "Saving lives one bullet at a time".


It might be a domino...if you're playing domino's with a single domino.


barebackjack said:


> A small step towards complete abolishment.


Huh, that's funny...because isn't that what the NRA said about Clinton's "assault weapons ban." Whatever happened to that?

Oh yeah, it's gone. Huh, funny how that works. Didn't the NRA claim that was the beginnng of the end to gun ownership? The first domino that would lead to the end of gun ownership? Hmm, yeah they did. Yet, that piece of legislation isn't around today. I guess the NRA was wrong. Funny, I thought the NRA was infallable and not capable of being wrong...

Another funny thing about that "ban." I've shot 3 assault rifles. All of them were purchased legally under that "ban." My friends even picked up a bunch of high-capacity magazines to go with their new toys...also purchased legally under that "ban." Man, that "ban" really had some teeth to it. I'm so afraid of it returning that I'm going to lie awake sleepless...in fear of being able to get an AR-15 more readily and at a discounted price.

Thanks to the NRA, Obama might turn out to be a better gun salesman that Slick Willy. The NRA has to love that guy! They get a big boost in membership and gun sales skyrocket across the country. It's a Win-Win! If I was employed by the shooting industry I'd only vote democrat...talk about being good for business!


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> I think we are on topic. The topic is the Ammunition Accountability Act. The argument is whether it is serious or not. That leads to some making disparaging remarks about the NRA. The difference we see here is a prioritizing of our concerns. Some have other concerns and attempt to minimize the Ammunition Accountability Act because bringing pressure on the liberals they think may endanger them getting what they want.


Plainsman, you epitomize why the NRA might be the worst thing to happen to hunters and hunting in the past century.

Here you are, a seemingly intelligent guy, extremely concerned about gun rights. You call yourself a hunter, but you're really just a gun owner. Of all the issues you've discussed that I've witnessed, you are the most concerned about this one. Fair assesment?

Yet you live in a county (Stutsman) that lost 65.3 square miles of CRP in 2007. 65 friggin' square miles!!!

You are literally watching the habitat and the game that goes with it, vanish right in front of you. But your main concern right now is future-hypothetical, quazi-possible gun control legislation??? 

My hat's off to the NRA. What an amazing organization. They've literally duped hunters in this country into thinking that things like an assault weapons ban (which really didn't ban anything), are the biggest threats facing our sport.

I swear, if conservation had an equivelant group of lobbyists to the NRA...we'd still have buffalo roaming the plains.

Don't mistake this post for me being pro-gun control. I know it's hard for you guys to take any view that is different than the myopic one presented by the NRA...and not label the person saying it as a "crazy liberal whacko." But in all honesty, I do care. I'll be sure to contact my reps as soon as any ACTUAL legislation hits the floor. Hopefully I'll be informed when it happens. And hopefully, you guys won't have cried wolf so many times by then that posts like this will actually mean something and be read. :wink:


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Jones, you are so back of the bus on this issue. It was people of your mind set that let England and Australia fall to a total ban. They too turned their back on the NRA. This country is absolutely ripe for the taking right now.

And what is it your trying to prove by parsing out gun owners and hunters? Don't fear Jones you will reap what you sew.

Signed, Disappointed.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Matt, I also thought you were an intelligent man, but it appears you fail to understand that a person can have many concerns. Didn't I say I simply prioritize? If am perhaps just as concerned as you about CRP, but you are not concerned about gun ownership at all. Your the very reason I am so concerned. Your the reason I perhaps don't put the time into the conservation part of it. Not only do I have to be concerned about the anti-gun people, but I have to be even more concerned about people like you. If your type didn't exist I could put a lot more effort into habitat problems.

Your evidently a very young person. The assault weapon ban that people said was the beginning perhaps still is. It isn't dead, it's laying in Washington like a hibernating bear and can easily at the presidents discretion be revived with even stronger restrictions. Do you think congress now will over-ride a presidential executive order? The reason I said you must be young is you evidently are unaware of all the firearms freedoms we have already lost. You don't have the perspective of years. What do you think of the loss in 1968?

Matt it's so disappointing to see an outdoorsman that not only isn't willing to shoulder the load, but sits back and belittles those who do. Your a one way street I guess. You want us to be concerned about your priorities while at the same time whizzing on ours. Ya, you have convinced me.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

I have moved this to the Hot Topics as it seems that the tone is changing. Sad that we have to get personal with every single topic out there.

MSG Rude


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

> You are literally watching the habitat and the game that goes with it, vanish right in front of you. But your main concern right now is future-hypothetical, quazi-possible gun control legislation???


Gun control legislation is NOT hypothetical. The antis and dems are chipping away at it every chance they get. They have tried to bring the AWB up during the republican presidency but it gets squashed before it gets anywhere. With the new prez and more control in congress it won't so easily be squashed. We should be concerned about CRP also but farm programs (with conservation as a bonus) will continue to come and go.
Gun right however may not. Once lost we will likely not get them back. How interested will you be in CRP or other conservation programs if/when you can no longer hunt or have severe limitations on shooting? It will likely be a long time before they totally take away guns but they may restrict them to the point that it isn't worth the hassle the average person. Semi autos and handguns will go first. Likely ammunition restrictions/taxes will follow. Military cartridges may be outlawed and there goes the 223, 308 possibly 30-06 and the many of the metric military cartridges. The super mags may very well follow. Then any repeating rifle. Shotguns will likely be the last holdout which is somewhat amusing considering of all, the shotgun is the least traceable weapon that can be used in a crime. Somewhere in there registration and/or permitting will be required with restrictions on the movement of firearms. This is pretty much how it has happened in most of the countries that have lost their gun rights. In those countries shooting has become a sport of the rich because they are the only ones that can afford it.

What I am hoping is that the recent surge in gun purchases will give the new prez and democratic congress an idea how important this issue is to us and cause them to back off a bit. Wishfull thinking.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I brought up 1968, but I see no one has responded. No disrespect intended, but let me bring you younger people up to speed. When I was your age I could buy a very good, nearly unused military rifle for $20 in the mail. My father used a 6.5X55 Swedish that he purchased in 1960 for $19.99 or $29.99 I don't remember which. The Italian were as low as $9.99 and shipping. A good Remington or Winchester could be had for $100.
Then Kennedy was assassinated and as soon as the liberals had enough power they ended that in 1968. No longer could you mail order, because Lee Harvey Oswald used a surplus military weapon. Sport shops loved the bill because it left hunters at their mercy. Prices of rifles doubled within one year. 
I could go on listing how much we have lost, but you get the idea. This is how incremental ism works. From generation to generation no one sees it as serious because they think they just lost a little bit.
Matt, I don't mean any of this personally. My jabs were because I took your post about the black helicopters as an affront to anyone who is concerned about gun laws. It's as if you thought we were all radical hicks that didn't know what's happening in the world. Lets move away from those personal remarks and rather than retaliate with a return smart *** remark let me just say your mistaken, about concerned gun owners. I do apologize for being sucked in and responding in like to the personal comments.


----------



## Fallguy (Jan 23, 2004)

Plainsman

Thanks for the history lesson. I didn't know that info. It was ten years before I was born.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The early 1960's were great. My father purchased that 6.5X55 cheap, and took a saw and some sandpaper to work. Once he sporterized the stock a little, he added a ghost ring peep. He shot his best buck with that rifle about a month after he purchased it. It's body was so heavy he had a hard time getting it into the trunk of the 1953 Studebaker that he drove. 
If things were the same today you would be able to purchase a Remington 700 for about $350. I don't remember the price of all ammo, but I do remember getting caught off guard one day when I went to purchase a box of 22LR. It had taken a huge jump from 40 cents a box to 50 cents a box. There was a cheap brand. I don't even remember the name, but it came in a box that looked like Chicklets gum. It was 30 cents a box. 
If you look at wages and compare prices 22LR ammo isn't bad today, but the price of rifles went through the roof after that 1968 law.


----------



## redtail (Nov 23, 2008)

To clarify, the Gun Control act of 1968 came in the wake of 4 assassinations: Malcolm X, JFK, MLK, and RFK.

So, how would they go about outlawing casting your own bullets? What about stolen ammo? I would guess that thousands, maybe millions of gun owners would thumb their noses at such stupid legislation. We shoot over a billion rounds of .22 rimfire alone every year in the USA. 
Don't forget SCOTUS. Right now they are on our side. And, until the day comes that one of the 5 actually retires, they will remain on our side. In the recent Heller case they ruled that the 2A is an individual right. Bearing arms, as stated in 2A, requires ammo. _shall not be infringed. _ How would such legislation fare in a SCOTUS review of it's Constitutionality? Would such a law be found to be a reasonable restriction? I doubt it, not with the high court we have today.
But in the meantime, be prepared to become active, a loud voice. Join the NRA if you haven't yet. How many of you spend 100s or 1000s of $$ a year hunting, shooting, and gun collecting, and won't fork over the price of a 1000 primers for an NRA membership? 
Write letters, make phone calls, MAKE THE TIME AND DO IT. Its the only way we have to fight. Remember too, that the majority of people n this country are on our side, something polls and surveys are pretty consistently showing.
:******:


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Matt Jones said:


> Huh, that's funny...because isn't that what the NRA said about Clinton's "assault weapons ban." Whatever happened to that?
> 
> Oh yeah, it's gone.


Not anymore.



Matt Jones said:


> But in all honesty, I do care. I'll be sure to contact my reps as soon as any ACTUAL legislation hits the floor. Hopefully I'll be informed when it happens.


Consider yourself informed. Better get dialing.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.6257.IH:

And on another note, I posted this in the politics forum, won't hurt to post it here as well.



huntin1 said:


> "Obama's choice for attorney general, a third critical post as the president-elect rounds out his top Cabinet echelon, is Eric Holder."
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....PZUhJh24cA
> 
> ...


If that ain't enough to make you sick stay tuned, I'm sure there will be more coming.

huntin1


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Matt Jones said:


> barebackjack said:
> 
> 
> > Another possible domino. "Saving lives one bullet at a time".
> ...


Can one be anymore ingnorant and blind?

To think that this act is not a beginning, that is blind.

To think that the original Clinton era ban is "dead", and not lingering in the minds of liberals on capital hill, that is blind. (And this time they'll do it right).

To think that under Obama's leadership, liberals wont be empowered to at the very least attempt to enact some form or forms of gun ownership restrictions is ignorant, naive, and just plain stupid.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. You just keep that naive little head of yours in the sand. Others will keep watch, and if needed, fight for your rights. No need to thank them, im sure many have fought for your rights in the past.

Edited for content by Plainsman.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Another funny thing about that "ban." I've shot 3 assault rifles. All of them were purchased legally under that "ban." My friends even picked up a bunch of high-capacity magazines to go with their new toys...also purchased legally under that "ban."


They were sold by individuals and not dealers. No new production was allowed. Guns already in circulation like the high capacity magazines were allowed. When they tried to revive the ban last time and failed the wording was changed. It read that they could not be sold or transferred. If it passes this time and you own one you will not be able to sell it or leave it to your children. They will then disappear through attrition.

I would guess we will have to register them if we have them. If not I suppose it will be a felony to be caught with an unregistered assault weapon. So we will not be able to sell them, and when we die the BATF will be at the door to take it. The trick will be to sell them before inauguration day because I think they will try do something fast to catch us off guard. About mid January they should be worth a lot, and by February I don't think you will dare sell them. They guy trying to buy it from you will perhaps be FBI.

You guys smelling the flowers need to get serious. I see a few on here that don't deserve the freedom they have.


----------



## cbas (Apr 3, 2007)

Keeping track of who owns what bullets.. wouldn't it make more sense to track who owns what guns?

What a dumb law.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

cbas....
The idea is it is difficult to track a bullet used in a crime through the gun, back to the shooter unless you have the gun in hand. Theoretically serializing the bullet would make for a more direct path to the shooter. Provided the ammo was not illegally transfered or stolen both which hold a high probablity.

The biggest problems are the certainty of an innacurate database and prohibitive cost. The cost to benefit ratio is likely to be a million to one.


----------

