Staff Reports
On Thursday, November 2nd, Senator Elizabeth Warren and Congressman Robert Garcia (D-CA) introduced their latest firearm regulation proposal in Congress, targeting ammunition rather than firearms. This proposed legislation, named the AMMO Act, draws inspiration from California's existing state laws, aiming to impose federal restrictions on ammunition sales. The AMMO Act includes provisions such as mandatory criminal background checks for purchasers, bans on out-of-state ammunition orders, the requirement for vendors to secure a separate license for ammunition sales, and more stringent regulations. If enacted, this act would restrict individuals from purchasing more than 1,000 rounds of any caliber within a five-day period and necessitate federal licenses for all ammunition vendors, in addition to mandating reporting of ammunition sales to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).
Critics argue that this latest move by the Democrats continues their longstanding campaign against the Second Amendment. This time, they have shifted their focus to ammunition. Some are questioning whether there are more pressing matters to attend to, rather than further firearm-related restrictions. It's perceived by many as another federal power expansion masked as a safety measure. Skeptics contend that it primarily serves to curtail the rights of law-abiding citizens and hinders their ability to defend themselves.
That’s gonna be a no from me morons. https://t.co/jf4JDoVxNv
— Matt (@Matt_RedState) November 4, 2023
The contention lies in why individuals, including law-abiding citizens, should be prevented from purchasing bulk quantities of ammunition without undergoing a background check. Many gun enthusiasts and responsible gun owners purchase thousands of rounds of ammunition annually. They do so to train, participate in shooting sports, or maintain a supply for self-defense purposes. The proposed regulations claim that such purchases pose a threat to public safety, but critics find this argument unconvincing.
Critics also point out the absurdity of comparing ammunition purchases to acquiring cold medication, as some Democrats have done. Stockpiling cold medication for an extended period is uncommon and generally associated with illicit activities like methamphetamine production. Therefore, this analogy doesn't resonate with those who oppose the AMMO Act, seeing it as yet another attempt to undermine Second Amendment rights and place undue burdens on law-abiding citizens seeking to exercise their constitutional freedoms.
In essence, opponents argue that the left is resolute in their efforts to diminish Second Amendment rights. They believe that any rationale, no matter how flawed, will be used to further the anti-Second Amendment agenda. In response, they call on like-minded individuals to support legal actions against such regulations and engage in peaceful noncompliance to protect their rights. The battle for Second Amendment rights, in their view, remains ongoing and must be actively defended.
