Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
1/22/2020 12:12:56 PM
Posted: 11/14/2012 5:48:47 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/14/2012 5:49:16 PM EST by CRC]
Expect bills banning online ammunition transfers in the next Congress.

Doubt they go anywhere but you never know.

BTW they were introduced into the last Congress as well.
Link Posted: 11/14/2012 5:49:09 PM EST
CSB, CRC
Link Posted: 11/14/2012 5:50:36 PM EST

Originally Posted By CRC:
Expect bills banning online ammunition transfers in the next Congress.

Doubt they go anywhere but you never know.

BTW they were introduced into the last Congress as well.

You must be trying to sell some ammo.
Link Posted: 11/14/2012 5:53:14 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/14/2012 5:53:54 PM EST by CRC]
Originally Posted By ElectricSheep556:

Originally Posted By CRC:
Expect bills banning online ammunition transfers in the next Congress.

Doubt they go anywhere but you never know.

BTW they were introduced into the last Congress as well.

You must be trying to sell some ammo.


Nope.

Just educating people on the latest targets of the gun banning community based on legislation introduced into Congress.

Licensing and tracking ammunition sales.


H.R.6241
Latest Title: Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2012
Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (introduced 7/31/2012) Cosponsors (49)
Related Bills: S.3458
Latest Major Action: 8/14/2012 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.


Link Posted: 11/14/2012 5:53:15 PM EST
This better be for realz dog
Link Posted: 11/14/2012 5:54:30 PM EST
Far easier to tinker with shipping regulations.
Link Posted: 11/14/2012 5:54:58 PM EST
Glad I have plenty then I would not mind having moar
Link Posted: 11/14/2012 5:55:10 PM EST
Originally Posted By ElectricSheep556:

Originally Posted By CRC:
Expect bills banning online ammunition transfers in the next Congress.

Doubt they go anywhere but you never know.

BTW they were introduced into the last Congress as well.

You must be trying to sell some ammo.


You funny and I'm late as hell so I'ma quoting fool tonight...Op what the fuck you mean expect hell we have three threads a week about bills and have for years
Link Posted: 11/14/2012 5:55:43 PM EST
The sponsor says it all. That dingbat is a one trick pony.
Link Posted: 11/14/2012 5:58:00 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/14/2012 5:58:12 PM EST by CousinIT50]

guess we will end up calling in our orders and email orders and even then mail orders...... How much was 1000 rounds or 5.56 before the internet?
Link Posted: 11/14/2012 5:59:47 PM EST
Originally Posted By CRC:
Expect bills banning online ammunition transfers in the next Congress.

Doubt they go anywhere but you never know.

BTW they were introduced into the last Congress as well.


They started this shit after Aurora. They're just as stupid as ever.
Link Posted: 11/14/2012 6:00:56 PM EST
Next it will be online hookers
Link Posted: 11/14/2012 6:18:43 PM EST
I reckon they'll just tax the hell out of ammo before they ban it.
Link Posted: 11/14/2012 6:22:14 PM EST
That shit couldn't even pass in CA
Link Posted: 11/14/2012 6:23:49 PM EST
Originally Posted By MARINEORDIE:
Next it will be online hookers



shhhhhhh! Don't give'em anymore ideas.............
Link Posted: 11/14/2012 6:41:22 PM EST
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
I reckon they'll just tax the hell out of ammo before they ban it.


Equally unconstitutional. Settled law.
Link Posted: 11/14/2012 9:36:03 PM EST
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
I reckon they'll just tax the hell out of ammo before they ban it.


Equally unconstitutional. Settled law.


ObamaCare is a tax. If they can force that on us, I don't see why they can't tax whatever they want.
Link Posted: 11/14/2012 10:03:33 PM EST
Road trip. Good excuse to sample BBQ.
Link Posted: 11/14/2012 10:52:08 PM EST
Buy realoding equipment and components, however single-stage simple it may be. Press, dies, scale, measures, primers, brass, boolits, a couple of manuals. Calipers. Etc. Not that expensive, start loading or don't and just store the stuff. But you'll be capable of rolling your own.

Prepping.. how does it work?
Link Posted: 11/15/2012 8:20:40 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/15/2012 8:21:56 AM EST by ARDestructo]
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
I reckon they'll just tax the hell out of ammo before they ban it.

Equally unconstitutional. Settled law.

ObamaCare is a tax. If they can force that on us, I don't see why they can't tax whatever they want.

Taxing something heavily for the purpose of discouraging it from being obtainable is constitutionally equivalent to a ban. I don't remember the case, but it's been run through the courts already.

Taxing you for not buying something isn't the same argument as taxing something heavily to make it unaffordable to people. Especially when having access to it is a protected fundamental right.
Link Posted: 11/15/2012 8:44:52 AM EST
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
I reckon they'll just tax the hell out of ammo before they ban it.

Equally unconstitutional. Settled law.

ObamaCare is a tax. If they can force that on us, I don't see why they can't tax whatever they want.

Taxing something heavily for the purpose of discouraging it from being obtainable is constitutionally equivalent to a ban. I don't remember the case, but it's been run through the courts already.

Taxing you for not buying something isn't the same argument as taxing something heavily to make it unaffordable to people. Especially when having access to it is a protected fundamental right.


Of course! I knew that. That's why the NFA was struck down by SCOTUS in '38. Wait.
Link Posted: 11/15/2012 8:47:06 AM EST
Somebody better keep an eye on john boner.

Revenue is a House thing.
Link Posted: 11/15/2012 8:47:24 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/15/2012 9:00:29 AM EST by callgood]
H.R.6241
Latest Title: Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2012
Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (introduced 7/31/2012) Cosponsors (49)
Related Bills: S.3458
Latest Major Action: 8/14/2012 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.


It has been some time, but the last time I checked McCarthy sponsored three inconsequential bills that actually passed.

H.RES.136 : Commending the Girl Scouts of the United States of America
H.RES.222 : Expressing the support of the House of Representatives for the Good Friday Agreement
H.CON.RES.112 : Supporting the goals and ideas of a National Child Care Worthy Wage Day
H.RES.524 : Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to Diamond-Blackfan Anemia
H.RES.762 : Supporting the goals of National Bullying Prevention Awareness Week.
H.RES.1440 : Expressing support for designation of the month of October as "National Work and Family Month"
H.RES.1532 : Condemning the November 26, 2008, terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India,

I don't think we'll be seeing her puss up on Mt. Rushmore.
Link Posted: 11/15/2012 8:49:53 AM EST
Originally Posted By -Fozzy-:
That shit couldn't even pass in CA


Now the Dems have total control of CA. The only good thing is they are going broke.
Link Posted: 11/15/2012 8:50:40 AM EST
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
I don't remember the case, but it's been run through the courts already.



Try US. v. Miller
It didn't turn out the way you think it did.
Link Posted: 11/15/2012 8:51:18 AM EST
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
I reckon they'll just tax the hell out of ammo before they ban it.

Equally unconstitutional. Settled law.

ObamaCare is a tax. If they can force that on us, I don't see why they can't tax whatever they want.

Taxing something heavily for the purpose of discouraging it from being obtainable is constitutionally equivalent to a ban. I don't remember the case, but it's been run through the courts already.

Taxing you for not buying something isn't the same argument as taxing something heavily to make it unaffordable to people. Especially when having access to it is a protected fundamental right.


Yet the $200 NFA "tax" was upheld in Miller.
Link Posted: 11/15/2012 10:32:24 AM EST
Originally Posted By DonS:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
I reckon they'll just tax the hell out of ammo before they ban it.

Equally unconstitutional. Settled law.

ObamaCare is a tax. If they can force that on us, I don't see why they can't tax whatever they want.

Taxing something heavily for the purpose of discouraging it from being obtainable is constitutionally equivalent to a ban. I don't remember the case, but it's been run through the courts already.

Taxing you for not buying something isn't the same argument as taxing something heavily to make it unaffordable to people. Especially when having access to it is a protected fundamental right.


Yet the $200 NFA "tax" was upheld in Miller.

Only because of the common use standard they invented.
Link Posted: 11/15/2012 10:40:36 AM EST
havent they already tried this, acouple of times?

J-
Link Posted: 11/15/2012 10:45:24 AM EST
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Only because of the common use standard they invented.


Link Posted: 11/15/2012 10:46:11 AM EST
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By DonS:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
I reckon they'll just tax the hell out of ammo before they ban it.

Equally unconstitutional. Settled law.

ObamaCare is a tax. If they can force that on us, I don't see why they can't tax whatever they want.

Taxing something heavily for the purpose of discouraging it from being obtainable is constitutionally equivalent to a ban. I don't remember the case, but it's been run through the courts already.

Taxing you for not buying something isn't the same argument as taxing something heavily to make it unaffordable to people. Especially when having access to it is a protected fundamental right.


Yet the $200 NFA "tax" was upheld in Miller.

Only because of the common use standard they invented.


There was also originally a tax stamp for marijuana (but it was illegal to possess before having a tax stamp, but you had to bring it with you to get the tax stamp )
Link Posted: 11/15/2012 10:49:42 AM EST
Originally Posted By XJ:
Far easier to tinker with shipping regulations.


I always wondered why I can order loaded ammo with primers and powder togeather and it's only an ORM-D, but I can't order them seperate without a hazmat fee.

Throw a hazmat fee on loaded ammo, it cut the majority of smaller orders.
Link Posted: 11/15/2012 11:13:09 AM EST
They can try....I'm good for awhile
Link Posted: 11/16/2012 5:35:37 AM EST
Originally Posted By Jame_Retief:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By DonS:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
I reckon they'll just tax the hell out of ammo before they ban it.

Equally unconstitutional. Settled law.

ObamaCare is a tax. If they can force that on us, I don't see why they can't tax whatever they want.

Taxing something heavily for the purpose of discouraging it from being obtainable is constitutionally equivalent to a ban. I don't remember the case, but it's been run through the courts already.

Taxing you for not buying something isn't the same argument as taxing something heavily to make it unaffordable to people. Especially when having access to it is a protected fundamental right.


Yet the $200 NFA "tax" was upheld in Miller.

Only because of the common use standard they invented.


There was also originally a tax stamp for marijuana (but it was illegal to possess before having a tax stamp, but you had to bring it with you to get the tax stamp )

Right to bear marijuana... that's the 29th amendment, right?
Link Posted: 11/16/2012 6:14:31 AM EST
Guns and drugs have been taxed for a long time

Link Posted: 11/16/2012 3:51:13 PM EST
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By Jame_Retief:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By DonS:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
I reckon they'll just tax the hell out of ammo before they ban it.

Equally unconstitutional. Settled law.

ObamaCare is a tax. If they can force that on us, I don't see why they can't tax whatever they want.

Taxing something heavily for the purpose of discouraging it from being obtainable is constitutionally equivalent to a ban. I don't remember the case, but it's been run through the courts already.

Taxing you for not buying something isn't the same argument as taxing something heavily to make it unaffordable to people. Especially when having access to it is a protected fundamental right.


Yet the $200 NFA "tax" was upheld in Miller.

Only because of the common use standard they invented.


There was also originally a tax stamp for marijuana (but it was illegal to possess before having a tax stamp, but you had to bring it with you to get the tax stamp )

Right to bear marijuana... that's the 29th amendment, right?


Which one says "Right to Ammunition?"
Link Posted: 11/16/2012 4:16:01 PM EST
What can be done just as easily can be undone.

Plessy vs. Ferguson and Brown vs. Board.


Nothing is sacred anymore....
Link Posted: 11/16/2012 4:21:30 PM EST
Originally Posted By CRC:
Expect bills banning online ammunition transfers in the next Congress.

Doubt they go anywhere but you never know.

BTW they were introduced into the last Congress as well.


Sportsman act 2012
Link
actually OP is correct...
Link Posted: 11/16/2012 4:26:08 PM EST
Originally Posted By CRC:
Expect bills banning online ammunition transfers in the next Congress.

Doubt they go anywhere but you never know.

BTW they were introduced into the last Congress as well.


If they repeal FOPA that first allowed Mail order and then online ammo sales, along with it's poison pill Hughes Amendment,

I am all for it. Given a choice of cheap machine guns or mail order ammo, I'll take cheap MGs.

If FOPA was repealed, I could legally make my own RLL for $200.
Link Posted: 11/16/2012 4:27:09 PM EST
Expect websites providing phone numbers that you can call to order ammo.
Link Posted: 11/16/2012 4:37:44 PM EST
I started a thread on these back when they were introduced, shortly after the theater shootings. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1349022_Stop_Online_Ammunition_Sales_Act_S_3458_and_H_R_6241__Aug__7th_BILL_TEXT_ADDED_.html
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 5:07:32 AM EST
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By Jame_Retief:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By DonS:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
I reckon they'll just tax the hell out of ammo before they ban it.

Equally unconstitutional. Settled law.

ObamaCare is a tax. If they can force that on us, I don't see why they can't tax whatever they want.

Taxing something heavily for the purpose of discouraging it from being obtainable is constitutionally equivalent to a ban. I don't remember the case, but it's been run through the courts already.

Taxing you for not buying something isn't the same argument as taxing something heavily to make it unaffordable to people. Especially when having access to it is a protected fundamental right.


Yet the $200 NFA "tax" was upheld in Miller.

Only because of the common use standard they invented.


There was also originally a tax stamp for marijuana (but it was illegal to possess before having a tax stamp, but you had to bring it with you to get the tax stamp )

Right to bear marijuana... that's the 29th amendment, right?


Which one says "Right to Ammunition?"

2nd amendment.
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 9:56:29 AM EST
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By Jame_Retief:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By DonS:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
I reckon they'll just tax the hell out of ammo before they ban it.

Equally unconstitutional. Settled law.

ObamaCare is a tax. If they can force that on us, I don't see why they can't tax whatever they want.

Taxing something heavily for the purpose of discouraging it from being obtainable is constitutionally equivalent to a ban. I don't remember the case, but it's been run through the courts already.

Taxing you for not buying something isn't the same argument as taxing something heavily to make it unaffordable to people. Especially when having access to it is a protected fundamental right.


Yet the $200 NFA "tax" was upheld in Miller.

Only because of the common use standard they invented.


There was also originally a tax stamp for marijuana (but it was illegal to possess before having a tax stamp, but you had to bring it with you to get the tax stamp )

Right to bear marijuana... that's the 29th amendment, right?


Which one says "Right to Ammunition?"

2nd amendment.



Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.



I see nothing about ammunition in there.
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 10:00:27 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/19/2012 10:11:08 AM EST by ARDestructo]
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By Jame_Retief:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By DonS:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
I reckon they'll just tax the hell out of ammo before they ban it.

Equally unconstitutional. Settled law.

ObamaCare is a tax. If they can force that on us, I don't see why they can't tax whatever they want.

Taxing something heavily for the purpose of discouraging it from being obtainable is constitutionally equivalent to a ban. I don't remember the case, but it's been run through the courts already.

Taxing you for not buying something isn't the same argument as taxing something heavily to make it unaffordable to people. Especially when having access to it is a protected fundamental right.


Yet the $200 NFA "tax" was upheld in Miller.

Only because of the common use standard they invented.


There was also originally a tax stamp for marijuana (but it was illegal to possess before having a tax stamp, but you had to bring it with you to get the tax stamp )

Right to bear marijuana... that's the 29th amendment, right?


Which one says "Right to Ammunition?"

2nd amendment.


Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


I see nothing about ammunition in there.

Ammunition is integral to the practice of the right to bear arms. Again, this is already played out.

It's like trying to go end-run around freedom of religion and banning certain religious symbols. Equally unconstitutional, whether or not some knucklehead says "where in the 1st amendment does it say your right to own a half crescent is protected?"
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 10:05:40 AM EST
What about film based hamburger novelty phones? I think banning internet sales of those would make about as much sense.



Link Posted: 11/19/2012 10:26:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By wolfstar:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By Jame_Retief:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By DonS:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
I reckon they'll just tax the hell out of ammo before they ban it.

Equally unconstitutional. Settled law.

ObamaCare is a tax. If they can force that on us, I don't see why they can't tax whatever they want.

Taxing something heavily for the purpose of discouraging it from being obtainable is constitutionally equivalent to a ban. I don't remember the case, but it's been run through the courts already.

Taxing you for not buying something isn't the same argument as taxing something heavily to make it unaffordable to people. Especially when having access to it is a protected fundamental right.


Yet the $200 NFA "tax" was upheld in Miller.

Only because of the common use standard they invented.


There was also originally a tax stamp for marijuana (but it was illegal to possess before having a tax stamp, but you had to bring it with you to get the tax stamp )

Right to bear marijuana... that's the 29th amendment, right?


Which one says "Right to Ammunition?"

2nd amendment.



Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.



I see nothing about ammunition in there.

'regulated' at the time of the Constitution meant 'equipped'

and 'arms' included bladed weapons and armor
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 10:56:31 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/19/2012 10:57:05 AM EST by wolfstar]
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By Jame_Retief:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By DonS:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
I reckon they'll just tax the hell out of ammo before they ban it.

Equally unconstitutional. Settled law.

ObamaCare is a tax. If they can force that on us, I don't see why they can't tax whatever they want.

Taxing something heavily for the purpose of discouraging it from being obtainable is constitutionally equivalent to a ban. I don't remember the case, but it's been run through the courts already.

Taxing you for not buying something isn't the same argument as taxing something heavily to make it unaffordable to people. Especially when having access to it is a protected fundamental right.


Yet the $200 NFA "tax" was upheld in Miller.

Only because of the common use standard they invented.


There was also originally a tax stamp for marijuana (but it was illegal to possess before having a tax stamp, but you had to bring it with you to get the tax stamp )

Right to bear marijuana... that's the 29th amendment, right?


Which one says "Right to Ammunition?"

2nd amendment.


Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


I see nothing about ammunition in there.

Ammunition is integral to the practice of the right to bear arms. Again, this is already played out.

It's like trying to go end-run around freedom of religion and banning certain religious symbols. Equally unconstitutional, whether or not some knucklehead says "where in the 1st amendment does it say your right to own a half crescent is protected?"


I wish I knew where to buy those rose colored glasses you seem to be wearing. You keep bringing up "They can't do that", or "The Constitution won't allow it".

I'm sure you thought Obamacare was impossible to become law because of this or that in the Constitution.

You haven't learned yet who we're dealing with yet?
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 5:39:03 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/20/2012 5:48:22 AM EST by _DR]
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By Jame_Retief:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By DonS:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By wolfstar:
I reckon they'll just tax the hell out of ammo before they ban it.

Equally unconstitutional. Settled law.

ObamaCare is a tax. If they can force that on us, I don't see why they can't tax whatever they want.

Taxing something heavily for the purpose of discouraging it from being obtainable is constitutionally equivalent to a ban. I don't remember the case, but it's been run through the courts already.

Taxing you for not buying something isn't the same argument as taxing something heavily to make it unaffordable to people. Especially when having access to it is a protected fundamental right.


Yet the $200 NFA "tax" was upheld in Miller.

Only because of the common use standard they invented.


There was also originally a tax stamp for marijuana (but it was illegal to possess before having a tax stamp, but you had to bring it with you to get the tax stamp )

Right to bear marijuana... that's the 29th amendment, right?


Which one says "Right to Ammunition?"

2nd amendment.


Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


I see nothing about ammunition in there.

Ammunition is integral to the practice of the right to bear arms. Again, this is already played out.

It's like trying to go end-run around freedom of religion and banning certain religious symbols. Equally unconstitutional, whether or not some knucklehead says "where in the 1st amendment does it say your right to own a half crescent is protected?"


I wish I knew where to buy those rose colored glasses you seem to be wearing. You keep bringing up "They can't do that", or "The Constitution won't allow it".

I'm sure you thought Obamacare was impossible to become law because of this or that in the Constitution.

You haven't learned yet who we're dealing with yet?


This president has a knack for going around both congress and the courts with his executive branch. Our congress have proven either a willing accomplice in his shenanigans, or a bunch of shrinking violets.

If the UN treaty goes into force it could also hinder or halt imports of cheap foreign new and surplus ammunition whcih could drive up the cost of domestically produced ammunition via supply and demand. He can use the EPA to regulate ammunition as a toxic substance (lead).
He can impose de-facto Taxes via backdoor methods, as he will do with his EPA and cap and trade for energy.

The BS never ends with this administration.
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 6:31:39 AM EST
Originally Posted By _DR:
This president has a knack for going around both congress and the courts with his executive branch. Our congress have proven either a willing accomplice in his shenanigans, or a bunch of shrinking violets.

If the UN treaty goes into force it could also hinder or halt imports of cheap foreign new and surplus ammunition whcih could drive up the cost of domestically produced ammunition via supply and demand. He can use the EPA to regulate ammunition as a toxic substance (lead).
He can impose de-facto Taxes via backdoor methods, as he will do with his EPA and cap and trade for energy.

The BS never ends with this administration.


This worries me a bit, too.
Top Top