bullet control coming?

[Roundballer]

I could be mistaken but I thought Heller was a decision (in relation to the GCA) in favor of an individual-right vs a collective-right.
Insomuch as it does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes...also holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” - And doesn't say anything specifically about ammunition.

I'm not arguing that common sense says ammunition is required for weapons in common use today, just that Heller didn't specifically mention it or allude to it. You'd have to go back to what the term arms meant around the time of the framers..."arms" meant "armament" which does specifically include ammunition - circa late-1700's.

The decision determined that the second amendment applied to State governments as well as the Federal government, and was not specifically about GCA '68. The court also framed out how to test if a law was a violation of the 2nd amendment which included history and original text.

We all know it well...
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (collective), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (individual)

The first part of that, which you may call "collective" is nothing but a preamble phrase and has nothing to do with the stated right in the second phrase the sentence, which states the right and prohibits interference with it.

[special reserve]

Click bait. Stop clicking

https://youtu.be/Ui8zf8d8UAU?t=11

[MCPO_SOCM_RET]

We are agreeing with each other. I may have misspoke or mis-typed but, what you said is basically the same thing I was trying to say.

[taurious]

[Omni]

Added to 4473. Ammunition, yet no ammunition requires nor is listed on a 4473, yet?

Question 21.b:

Do you intend to purchase or acquire any firearm listed on this form and any continuation sheet(s), or ammunition, for sale or other disposition to any person described in questions 21(c)-(m), or to a person described in question 21.n.1 who does not fall within a nonimmigrant alien exception?

[DeSchaine]

Click bait? Fear mongering? That's disingenuous at best. These things are happening.

Just because something is not constitutional doesn't mean they wont do it and that it wont go into effect, even for just a little while. Look at the mag bans. Look at the "assault weapon" bans. Look at all the hoops people in CA have to jump through to have a CA compliant firearm. Look at where all these things are going on. NY, IL, CO, WA, OR, DE... on and on.

Prop 63 passed in CA back in 2016. This essentially creates a firearms AND ammo database, and makes the provision that if you don't have a listing in the database (for a .45 as example) then you are not allowed to buy ammo in that caliber. Took effect in 2019. Cue the four cases. Duncan, Rhode, Miller and Fouts, each separate, vs Bonta.

Yes, Prop 63 was struck by Judge Benitez and an injunction was issued in 2020. All well and good. Case then ended up in the 9th where the injunction was tossed and the case remanded. Currently, CA is 100% able to enforce their idiotic law. There was a hearing on 12/12 where Judge Benitez indicated nothing he heard has changed his mind, and he will be issuing a new written order, but two things come up with that. The order hasn't been published yet, and how long will it take for the 9th to toss his order. You think the other nanny states, including ours now, aren't watching to see what happens and chomping at the bit to enact their own crap? wHitler has already said she's going to try.

9th Circuit 11/17/22 Order Vacating and Remanding
https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...-Remanding.pdf

Court Transcript of 12/12/22 Hearing
https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...n-12-12-22.pdf

Full listing of orders and filings Rhode case
https://michellawyers.com/rhode-v-becerra/

[SuedePflow]

answer ?
Reload / hand load... & Stock up on components.

Absolutely. And for more reasons than this.

[DeSchaine]

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S929

Section 1. Subdivision 4 of section 270.00 of the penal law, as amended by chapter 180 of the laws of 1997, is amended to read as follows:

4. Sales of ammunition not prohibited. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to prevent, or interfere in any way with, the sale of ammunition for revolvers or pistols of any kind, or for rifles, shot guns, or other arms, belonging or which may belong to any persons whether as sporting or hunting weapons or for the purpose of protection to them in their homes, or, as they may go abroad; and manufacturers are authorized to continue to manufacture, and wholesalers and dealers to continue to deal in and freely to sell ammunition to all such persons for such purposes. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THE SALE OF AMMUNITION FOR ASSAULT WEAPONS, AS DEFINED BY SUBDIVISION TWENTY-TWO OF SECTION 265.00 OF THIS TITLE, SHALL BE LIMITED TO TWO TIMES THE CAPACITY OF AN AUTHORIZED WEAPON OVER A ONE HUNDRED TWENTY DAY PERIOD. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SUBDIVISION, "AUTHORIZED WEAPON" SHALL MEAN A WEAPON REGISTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBDIVISION SIXTEEN-A OF SECTION 400.00 OF THIS CHAPTER. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LAW, RULE OR REGULATION TO THE CONTRARY, THE VIOLATION OF THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL CONSTITUTE A CLASS E FELONY.

[Roundballer]

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S929

Unconstitutional, unenforceable, too vague to be understood.