1. Require dealers to obtain an ammunition seller’s license and to collect a buyer’s thumbprint, name, drivers license, address, phone number and date of birth.
2. Make handgun ammunition inaccessible to customers.
3. Transfer of handgun ammunition must be done face-to-face.

Fine, #1 and #2 are just annoyances, but what about #3? Requiring handgun ammunition to be transferred in person effectively bans all mail order and Internet sales of handgun ammunition. Right now you can count the number of places where this is the law on one hand and the motivation put forward is to improve the enforcement of other laws and aiding investigations. As long as you can order ammunition through the mail, then criminals will be able to buy ammunition for the guns they aren’t suppose to own. So if a criminal doesn’t obey one law surely they’ll obey this other law if we pass it. Right?

That’s the ultimate problem with laws trying to control firearms and ammunition. The only ones who abide by the rules are those of us who are law abiding to begin with. Criminals can’t own guns, but they still find ways to obtain them. Now criminals won’t be able to buy ammo online, but does anyone believe they’ll have trouble obtaining ammunition illegally for their illegally possessed weapons? The criminals go on breaking the law and the rest of us are saddled with more regulations, rules, hoops to jump through and higher prices. What would be next, a background check and 10 day waiting period for purchasing ammunition like we have with firearms?

Funny thing is there’s nothing in the law about the components used to manufacture ammunition, those will still be available through mail order and the Internet. So even if this passes, criminals could order bullets, cases, powder, primers, dies and a nice progressive reloading press and assemble their own ammo. Actually that’s what I’m thinking of doing. How backwards is this state that the laws they try to pass encourage individuals to think like criminals.

I’ll be mashing my F5 button this weekend on this page: AB 962 Status

He tells a group of workers at a Pennsylvania glass factory that he wouldn’t take away any of their guns even if he had the votes in Congress and just wants to keep them out of the hands of gang bangers and drug dealers (which the law already prohibits, funny how criminals don’t obey the law) . The problem is he doesn’t say anything about carrying in public and future gun purchases or other restrictions. Sure he might leave the guns I currently have alone, but what does the future hold? The best indicator for the future is Obama and Biden’s positions in the past on gun control.

Obama quotes from OnTheIssues.org

Biden quotes from OnTheIssues.org

Wikipedia Position List

NRA Analysis of Obama’s Record

Obama’s votes in Illinois Senate

Obama quotes on gun control

Biden thinks gun owner should have head examined

Novak on Obama Gun Control Dance

Little bit of everything in there. The funny thing is Obama is starting to move to the center a little now that he doesn’t have to compete against other Democrats. Previously, there was confusion about whether or not he supported the DC Handgun ban that was recently overturned. He now says he thinks the 2nd Amendment gives an individual right, but so far his voting record demonstrates he wants to limit and closely regulate those rights. Biden is definetely far to the left and this liberal thinks they should cover up his views on gun control because it might lead to a Democratic loss.

Stay on topic and please site references or statistics to back up any arguments like “banning handguns reduces crime”. Gun control might not seem like a big deal, but there are plenty of people clinging to their guns and religion who take it very seriously. If you want an analysis on McCain and Palin positions I can put that together too.

Heller High Water

NYT on the Heller decision

Judge Stevens – 88, Ginsburg – 75, Kennedy – 72, Scalia – 72 and Breyer – 70

There’s a good chance the next president will be nominating replacements for 1 or 2 of them. Any of McCain’s nominees would be far superior to anyone Obama would put up. You might not like everyone about the McCain, but he sure looks good next to the alternative.

Read the entire dissent, starting on page 68, written by Stevens in DC vs Heller to be thoroughly disgusted. Here’s just a quick tidbit:

As used in the Second Amendment, the words “the people” do not enlarge the right to keep and bear arms to encompass use or ownership of weapons outside the context of service in a well regulated militia.

That’s right, 45% of the Supreme Court doesn’t think you should be able defend yourself in your home with a handgun. Suzanna Hubb is a perfect example of what happens when law abiding citizens aren’t able to protect themselves. If you haven’t heard her story you must listen to her tell it:

The Supreme Court ruled on Heller vs DC today and pretty much said that an individual has the right to own a gun. From the opinion:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

The decision doesn’t invalidate regulations like registration requirements, but it certainly opens the door for legal action against laws that limit the use of firearms by law abiding citizens. I’m not a gun nut but this how I feel about the whole situation:

Criminals don’t obey gun laws, they just leave their victims defenseless. I’m glad I have the ability to defend myself in my home because I don’t want to be at the mercy of some criminal threatening my life and property. If that moment ever comes the police won’t be able to help. When seconds matter, the police are minutes away.