Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act: Ban Online Ammo Sales and Register All Purchases Over 1000 Rounds

For some reason neither Senator Lautenberg nor Senator McCarthy responded to TTAG’s telephone request for a copy of their proposed gun control—I mean ammo control legislation or the senators’ original statement prior to its official unveiling. An eagle-eyed, ever-vigilant reader send us a link. Here’s the skinny:

The Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act works through four components:

· It requires anyone selling ammunition to be a licensed dealer.
· It requires ammunition buyers who are not licensed dealers to present photo identification at the time of purchase, effectively banning the online or mail order purchase of ammo by regular civilians.
· It requires licensed ammunition dealers to maintain records of the sale of ammunition.
· It requires licensed ammunition dealers to report the sale of more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition to an unlicensed person within any five consecutive business days.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

64 Responses to Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act: Ban Online Ammo Sales and Register All Purchases Over 1000 Rounds

  1. avatarJosh says:

    Why the hell should I have to be a licensed dealer to buy ammo online? What can ammo do without a gun? Oh yeah, NOTHING. Why dont they focus on the enforcement of their stupid laws that are failing to do their jobs rather than trying take away more of our rights.

    Bad people are going to do bad things to good people, no matter what laws they enact. Better to have the good guys armed than to be totally defenseless.

  2. avatarMatt in FL says:

    My local Bass Pro Shops just got done moving all their pistol ammo out from behind the gun counter to a regular shelf. They were so busy with actual gun sales that people were walking away when faced with having to wait 5-10 minutes to get a “gun guy” to get it from behind the counter. One of the gun guys gave me anecdotal evidence of the difference: “We’re having to restock the shelves about twice as often as before.”

    I’m sure they’d be thrilled to have to put it all back.

    Time to fire up the old Smith-Corona yet again.

    • avatarSanchanim says:

      This also proves people are standing in line to buy guns! Not a bad thing really, but yes putting it on a regular shelf is a great idea. Don’t know if they did that in CA, I think they need to keep it locked up regardless.

      • avatarDon says:

        Nope, CA Bass pro has had ammo on the floor for as long as I’ve been going.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          Yeah, I think it’s a local choice by the store manager or whatnot. Kind of like why some WalMarts sell guns and some only sell ammo. My understanding is that’s a store manager choice.

          Or, it could just be a shelf space decision. Put it where it fits.

        • avatarWill says:

          When you refer to wal-mart you need to realize something.

          Wal-Mart micro-manages EVERY store that bears their name. The control the heating/cooling and the lights out of Bentonville, AR (where they’ve also convinced manufacturers to outsource, or sell-out so it could be out-sourced, to China if they wanted to be carried in Wal-Mart stores.)

          I doubt that a Corporate environment that micro-manages a store like that leaves room for managers to decide a whole lot about what is and isn’t carried in their store. There may be *some* wriggle-room, and maybe there is when it comes to firearms, but I have my doubts.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          Will: A few months ago I commented that there were a bunch of WalMarts around Orlando, some of which sold both firearms and ammo, some sold ammo only, and some had neither. I wondered aloud why that was, and several people here told me that it was manager’s choice. I think one of them was Nick. I kept meaning to ask them directly when I was in there, but I always forgot. It may be that it’s a corporate level decision; I have no idea.

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      By Smith-Corona, I meant the typewriter, not the rifle.

      This disclaimer just in case the alphabetic agencies are watching.

  3. avatarJeremy L. Knauff says:

    Guys, we need to be more active than in the past – talking about this amongst ourselves isn’t enough because these people just keep trying to cram new laws in anywhere they can. Just like they did by trying to add the mag restrictions to the cyber security bill.

    Pick up the phone and call your senators! Let them know you can see what they’re doing and will hold them accountable.

    http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

  4. avatarCurzen says:

    If you got C&R guns in obscure calibers I got bad news for you if this passes.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      Even if it’s not an obscure caliber, you’re going to have a damn hard time finding the specific brand of ammo you want and you’re going to pay out the ass for it. That’s the entire point of this law – to make shooting to expensive that most people can’t do it. I can afford to shoot plenty when I can go online and grab ammo for 50%-60% less than MSRP, but I’m not going to be able to afford to shoot often if this passes because FFL’s will increase the cost of ammo since you’ll have no alternatives.

  5. avatarSilver says:

    My mother taught me never to mock the mentally deficient…would it be breaking that rule to go into the countless ways this is ineffective (let alone unconstitutional) and call for a psychological exam of the “people” that proposed it?

    I’m so tired of these sacks of sub-human shit thinking they can do whatever they want to people’s rights and get away with it. It’s beyond time for proper Americans to go on the offensive. For every smugly oppressive bill these insects propose, pro-2A counterparts need to introduce opposing bills. Start introducing bills to repeal the NFA tax, or for constitutional carry, or any number of things. Start making these insects think twice about pushing their oppression. Doesn’t matter if they pass or not, getting them in the public eye and introducing even the possibility that something like that could, some day, pass should be enough to make some of the worms think twice.

    • avatarPphydeaux says:

      Yes, hit back twice as hard!

    • avatarTaurus609 says:

      Concealed carry reciprocity was a no brainer but the republican controlled house had a hard time passing the legislation, so who is going to propose and pass all of these counter measures to combat the stupidity of the left?

    • avatarNathan says:

      Sorry Silver but if this abomination of a law was ever passed and did ever go before SCOTUS, I don’t think it would be overturned. It doesn’t stop people from keeping and bearing arms, it simply restricts where people can buy them and requires them to show ID to prove that they can legally buy it. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a bad law, but I don’t think it’s unconstitutional.

  6. avatarGuywithagun says:

    Never let a good crisis go to waste. (facepalm)

  7. avatarmatt says:

    · It requires ammunition buyers who are not licensed dealers to present photo identification at the time of purchase, effectively banning the online or mail order purchase of ammo by regular civilians.

    Would that actually stop it? Illinois requires you to present a FOID to purchase ammunition. New Jersey has similar regulations. MidwayUSA and other retailers let you send a picture.

    http://www.midwayusa.com/general.mvc/index/stateid

    Not that the bill text is available, but from the overview, it doesnt seem that the bill effects the sales of ammunition components. I’m glad I have a reloading setup.

  8. avatarraincrow says:

    Photo I.D. to buy ammo but no photo I.D. to vote in some states.Sounds about right to me.

    • avatarSilver says:

      Well sure, after all it’s only bitter, old fat white gun-clingers being persecuted, not innocent, oppressed, doe-eyed (democrat-voting) illegals.

      We all know what passes for leftist morality: persecution is bad, except when it happens to people they don’t agree with.

    • avatarSanchanim says:

      I know seriously huh!!!

  9. avatarJoseph says:

    Finally! A law that will end crime and evil for ever!

  10. avatarSammy says:

    I think this antagonistic legislation is just part of an attempt to portray the shooting community as a group of hostile, knee jerk,and possibly violently psychotic people. The triangulation seems to be 1 exploit a shooting while linking the shooter to pro gun advocates, 2 threaten to revoke peoples rights as the only solution that will protect the children 3 portray the reaction of the parties who’s rights are being denied as terroristic. The push for disarming everyone will only increase. Eventually someone may/will snap and the chant of “See, we told you they couldn’t be trusted” will echo through out the congressional body. The NRA can only do so much. And I do not care in the least if they help the gun industries bottom line. The soundest advise I have read in many moon is authored above by one Jeremy L. Knauff . Mr. Knauff is 100% right. It’s good to exchange outrage regarding unconstitutional laws. But that’s all it is. Alerts are another matter. We’re preaching to the choir here. We must raise our own voices and contact our representatives local, state, and federal personally and most important, respectfully regardless of how you really feel. Your doing it for us, we’re doing it for you. Anything less will accomplish nothing. You want to keep the 2nd? Well you will have to fight harder than the grabbers to keep it, with their ball, on their court, and their rules.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      Or we could push to get a law passed stating that SCOTUS judges who don’t vote to uphold the Constitution (you know…do their JOB), that they face life in prison.

    • avatarMALTHUS says:

      1 exploit a shooting while linking the shooter to pro gun advocates, 2 threaten to revoke peoples rights as the only solution that will protect the children 3 portray the reaction of the parties who’s rights are being denied as terroristic.

      This is classic Saul Alinsky “Rules for Radicals” methodology. In short, “The action is in the reaction.”

  11. avatarjwm says:

    politicians need to face a penalty in months off their terms for proposing legislation that doesn’t go through. they would have to really think twice before making statements with bills they know aren’t going anywhere.

  12. avatarJames says:

    Total BS. So I handload at a rate of about 8k rounds a year now. Does this mean I must come face to face with a retailer to buy components to log the sales so I don’t go on a murderous rampage?

    • avatarAir Force TSgt says:

      After you kill 4000 people they need to know were to point the finger…. since the simple fact that you can’t fix crazy is not enough.

  13. avatarA.Ruiz says:

    So ammo would then be sold by the 999-ful.

    • avatarJim Barr says:

      The article actually states “over 1000″, but your point is certainly well taken. Even if they said “500″, people would just stagger their purchases.

      It goes back to the same thing: Criminals don’t follow laws.

  14. avatarChris Dumm says:

    Show me the 218 Democratic representatives that will vote for this in the House and I’ll start quaking in my shoes. It’s already dead; it just doesn’t know it yet.

    But even this is no reason not to treat it seriously.

  15. avatarJ says:

    F**K THAT BILL AND THE GUY WHO WROTE IT!!! I shoot IDPA and 3-Gun. I can burn up 1000 rounds a day, a couple a days a week in training. No criminal history, concealed carry permits from Arizona, Utah, and Florida. Three FBI fingerprint background checks. This asshat wants to treat me like a criminal for buying what amounts to for me, a couple of cases of golf balls.

  16. avatarAir Force TSgt says:

    Is this joke? Sometimes hard to tell on the internet…. it’s not April 1st… and I’m not laughing.

    NRA to the rescue I hope….

  17. avatarJoe says:

    Easier to ban movies!

  18. avatarnapoleon says:

    Anything in the bill about primers or reloading?

    If the bill passes, and gun owners resolve to ONLY buy in 1,000 round lots, how will they investigate that?

    Hornady will no doubt be first to introduce 999 round collector packs.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      Better idea – if they pass this, everyone starts buying two 550 round bricks of .22 LR per week and overload the system.

      • avatarmatt says:

        it is rather easy to filter that noise out, assuming a SQL database:

        select *
        from ammoRegistration
        where cartridge not like ‘%22%L%R%’

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          You’re assuming the same government that thinks punishing law abiding citizens for the acts of criminals is intelligent enough to know how to properly use a database.

  19. avatarWilliam says:

    So are they going to download bricks of .22s from 550 rounds to 499? I bought over 2k rounds of .22LR the last time I went to Wally-world. That must make me a psycho.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      The anti’s would probably be even more furious if they know that the 2k+ rounds of .22 LR you picked up cost about $12 plus tax (OK, probably an exaggeration since I down buy .22 LR, but I know it’s crazy cheap).

    • avatarCellude says:

      Yeah a whole two box arsenal!

  20. avatarTom jones says:

    If this passes I can’t afford to shoot my 5-7 or my colt .45. It’s a hour ride to cabellas to buy 5.7×28 ammo. It’s garbage

  21. avatarAharon says:

    “It requires anyone selling ammunition to be a licensed dealer”

    Does this then include banning sales between private citizens? If citizen MikeBB wants to sell me 1000 or 500 rounds of .357 hollow point that he inherited from his grandmother could he under the proposed new law still sell it to me? Is the bill aimed only at business to consumer sales?

    Will this behavior by anti-gun Congressional goons motivate more democrats to get out and vote or will it motivate more conservatives that might ignore voting day to vote for pro-gun politicians that means usually voting Republicans? The Election is just under four months away. I wonder how it will or not affect the vote?

    • avatarAharon says:

      I was going to ignore the election and either not vote or vote libertarian as a vote against the Democrats and Republicans. IF this bill does by chance go forward I would THEN probably go vote Republican. It would be a lessor of two evils to me.

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        See, THIS is why I’m dying for the Supreme Court to just say “Look, THIS is what is allowed under the second amendment and trying to restrict it will get your law shot down, so don’t waste everyone’s time by pushing for more restrictions” so that we can eliminate the fight over gun control and focus on important issues. I’d love to vote for libertarian candidates, but unfortunately I have to hold my nose and vote for Republicans because it’s the only way to keep Democrats from sending the goon squad to kick down my door.

        Are Democrats that stupid to not realize that 47% of homes in the US own guns and they’re missing out on most of those homes even considering voting Democrat because of gun control?

  22. avatarErik O says:

    Ok, so no draft of this ‘bill’ has been submitted, hence no ‘S.’ number assigned to it yet.

    No word on componants, so no direct issue to me since I reload.

    I am not going to get too worried about this until Lautenberg decides to put his neck and seat on the line and actually WRITE this bill up. Nothing on Govtrack.org and therefore as big as deal as these two ninnies.

    • avatarrosignol says:

      I’m not going to worry about it, period. This thing is unlikely to pass the Senate, and has zero chance in the House.

      …and if Obama signs it, he riles up the 2nd A vote in what is looking to be a razor-close election.

      Not going to happen. The man has poor judgment, but not that poor.

    • avatarJeremy L. Knauff says:

      “No word on componants, so no direct issue to me since I reload.”

      You can’t think that way. It may not affect you today, but you can bet your ass it will one day. Every single one of us needs to be active in fighting this kind of crap because we all know their end game is the complete elimination of firearms in civilian hands.

  23. avatarDJ says:

    Most of you are probably not old enough to remember, but the first three items listed for this bill USED to be the law of the land for buying ammo (or perhaps it was just handgun ammo; I faintly remember being affected by the law, but not all the details).

    Every dealer had a book, similar to the Firearms Disposition book, where ammo purchasers had to be listed. I think it required full name, address, caliber and quantity of ammo sold to be listed. I think this requirement was dropped in the late 70′s or early 80′s; the last time I can remember needing to do it was around that time, I believe. The reason it was dropped was because it was useless; it was never used to solve any crime, and it was finally repealed. I don’t see it being any more useful nowadays.

    Everything old is new again, eh?

  24. avatarKory says:

    If they are bringing this back then why not also bring back the machine guns. All this does is effectively turn back the clock prior to 1986…

  25. avatarmachinegun 99 says:

    what we need to worry about is the SMALL ARMS TREATY that the prez is signing.the wording is on the web sorry i dont have a link
    nato/ UN gun control . this ammo thing is to distract everyone from the real danger
    once they know who buys bullets, they have their long list of gun owners, then………
    the treaty get ratified and is made law u guys need to read it .its a back door to the repeal of the second ammendment

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      You mean the “SMALL ARMS TREATY” that failed to pass? Like a week ago? It was all over the news for a couple days. You missed it?

      • avatarSammy says:

        It’s not dead. They are changing names and procedures. The name is “United Nations Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects” The proponents are supposedly bringing it back 6-27-12. And according to a story in the Philly Ink. they arrested a guy on the subway with an ak w/40 round “assault clip”, a 38, and drugs. The press here should really have a go at this. It’s not looking good for A2.

  26. avatarDon says:

    If someone is buying thousands of rounds per month online they are LEAST likely to be a criminal, and most likely to be a sport shooter, and only a moderate one at that. Yet another burdensome piece of legislation which would be utterly ineffectual at preventing any crime, including the one which it’s emotional impetuous has come from. The problem with people who come up with gun laws is that they are utterly ignorant of gun technology, use, practical limitations, and activities.

  27. avatarKDB says:

    I seem to recall something like this years ago and it was a failure then. Does anyone remember signing for ammo when you bought it?

  28. avatarMichael Stratton says:

    I’m a liberal and I have to say this bill is BS. They tried something like this before and it didn’t work then. If it’s not killed in Congress, then the Supreme Court would declare it Unconstitutional.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.