Image 01 Image 03

Blumenthal, Wasserman Schultz Draft Bullet Control Legislation

Blumenthal, Wasserman Schultz Draft Bullet Control Legislation

It’s a “loophole” that we don’t have background checks to buy ammunition.

The Constitution bars the government from passing laws that prevent us from exercising our natural right to bear arms. Knowing they don’t have a chance of outrightly banning guns, the anti-gun crowd drafted a bill that would require a background check to buy ammunition.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) authored the Ammunition Background Check Act. From The Sun-Sentinel:

Wasserman Schultz dismissed the argument that what she called “common sense gun safety laws” would infringe upon Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.

“You do not have the right to bear bullets,” Wasserman Schultz said at a news conference at the Pembroke Pines Police Department, where she was joined by political leaders, a police representative and teachers and students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

Wasserman Schultz called the March For Our Lives demonstrations a “launch pad” to begin steps to limit the ways we exercise our second amendment rights. From Local10:

Federal law already prohibits the sale of weapons or ammunition to felons, domestic abusers and dangerously mentally ill individuals.

“And yet, unlike firearms purchases, someone who wants to go into a store that sells ammunition can buy as much ammunition as they want without so much as being asked their first name or any other question and walk out,” Wasserman Schultz said.

Wasserman Schultz said her bill would close that loophole.

“The Ammunition Background Check Act of 2018 that I filed on Thursday, and that is being filed in the United States Senate by Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, will close that gaping loophole to require all buyers of ammunition to undergo an instant background check,” Wasserman Schultz said.

She said the law would use the FBI’s instant background check system, which is the same one used for firearms purchases.

WAIT. WAIT A SECOND. It will use the same system that the government uses for background checks on guns. Um, if that’s so then if someone already passed a background check and couldn’t purchase a gun then why would they need bullets?

Also, why would someone purchase bullets if they don’t have a gun? Okay, yes, I know someone could steal a gun and then need to purchase bullets. But they can just as easily have someone buy bullets for them.

Honestly, this is all showboating and an attempt to show people that they’re trying to “do” something.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


“You do not have the right to bear bullets,” Wasserman Schultz

I think SCOTUS might disagree with you. As bullets are just as much Arms as the gun or sword or knife.

    MarkS in reply to Notanymore. | March 27, 2018 at 3:10 pm

    How about background checks on your IT guy, Debbie?

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to MarkS. | March 27, 2018 at 3:12 pm

      How about DUMB DEBBIE in prison already?

        notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital. | March 27, 2018 at 3:22 pm

        More useful food for thought…..

        “Since time immemorial, every totalitarian regime and tyranny has relied on corrupting the minds of the youth to either attain or maintain power. For those with even the slightest understanding of history will recognize what the so called “March for Our Lives” is all about. Just as Hitler, Stalin and Mao used children as weapons against the family, society and traditions, so too have America’s internal enemies. The Agitprop Media is touting these mind-numbed, indoctrinated stooges as the second coming of the 60s youth movement….”

          It’s being led by 60s and 70s retreads. The ones who have been trying to play “Fuck the System” for so long, now.

          notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital. | March 27, 2018 at 5:23 pm

          So true Valerie.

          Haven’t you seen many of the national TV networks promoting programs about 1968 – many with just that simple program title of “1968.”

          They’re trying to re-create the violence of 1968, say at the Chicago DNC meeting that summer.

          Bad news for those evil orgs though. 1968 was a TOTAL DISASTER for the communist infiltrated Democrats that year and for almost a decade after that.

          notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital. | March 27, 2018 at 5:39 pm

          Good insight into the “traitors’ coup.”

          “One of the demands they did not make was to enforce existing gun laws. Or penalize those who break existing gun laws. But why would you do that when the former Attorney General of the United States of America was a Yuuge gun runner?”

          This past week we witnessed a nation wide walk out of students for “gun control measures”. This walk out was orchestrated by left wing groups and ideologue “educators”. I wish they were honest. I wish they would come out and call for what they want, the total ban of firearms. But, honesty is not part of their make up.”

          “Why should we take the students seriously when they cheer for law breakers?

          Why should we take educators seriously when they condone the Thug Lifestyle?

          Why are the students, educators and former teachers who run the WIAA cheering for a convicted felon who used a gun in the commission of a crime?

          The Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association governs more than 500 schools.
          Its code of conduct explicitly prohibits the use of alcohol, tobacco or drugs, but the rule book says nothing about criminal conduct……..

          In reading the hype about “the children” supposedly organizing “the March”, I remembered the lyrics of Barry McGuire’s Eve of Destruction. I also thought that song’s gloom and doom of future events simply didn’t come true. We aren’t perfectly integrated, but we’re a hell of a long way on the road from Selma. Mao is gone and the Chinese aren’t a hated adversary (though still an adversary). There’s no longer a draft, the Democrats made sure the Communists won the war in RVN, those who would be old enough for the draft can vote (but their ability to buy a rifle or shotgun is undergoing threat) and we are much distanced from the threat of nuclear destruction which existed when the song was written in 1964. Admittedly after four days in space (most space station stays are actually much longer now) the Earth is still essentially the same place. The last pounding of the drums was from the Occupy Wall Street crowd, didn’t amount to much more than a massive cleanup operation by the NY City Sanitation Department.

          There, now I feel better. 😉

DieJustAsHappy | March 27, 2018 at 3:12 pm

I don’t want “bear” bullets. Preferably, they have a full metal jacket.

    Why would you wish to use one of the least effective bullets? Admittedly ammunition loaded with FMJ bullets is usually significantly less expensive than ammunition loaded with more effective bullets.

      The Packetman in reply to Edward. | March 27, 2018 at 4:33 pm


      FMJ bullets, especially when fired from a rifle, have a tendency to overpenetrate which is a good thing as often what is behind a leftist is … another leftist

        According to reports from the Zulu War (particularly Rourke’s Drift) the paper patched lead bullets from the .577-450 Martini Henry rifles often penetrated the hide shield of the Zulu warrior, the Zulu warrior and one or two more Zulu warriors behind while leaving a roughly half inch hole through them. Try getting that kind of penetration from a 55 grain M193 or 62 grain M855 5.56x45mm round. Not to mention that a ball round drilling straight through doesn’t dump much energy in the target. With a military strategy of one wounded soldier takes at least four out of the fight, wounding is desired. Not so much for civilian use. 🙂

      tom_swift in reply to Edward. | March 27, 2018 at 4:51 pm

      Gilding metal takes a better polish than plain lead.

      DieJustAsHappy in reply to Edward. | March 27, 2018 at 5:41 pm

      a bit of humor …

someone who wants to go into a store that sells ammunition can buy as much ammunition as they want without so much as being asked their first name or any other question and walk out,” Wasserman Schultz said.

Cool! Where is that? I’ve always had to show a license to buy ammunition. Nobody has to actually read it, but they claim they need to see that I have it. This is in MA, at one end of the gun-control spectrum, and NH, at the other end.

    Edward in reply to tom_swift. | March 27, 2018 at 3:34 pm

    Peculiarities of your state laws. I haven’t been asked for ID when buying ammunition since the Gun Control Act of 1968’s requirement for gun shops to log ammunition sales in a “bound book” disappeared in 1986 with the passage and President Reagan signing the Firearm Owners Protection Act (McClure-Vollmer).

Oh, this is what lawyers do to us little people. Always a loophole to slip about our necks. And when we complain? They shrug. It’s a grey area, they say. Fifty shades of gray. Red, blue and green is notoriously gray.

It’s exconstitutional – their bobbleheads waggle agreement. Give money to Judicial Dudes or Freedom Friends or Liberty Pals. Because they’re on our side. Until they aren’t. 501(3)(c) be chair-it-eee.

If only we’d be rid of Speaker Who or Majority Guy whatshisface. That’ll fix their little red omniwagon.

    alaskabob in reply to Clinger. | March 27, 2018 at 4:10 pm

    Including 22 rimfire assault weapons. It is just another “first step” for those that cannot count.

WAIT. WAIT A SECOND. It will use the same system that the government uses for background checks on guns. Um, if that’s so then if someone already passed a background check and couldn’t purchase a gun then why would they need bullets?

Um, you’re missing a very obvious gap that this bill would plug. As we all know, only licensed dealers are required or able to run background checks. Ordinary people who happen to sell or give away a gun are not required to run a check on the recipient — and that is how it should be, because it would be too burdensome to make them do it. (This is the so-called “gun show loophole”.) Nor are estates required to run checks on the heirs before passing on the deceased’s guns; again, this is how it should be. But it does mean that some significant number of gun owners have obtained their weapons without submitting to background checks, and it may be that some of them would not pass one. Making ammunition dealers run the checks as well would catch most of these people. And the burden on these dealers would not seem to be greater than that imposed on gun dealers. Non-dealers who happen to have a box of shells to dispose of should not be affected.

    Freed Serf in reply to Milhouse. | March 27, 2018 at 5:17 pm

    Ammunition dealers running a background check is defacto a gun registry.

      tom_swift in reply to Freed Serf. | March 27, 2018 at 6:12 pm

      Not if the information isn’t recorded. Which it isn’t. In theory.

        Edward in reply to tom_swift. | March 28, 2018 at 9:56 am

        The law for retention of NICS checks requires destruction of successfully completed results within 24 hours. One recent Democrat administration claimed the right to retain the results for six months (IIRC) for “statistical purposes”. Suit was either filed or threatened (or Congress found a spine) and the administration backed down and it is believed the law is being observed accurately.

        But since the FBI administers the NICS, and the honesty and law abiding status of at least some of the FBI management is currently under question, we might want to take that belief with a shaker of salt.

    CalFed in reply to Milhouse. | March 28, 2018 at 12:36 am

    Many gun owners buy ammunition on the internet or mail order. Requiring ammunition to be sold in person in face-to-face transactions with a background investigation will place an enormous burden on law-abiding shooters.

I suggest we do this through the use of a one time check, verified by issuing a purchase license that also serves as a nationally recognized carry permit. The permit holder just needs to show it at the point of purchase. No more paperwork.

    MarkS in reply to f2000. | March 27, 2018 at 5:24 pm

    Why on earth would you suggest a permit be necessary to exercise a Constitutional right? “May have have a permit to attend church this Easter Sunday dear government?”

    Firewatch in reply to f2000. | March 27, 2018 at 8:37 pm

    How about we just stay free.

Can I assume you haven’t gone thru the background check. I have on multiple occasions. A bit cumbersome but tolerable for the occasional gun purchase – took 20 minutes last time. Would be a time-consuming mess and a significant expense for the regular ammunition purchases required for hunting, target practice etc. Would you like to go thru the car dealer paperwork process every single time you needed to buy gas??

    SDN in reply to tlcomm2. | March 27, 2018 at 6:27 pm

    Well…. if you aren’t one of the false positives, about 10%.

    murkyv in reply to tlcomm2. | March 27, 2018 at 10:36 pm

    Not to mention a huge increase in the NICS workload.

    And then there’s the fact that, if those with the duty or ability to “flag” someone don’t do their damned jobs, people Nikolas Cruz would have STILL be able to buy ammo

“And the burden on these dealers would not seem to be greater than that imposed on gun dealers.”

How many times do you think an average gun owner purchases ammo for one firearm? Are you aware that people practice at firing ranges? They don’t simply load up their gun and leave it alone till someone breaks in their house?

Rest of your comment has similar inaccuracies. But notice I’m not calling you a lying sack of shit. Maybe you can learn from my example.

Well, it’s not like you can make your own bullets… Wait, yes it is kind of like that.

I’ll be drafting a similar bill. Because while the first amendment guarantees freedom of the press, it does not give them a right to paper, ink, keyboards, internet connections, etc.

My bill will tax ink at $1,000 per ounce. I’m sure WaPo and the NYTs won’t mind passing that cost down to their readers.

As I’m sure Milton Friedman would say (and maybe he did), “This is like freedom of the press, but with restrictive regulation on ink”.

There is no right to bear arms unless there is a right to make them work as they were designed.

    alaskabob in reply to Ragspierre. | March 27, 2018 at 4:14 pm

    As long as there is one approved firearm and you have one cartridge, the Left will say you have a right. As long as you have one word that is approved you have freedom of expression… even if that word is “the”… you can use it anyway you want.

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to alaskabob. | March 27, 2018 at 5:25 pm

      And Bob, destroying the Constitutional 2nd Amendment Right is just the foot in the door for those dictatorship worshiping leftist, communist Democrat “progressives.”

Debbie is as devious as she is ugly. They have talked quite a while about control of bullets, this isn’t something truly new, but then, it is the left and their same old play book on how to get rid of pesky rights.

Nothing like having a “right” you can not exercise. It is the same as gun registration in knowing who has what. (“you don’t need more than 6 cartridges”). Next step as in some states require a license to possess ammunition. California also limits ammount of ammo you can have in certain circumstances. All of this had no negative effect on the black market and criminals.

OK… let’s extend this “loop hole”. If such restrictions apply to the 2nd why not apply them equally to the 1st?

1) Limit major city newspapers to only 2000 circulated copies a day.
2) Require background checks for accuracy for all stories and only after this are they permitted ink and paper as stipulated by law.
3) Require background checks for access to internet for all news agencies and with limitation of bandwidth.

This is a great exercise in taking a natural right and turning into a very constricted privilege reserved mostly for the powerful and the worthy. The irony is that the real steps to crime reduction cannot be even mentioned in this PC world.

    MarkS in reply to alaskabob. | March 27, 2018 at 5:31 pm

    With the problems of kiddie porn, bank and credit card fraud, cyber bullying, etc, we absolutely need background checks for permission to access the internet! If it saves one child, it is worth it!

Almost forgot, I heard about this bill this morning. Dropped wife at Metro and immediately went to purchase 3 years worth of ammunition for each of my firearms. Just because I know the shells will be bare by this weekend. I had the same experience with magazines a while back and got caught holding the short end.

It’s a safety thing. Routine famfires to ensure proficiency.

Debbie is on target for salesman of the month.

Why is she not in jail for election fraud? This is what I mean by not letting them tap out. They don’t have the shame to retire gracefully from public.

Background checks for ammo but not an ID for voters.

buckeyeminuteman | March 27, 2018 at 4:20 pm

I propose a background check on people buying gasoline. That would catch those who have been found guilty of a DUI from mowing people over on the highway. If we can’t keep them from climbing into cars, at least we can keep them from driving anywhere. Yes, it will slow us all down. But, it’s for the kids! Don’t you care about the kids??!!

    Those alcohol detection machines, which some drunk driving convictions require, installed on all cars would be more efficient. Only add (as a WAG) $1,000.00 to the price of every vehicle, and a million hours of lost time or so as people waited for the “go” to start their cars (more after office parties).


      Edward in reply to Edward. | March 28, 2018 at 10:08 am

      Oh, and a ban on older vehicles without the machines. Australian style “buy back”, but with the US Left’s particular alteration of no compensation, not even the paltry money the Oz government gave for the firearms in the mandatory (with criminal penalties) “buy back”.

What problem does this solve ?

The last couple of shootings, the guys passed the background checks and got their guns. A check on their bullets would be equally futile.

    MarkS in reply to Neo. | March 27, 2018 at 5:34 pm

    Patience Neo., you’re dealing with liberals that have the mental and emotional maturity of a four year old!

    oldgoat36 in reply to Neo. | March 27, 2018 at 7:15 pm

    They are more concerned with getting rid of the 2nd amendment by whatever means they can, nibbling away at it won’t be as fast, but it will bring them closer to their goal, which doesn’t have anything to do with the safety of the public, and has everything to do with paving the way to their fascist utopia.

What’s disconcerting is that something really has changed in the gun control debate:

We now know the Parkland Shooting PR campaign was pre-cooked. It was formulated months ago and placed on a shelf to be rolled out for a school shooting.

Now take this New Perspective and view how the Democrats always go after the Second Amendment, even though it’s not responsible for these shootings…

Epiphany: what else do they have waiting in the wings to roll out? Why are they so focused on taking away our right to defend ourselves from the State?

Epiphany, eh. I guess we all get where we’re going at our own speed. It’s been obvious to me for generations that they Have Plans For The Wreckers Hoarders and Kulaks.

Watch out for James Crow.

After the civil war, Democrats in the South were faced with a problem. A group of people (blacks) were doing something the Democrats didn’t like (voting). Unfortunately, (for the Democrats) that activity was protected by the Constitution (14th and 15th Amendments). The Democrats decided that, since they couldn’t ban the activity, they would make it complicated and expensive. Jim Crow used poll taxes, literacy tests, and the like to make voting expensive and time consuming so that blacks would be discouraged.
Jim Crow was one of the most reprehensible actions in the Republic’s history. But to be clear, while black Americans were it’s victims, Jim Crow was reprehensible because it was an attack on the freedom of American citizens to enjoy their rights freely and without interference from the government – a government that should have been protecting those rights, not impeding them.
Today, Democrats are faced with a problem. A group of people (gun owners) are doing something the Democrats don’t like (owning guns). Unfortunately, (for the Democrats) that activity is protected by the Constitution (2nd Amendment). The Democrats have decided that, since they can’t (yet) ban the activity, they will make it too complicated and expensive – ammo taxes, licensing restrictions, etc. Welcome to Jim Crow II. Like Jim Crow I, the people doing it don’t believe in the Constitution or freedom. Reviving Jim Crow shows the moral bankruptcy of the Democrat party. When a liberal asks me why I don’t support ‘reasonable’ gun control, I ask them to explain why they are walking in the tracks of Jim Crow. I don’t get any good answers, but maybe I start some people thinking. Either way, we can’t let ourselves be Jim Crowed into silence or submission.

“It’s been obvious to me for generations that they Have Plans”

Has it? I’ve always known that was their goal, but I guess I didn’t realize till the Parkland PR rollout that “Stage 2” or whatever is already in position.

    Edward in reply to Fen. | March 28, 2018 at 10:58 am

    Perhaps it was the ready availability, and rapid employment, of useful idiots like Hogg and Gonzales which was the surprise? Almost like their parents/teachers had been preparing them for their role in the play for a number of years.

See, this is what happens when you don’t strike while the iron is hot. DWS was allowed to wriggle free of the Awan scandal and now here she is, stirring up trouble again.

This is why letting perps go to “ease the transition” has always been a stinking lie.

inspectorudy | March 27, 2018 at 5:24 pm

I am sure all of you have figured out by now what the left will do if they gain traction on this gun crap and the 2nd A. That will be step one to dismembering our Constitution line by line. obama let the cat out of the bag when he said that the Constitution was a negative document that put limits on the federal gov. DUH! That’s exactly what it is for!

    Ragspierre in reply to inspectorudy. | March 27, 2018 at 5:35 pm

    Modest correction; what Barracula and his ilk think is the the Constitution provides “negative rights” that limit the right of the central government vis-a-vis individuals. It is, strictly speaking, just that.

    And a damn good thing, too…!!!

Maybe we should run background checks on people who wish to purchase heroin and cocaine. I can see it now! Countless people sitting around with tons of worthless needles but no drugs to fill them with.

DWS: The gift that keeps on giving. Even when you don’t want it to.

And also: Darnit, we were just getting to the point where I could find ammunition on the shelves for a reasonable price!

Henry Hawkins | March 27, 2018 at 7:48 pm

MC: “Honestly, this is all showboating and an attempt to show people that they’re trying to “do” something.”

Bingo. This is pure political virtue signaling, with zero hope or chance of actually passing. They just want to appear woke on 2A.

I expect a similar BS bill looking to regulate gunpowder itself, the next logical step, if piecemeal reductive restrictions are their game. After that, regulation of oxygen itself, also required to fire a gun, lol.

If the SC were to perform as it has in the past, it would find that bullets were part of the right to bear arms. The invented the right abortion and Miranda rights out of thin air.
DWS needs to worry about protecting Democrats servers and national secrets they probably stole.

    Milhouse in reply to Kevin. | March 28, 2018 at 10:41 am

    Of course bullets are protected by the second amendment, just as paper and ink are protected by the first. Any suggestion to the contrary is just silly. But bullets can’t be more protected than guns themselves. If Congress can require background checks before buying guns from professional dealers, then it can also require them before buying bullets from professional dealers. In both cases imposing the same requirement on ordinary people, who don’t have access to the NICS system, would place too great a burden on the RKBA. And in both cases it would be bad public policy to allow records of the checks to be kept.

The loopholes are “fast and furious”, Planned Parent, self-abortion, prosecutorial discretion, “=” or politically congruent/favored classes, and law-avoiding (i.e. elective abortionists and other life-denying criminals) persons.

The ammunition manufacturers are jumping with joy over this proposal. Not because they want it to pass, but because it will stimulate a run on ammunition. If you haven’t stocked up, do it now, before the hoarders get it all. At the moment, one can purchase as much ammunition as one wishes, without any record being kept. And, ammunition will remain viable for decades, if stored properly [which is easy to do]. So, people can take their projected income tax savings for this year and put it toward the purchase of ammunition.

    alaskabob in reply to Mac45. | March 27, 2018 at 9:53 pm

    The Left is comfortable in knowing they can pass more draconian laws as they need to get their way. It is the slow march toward abolition and they feel righteous. This is the same mindset that embraces totalitarian rule to perfect their society. So buying plenty of ammo now doesn’t faze them as they just push more laws.

    Make ownership harder and more expensive. Then make it class conflict to get the masses to support. Make ownership “dirty” and disloyal to the community. Make the drumbeat of news all negative no matter what. These are finely tuned methods proven in other Western Countries…during the 20th century.


Attorney General Jeff Sessions:

nordic_prince | March 27, 2018 at 10:43 pm

It’s a loophole that allows idiots like these to keep getting elected to Congress.

Instead of worrying about law-abiding gun owners, how about making all members of Congress pass background checks and mental health examinations before they get sworn in to office…

In 2014, there was a case in Florida. The case went to the Supreme Court which upheld the ruling of the 11th Circuit.

The case involved a town which didn’t like the nude paintings in an gallery. The town couldn’t ban the paintings for First Amendment reasons, so they decided to ban artist oils. You could not have tubes of oil paint within the town which meant the end of the paintings.

The Courts ruled that you could not ban an :”upstream” activity in order to stop a protected right :”downstream.”

You can’t ban oils because you don’t like what they are used for in association with the First Amendment.

You can’t ban bullets because you don’t like the Second Amendment.

Poodle Debbie may want to take a refresher on the Constitution as the 2 nd. does cover powder shot and ball aka ammunition.
She may also take a refresher of American history as regards to Concord and Lexington.

The most logical argument against requiring an NICS check for ammo purchases is unnecessary redundancy and cost. People who purchase firearms through a licensed dealer have to pass an NICS check to obtain the firearms. So, there is no reason for a second check for ammunition. Of course, if a person purchased a firearm through an unlicensed source, then he could obtain ammunition from that source as well, thereby bypassing the background check. Then of course there is the cost of the NICS check. The additional time that a clerk has to spend conducting the check costs the business money and that is passed along to the consumer, either as a fee or as an increase in the price of the ammunition.

It is too late to argue that the purchase of ammunition can not require a background check, as we already allow such a check for the purchase of firearms. This what happens when people compromise on their rights. They gradually lose them.

Sorry, I do not listen to any yellow bellied coward who lied about being in Vietnam. Semper Fi


Does thei

Just a thought: black males and females in the segregated South prior to the 1960’s officially had the voting franchise, yet only a small fraction of them actually registered to vote, much less actually, voted, in large part, to “literacy tests” which the authorities themselves viewed as reasonable and sensible. According to one source, only about 3% of southern voting age blacks were registered in the early 1940’s. And, if they knew what was good for them, they always voted Democrat.

Sounds kind of familiar when it comes to current Democrat proposals vis a vis the 2nd Amendment, doesn’t it? Officially keep the an individual right on the books, but bureaucratically and legislatively ensure it’s difficult, if not impossible, to actually exercise it.