The Outdoor Community banner

Background check for ammo

9331 Views 226 Replies 45 Participants Last post by  bohunr
Here we go. Hard enough finding ammo last hunting season, now we may have to furnish ID and a background check for all ammo, if this passes?

  • Angry
  • Sad
Reactions: 5
1 - 20 of 227 Posts
Makes me feel better about ordering 200 more rounds of 22-250 this evening.
Hope it was all non lead. Waugh!
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 5
I have no problem showing ID to buy guns or ammo. However any background checks should be tied to a real ID issued by the state and not cost the purchaser or seller. If real ID can be used to board aircraft and access government buildings without another background check each time it should be good enough to buy guns and ammo.
With computer systems today it should not be that difficult or expensive to have almost up to the hour updates that clear in seconds. All court cases, convictions, acquittals or filings could be flagged before anyone leaves the courthouse. Temporary holds for suspects can also be updated in real time and cleared up quickly with a visit to or by the police that entered the data.
Adding a fee or tax to a background check is nothing more than harassment from anti gun/anti hunter activist. Waugh!
  • Like
Reactions: 5
We already have to show an id for fishing or hunting licenses. They already use that to track dead beat parents who are not paying child support too. An id whether real or the old ones means nothing other than identifying you. Also you can run background checks all day long but until a person is officially convicted, nothing shows on their records. I have seen that exact situation working with a guy that decided not tell anyone he was arrested for child pornography but had not been through the court system yet. Still had a job with a full government security clearance that is well beyond a simple background check.
So what is the problem showing ID to buy ammo? As long as the background check is free and quick I do not have a problem with it. Do you?
Temp holds can be placed in a background system for those arrested and charged which is fine as long as the system corrects when charges that warrant a buy stop are dropped or dismissed.
Like I said once convicted the system could be updated before anyone leaves the courthouse.
As far as your example of someone arrested for a crime, ( in your example it was child porn) I stand firm that we are all innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That is why a jury or judge will claim you guilty or not guilty and never say you are innocent of a crime. We are all innocent until proven otherwise. Why would you want to prevent a innocent person from buying ammo? Why would you want to have someone lose a job until proven guilty?

I just don't understand your concept. Yes the ID is to identify you and the background check is to see if you are allowed to purchase ammo. What am I missing? Waugh!
See less See more
This does not surprise me one bit and I bet all the FUDDs in PA, will be alright with a background check for ammo. The only ammo I cannot make is 22LR/22WMR.

Those that don't reload, you need to learn.
Yes us Fudds will be ok with it and the wannabees will be making a buzzing noise that they can only understand. Waugh!
  • Like
Reactions: 2
And what makes you think you can buy reloading materials without the background check?
Stop with the hard questions. Some only understand the latest buzz words. Waugh!
I have no problem showing id as I have to already. I will not pay for a background check for ammo. The question is what problem are we trying to solve with a background check? Illegal weapons do not get purchased at the store and adding ammo to the list will only be the same. Putting more controls on law abiding citizens does not solve the criminal side. We have enough rules in place already that apparently do not work. Think back to the last few years and how hard it has been to get ammo. Supply issues. Democrat comes into office and.gun sales go through the roof due to fear. Ammo hoarding happens. If we are all innocent until proven guilty then why the need for the background check? Again what problem do they think they are solving?
Yes fear is a powerful motivator. The sad part is so many fall for it every so many years. I was told Carter was coming after my guns, Than it was Clinton and Obama and now Biden.
Kennedy was shot and no new laws were created. However when Reagan was shot at we ended up with the Brady law. So who is coming for my guns?

Well one thing that is accomplished by requiring a background check is it raises the cost of ammo on the bad actors. It also can be used to find the enablers and reduce that number. It will not harm law abiding citizens unless you are harmed by a few min. wait.
The only problem with our gun laws is neither side of the isle wants to be the adult in the room and enforce the laws we have on the books. It serves them best to point the finger at the other without any action other than words. But you are correct we cause our own shortages due to fear time and time again. Waugh!
  • Like
Reactions: 2
Define mass shooting.
A shooting during church services. Waugh!
Not everyone should have a case of beer, and that is evident by the number of DUI accidents and deaths, so everyone shouldn't be able to buy booze. This is another reach and grab for no reason other than to get to the final goal, disarming the public or we would see this same logic applied across the board for everything.
Since sober drivers kill more people and have more accidents maybe they should be required to be drunk before driving. See how stats lie. Waugh!
You don't have to be a criminal to fail a background check. Just make your wife or ex. mad at you and she says that you threatened her. You will have to prove that you didn't.
And when you prove you did not they should put them behind bars. We can always use more barmaids. Waugh!
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Thinking behind democratic( socialist, nazi, communist) gun laws : criminals good......Law abiding citizens bad.
And the wild west was great. Waugh!
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Wrong again. The militia is still the people, and with our military shrinking more and more everyday, we may need it in the near future more and more.
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
  • a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
If we ever need to use civilians to fight a war or defend the nation the nation is over and we will have to learn new laws, win or lose. Waugh!
  • Helpful
  • Like
Reactions: 2
Lots of law abiding citizens have unregistered weapons at their disposal also…As with all Government Regulations and laws there are LOOPHOLES within!!! Criminals have the upper hand nowadays because no body seems to care,JUDGES,DA,COURT SYSTEM,they are better protected than the ordinary citizens with the best lawyers that again find a loophole and were the the ones paying there lawyer bills.They get released and there right back to business as usual no harm done!!!
If you think the public defenders offices are filled with the best lawyers there is not anything anyone can explain to you.
The bad guys have the same rights as the good guys only the good guys don't have a need to use the same rights the bad guys are using. Waugh!
Showing ID is different than a background check to purchase ammo. I already have to show my ID to the cashier when I purchase ammo in many places, simply to enter my birth date on the transaction (it's to prove you're 18) but there is no background check.
Why do you have to be 18? Waugh!
  • Like
Reactions: 1
The national military. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. For defense of the nation under direct command and subordinate of the president.
Militia as referenced by the founders is you and I. Able bodied men trained in arms. Intended by the founders to bolster the national military in times of war and to be called upon and formed up in defense from a tyrannical government. You know, those guys at Lexington, the same ones at Cow Pens and The Crossing.
Wrong. President is not in the military chain of command. Waugh!
You’re completely and utterly wrong. You could not be more wrong. He’s the Commander in Chief. He is the HMFIC. Don’t know where you got the idea that he isn’t in the chain but he is the boss of bosses.
Commander in chief is a honorary position. Even George Washington turned over control of the military when he took office.

The Founders gave the President the title to preserve civilian supremacy over the military, not to provide additional powers outside of a Congressional authorization or declaration of war.

  • Like
Reactions: 3
well, thanks to the democrats. some states you have to over 18 to buy guns and ammo. they claim 18 year olds arent mature enough to own a gun but they can enlist, fight and die in the military and little kids can make up their mind about what sex (male or female) they want to be. democrats are EVIL TURDS
Shut off all the TV' media etc.....and then start cleaning house, go into the city's start rounding them up, cuff em and stuff more mr nice guy police officer, you break the law, you pay the riot and loot...shoot em.

if you are told hands behind your head, or up against the do it. If you are told to get out of the car, you get out or get dragged out....

Enough of this nonsense......Don't you guys realize it is not just the gov't authorities stripping of us of our rights, its the thugs on the street, that do not want to be accountable for their actions....instead of taking care of crime, we tie the hands of our law enforcement, restrict them....and make heroes out of this crap all over social media, brainwash people into thinking guns are the problem.

HOW DUMB CAN YOU BE !!!!.....a gun can't hurt a soul till somebody pulls the trigger...and when that thug does?.....hang em....don't restrict law abiding citizens.
As much as I agree with a lot of what you wrote, I have to say that is how it is done in the old USSR and I live in the USA. Do we really want it done that way? Waugh!
  • Like
Reactions: 1
...mods must not think so..or they would have moved it... it's a democraptic pushed law that effect hunting ammo issue. To further push their anti gun/anti hunting agenda.
The only people that don't have issues with these all these new policies that effect the hunting/shooting community are the ones that maybe should just give up all their guns , ammo and donate to the antis....
So now you suggest we become a smaller community with even less political pull. Great idea. Waugh!
  • Like
Reactions: 1
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
You are correct the military is subordinate to the civilians but the presidents authority over the military is not honorary or such. He is the head of the national command authority and is supreme commander of the national military. Believe me, I know.
Okay I believe you because you know everything. Waugh!
follow the law or go to jail. obey the orders or get arrested. the place to complain about the police officer is at the station, maybe with an attorney. never on the street. a police officer will never and never should, back down and walk away when a suspect starts yelling at them.
I agree the place to complain about the officer is in court. So the courts need to be fair and listen to both sides. However the police need to be policed by the public and the bad ones should have to face the same courts. Most are great, not all. Some think they are the law not only enforcing the law. I support good police officers not just anyone in uniform. That said police need to stay safe without abusing perceived authority or violating individual rights. Very hard to do but yet doable. I live by the no better friend / no worse enemy way of thinking. Right is right and wrong is wrong but the uniform does not make wrong right.

Yell at me and bark orders and expect me to yell back at you. Again very few times I ran into the barker but every time I barked back. When treated with respect I returned respect, right or wrong. Speech is also a protected right and it comes before the right to bear arms. Waugh!
  • Helpful
  • Like
Reactions: 2
For a little awareness, the president is the commander in chief, he can and does exert authority over policy and deployment. In fact the United States marine corps expeditionary units are the US rapid response force that when under way fall under direct line of control to the president if needed for up to 30 days un supported by conventional forces. He has the authority to engage them in combat action if necessary with out authorization of congress. Now, that mean the president can go start a war, or mobilize the military as a whole at will, but he has authority as a direct line commander of troops at war, the ultimate say after congress has authorized combat action on a large scale. We currently support 3 presidential directed missions with my current unit being directly reportable to the president.
So while the commander in chief title is far from honorary, it also is not all encompassing, as we have checks and balances that restrain even the president from forcing us into potentially unprovoked conflict.
The president is the commander in chief by title only. And only if allowed by congress (the people) There are exceptions and loopholes but the country is not at war without congressional approval. Yes he has the authority to send troops for a limited time and only unless he was not told he could not by congress. Mainly it is a don't ask but ask forgiveness type of thing.
Marines unsupported by conventional forces is not an act of war and usually only used to defend Americans abroad. He does not have the authority to commit the conventional forces without congressional approval thus he is not a supreme commander, the people of the US are the people in charge (spell that congress)

So I think you missed a word and that word is NOT. He can not start a war, or mobilize the military as a whole at will. He is not and none ever were a direct line commander of troops at war. However once congress approves a war he now has more say on the direction the troops are to take.

Are you trying to say one Marine unit is currently supporting 3 separate presidential missions? BS. Never is one Marine combat or expeditionary unit supporting more than one mission at a time. POG units might. I played the game for 30 years and 19 days so tell that to someone else. And all military missions are report able to the president by way of congress. Very few reach the point of a go no go from the president and those missions are outside of a war and only those that could cause a war or escalation of a conflict. Carter in the Iran rescue attempt ended in a no go. We were down 2 of 3 birds. Obama in the Bin Laden hit was a go because of the damage he did to the US on US soil but it was a hit and not a act of war.
The office of president is a civilian post and not a military position. He or she is not in the chain of command. Waugh!
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 2
1 - 20 of 227 Posts