California’s “War on Ammo” is lost before it’s even begun

I was struck by a comment from an anti-gun spokesperson over the NRA’s lawsuit against California over its new restrictions on ammunition.  The relevant bit is in bold, underlined text.

The lawsuit challenges specific restrictions like a requirement that ammunition sales be conducted face to face, and a mandatory background checks for those purchases – a component that many still don’t know how the state would implement.

. . .

In the lawsuit the NRA claims the ammunition sale restrictions violate the second amendment and the commerce clause of The Constitution.

Butchko, though an NRA member, has yet to make his first firearm purchase.

“What I don’t understand is why I need one permit to buy a firearm and another to buy ammunition. I just worry that the state is going to keep going to the point where they make it inconvenient to buy a gun,” he said.

Wendy Wheatcroft with Mom’s Demand Action for Gun Sense in America said responsible gun owners should not fear ammunition restrictions.

“Clearly being able to accumulate large stores of ammo is not beneficial to the general public,” she said.

There’s more at the link.

A few questions for Ms. Wheatcroft:

  1. Why should “responsible gun owners” not fear ammunition restrictions?  Every other restriction on firearms ownership has been intensified, strengthened or made more onerous over time.  We’re pretty sure these ammo restrictions will be, too.
  2. Why is “being able to accumulate large stores of ammo … not beneficial to the general public”?  As far as I can see, it’s certainly not actively harmful to the public.  In fact, it’s got nothing to do with the public.  It’s the choice of the individual ammo owner.  Furthermore, ammo in and of itself can do nothing whatsoever to harm or benefit the public.  It’s morally neutral, like a motor vehicle, or a hammer, or a calculator, or a gun.  Any and/or all of those things can be used for good, or for evil, or for nothing at all – but it’s always and everywhere the person who uses them who makes the choice of how and for what to use them.

Ms. Wheatcroft’s attitude appears to be yet another version of the age-old conundrum:  “We’ll tell you what’s good for you, and you’ll damn well like it – or else!”  Facts, logic and rationality are nowhere to be found in her argument.  Frankly, she’s on the side of those who say that “Unless it’s permitted, it is forbidden” – and they want to deny permission whenever and wherever they can.  The rest of us take the view that “Unless it’s forbidden, it is permitted”.  We don’t need Big Brother to boss us around any more than is absolutely necessary.

We are citizens, not subjects.  Early American historian David Ramsay said of that distinction:

The difference is immense. Subject is derived from the Latin words, sub and jacio, and means one who is under the power of another; but a citizen is an unit of a mass of free people, who, collectively, possess sovereignty.

Subjects look up to a master, but citizens are so far equal, that none have hereditary rights superior to others. Each citizen of a free state contains, within himself, by nature and the constitution, as much of the common sovereignty as another.

The state of California appears determined to force its residents to be subjects, not citizens.  I think most of my readers will have a ready (and none too polite) rejoinder to any such attempt.

An individual’s ammo supplies, or those of anyone of sound mind, have got damn all to do with Ms. Wheatcroft, despite her all-too-nosy interest in them, and they certainly offer no threat to the public.  If she believes otherwise, let her go to court, and provide evidence sufficient to persuade a judge and a jury of that person’s peers that he/she is unfit to possess that ammunition, or the guns in which to shoot it.  That would be constitutional – but it would also be impossible, because in almost every case, no such evidence will exist.  That’s why she and her ilk are choosing to ignore the rights of citizens and trample on the constitution, seeking to force citizens into subjection, denying their freedom.  That’s why she’s in favor of draconian, dictatorial “one-size-fits-all” measures that won’t solve the so-called “gun violence” problem at all, because they limit the tool rather than the person wielding it.

As we all know, if a tool-wielder can’t find one tool, he’ll adopt another.  In this case, he won’t even have to do that.  Ammunition will be freely available by crossing a state line, picking up a few boxes, and going back.  I won’t be surprised to see a thriving ammunition smuggling business before long – perhaps exchanging grown-in-California marijuana for ammunition from the rest of the USA.  Given the success (NOT!) of federal, state and local authorities in the so-called “War on Drugs”, I predict California’s authorities will be no more successful in the “War on Ammo” that they appear to be hell-bent on starting.



  1. define "large store of ammunition"
    is it 10,000 rounds of each caliber…total of all calibers??
    5,000 rounds??
    1,000 rounds???

    or is it "why should you have more rounds than your gun is designed to hold, having enough rounds to reload, even once, is not necessary"

    it's a slippery slope this nut job wants us to start down. we need well defined definitions before we even talk further.

  2. Will that bitch buy my ammo?

    I don't live in San Diego anymore. Will that be a problem wtih the ammo bitch or can she just mail it to me?

  3. The fact that the law can't work does not mean that it will be repealed. It will be left on the books until such time as circumstances let it work. That would be when the banners pass similar laws in Calis adjacent states. In the meantime it sits there to be used as an example of a gun law that everyone else needs to pass.

    You gotta think LONG game here.

  4. OldNFO, given your writings so far, are you sure it should be the other way around? Are you sure it isn't a case that California would be in trouble if you lived there?

  5. The point of Gun Control is never about what they say it's about. It's not about preventing Gun Violence.

    Gun Control is about sticking it to Republicans for not being Democrats. They think that only Republicans are gun people. Therefore the laws they pass will only harm Republicans. This is their revenge for things like electing Trump. And this is why their proposals always take the form least likely to do a damned thing about their stated goal, but will really make things harder for gun owners. It's a Feature to them, not a bug.

  6. The Law is a tool to punish your opponents, control the peasants, and reward your friends, family, and allies. The Democrats understand this simple fact.

    Mass media is a propaganda tool to influence the culture towards your way of thinking. If the peasants never hear anything else, it will be very difficult for them to think of anything else. The Democrats understand this simple fact.

    The Democrats are simple people, with simple ambitions. Personal wealth and power. National and global conquest. The utter destruction of their enemies. We will be made not merely to obey, but to love Big Brother. For them, it's the right thing to do.

  7. cannon,
    There is no such thing as well-defined terms with the gun grabbers, or another statist. The meaning of words is always fluid with them so they can do anything with those words. Remember, it depends on what the definition of is is.

    McChuck, you are correct.

  8. I foresee a warm, glowing Business Opportunity soon to arise not terribly far into Western Harry Zona, all along parallel to the Kalifornicatia eastern "border-land" territory –

    An all-new economy will soon rise up, based (more or less) on "direct-trade"…One Bud For One Bullet – (Magazines Are "Extra")…

    Should make the '49ers Gold Rush look like a mere trickle –

    "Thar's (Acapulco/Sacramento) Gold In Them-Thar Hills!!"

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *