Economy Biden bans importation of Russian ammo

[rob mafia]

You're embarrassing in the way you responded...maybe just leave such discussions that concern context, nuance, etc. to the adults who are capable of engaging at a less superficial level than you seem to be.

lolz @ doing exactly what you're complaining about while pretending to have some sort of high ground... after being inept to the point of asking questions that answered themselves.

 

[spamking]

America First!

Except for the stuff I like to buy plz.

He types from technology built with parts from Asia . . .

As soon as American ammo companies can pick up the slack us gun owners will be ecstatic . . .

 

[Rational Poster]

He types from technology built with parts from Asia . . .

As soon as American ammo companies can pick up the slack us gun owners will be ecstatic . . .

I'm not the one who advocates for America First trade policy.

Free market is fine to me.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

This is what I'm getting at...the extent to which banning Russian ammo is curbing the constitutional right or not.

Presumably, it could be challenged as an infringement if Russian ammo were the sole source of ammunition available to Americans AND there was something inhibiting domestic production and sales. Further, I wonder if it is the case that Americans are entitled to 'cheap ammo'...i.e., could it be that so long as domestic production/sales is not banned or unjustly regulated so as to make it de facto unobtainable, then it seems like it could be steep hill to climb to have the ban declared unconstitutional?

I would be curious to see a court challenge on the basis of your personal interpretation of the constitutional right as encompassing the ability to 'practice one's skills', for example...or my wondering about the degree to which 'cheap, ready access' is required as part of that constitutional right.

Banning ammo infringes upon the 2nd because it by definition limits (to some degree) the right to keep and bear arms. If people weren't choosing the ammo then there would be no reason to prohibit the importation.

So it's not my job justify access to the ammo. It's the government's job to show that banning the ammo furthers a government interest to the degree that it justifiably overcomes the burden placed on my ability to exercise a fundamental civil liberty. So the question you should be asking first and foremost is what does the federal government feel this will accomplish. The next question is whether or not the goal can be achieved without burdening our rights.

 

[rob mafia]

I'm not the one who advocates for America First trade policy.

Free market is fine to me.

...who exactly are you referring to?

 

[spamking]

I'm not the one who advocates for America First trade policy.

Free market is fine to me.

We're all after the best deal and would prefer more supply and less demand . . . I wonder if Biden sent notice to American businesses about this ban so they could prepare to spin up new manufacturing in order to meet the need?

 

[lilelvis]

Probably why the Taliban switched to M4s.

Or maybe the M4's and ammo were free...

 

[Snubnoze707]

Looks like the SKS will be collecting dust. Really shitty decision, ammunition is already a pain in the ass to get right now especially in California.

 

[Rational Poster]

...who exactly are you referring to?

Literally every conservative that voted Republican in the past two election cycles.

 

[MRT]

Banning ammo infringes upon the 2nd because it by definition limits (to some degree) the right to keep and bear arms. If people weren't choosing the ammo then there would be no reason to prohibit the importation.

So it's not my job justify access to the ammo. It's the government's job to show that banning the ammo furthers a government interest to the degree that it justifiably overcomes the burden placed on my ability to exercise a fundamental civil liberty. So the question you should be asking first and foremost is what does the federal government feel this will accomplish. The next question is whether or not the goal can be achieved without burdening our rights.

I understand what you are saying and I agree that limiting supply *could* be deemed an unconstitutional infringement...it just seems to depend upon the details? i.e. whether 'to some degree limits' = an unreasonable limit.

In this case, it would seem to matter how much of the U.S. market Russian ammo comprises, whether there are domestic or foreign-made alternatives, and whether there is any legal basis for restricting this particular import that would be judged to be a 'reasonable limit' on that constitutional right (since none of our constitutional rights are 100% limitless).

I guess what I'm ultimately interested in, from a legal perspective, is the extent to which the state must ensure a supply and who gets to decide if that supply is 'adequate' and affordable.

If this ban would significantly reduce supply and/or dramatically drive up prices to the point of becoming unaffordable, then I presume it would be struck down. If it does not kill the supply or send prices through the roof, it could be an uphill battle to have such a ban deemed an unreasonable limit to constitutional rights.

 

[rob mafia]

Literally every conservative that voted Republican in the past two election cycles.

 

[MRT]

lolz @ doing exactly what you're complaining about while pretending to have some sort of high ground... after being inept to the point of asking questions that answered themselves.

Whatever you say...just follow my exchange with the other poster for an example of how the grown-ups do things, kiddo.

 

[rob mafia]

I understand what you are saying and I agree that limiting supply *could* be deemed an unconstitutional infringement...it just seems to depend upon the details? i.e. whether 'to some degree limits' = an unreasonable limit.

...'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall only be reasonably infringed upon' - amirite?

Whatever you say...just follow my exchange with the other poster for an example of how the grown-ups do things, kiddo.

nothing screams adult and high ground like being objectively/fundamentally wrong and namecalling.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I understand what you are saying and I agree that limiting supply *could* be deemed an unconstitutional infringement...it just seems to depend upon the details? i.e. whether 'to some degree limits' = an unreasonable limit.

In this case, it would seem to matter how much of the U.S. market Russian ammo comprises, whether there are domestic or foreign-made alternatives, and whether there is any legal basis for restricting this particular import that would be judged to be a 'reasonable limit' on that constitutional right (since none of our constitutional rights are 100% limitless).

Yes, you understand correctly.

I guess what I'm ultimately interested in, from a legal perspective, is the extent to which the state must ensure a supply and who gets to decide if that supply is 'adequate' and affordable.

If this ban would significantly reduce supply and/or dramatically drive up prices to the point of becoming unaffordable, then I presume it would be struck down. If it does not kill the supply or send prices through the roof, it could be an uphill battle to have such a ban deemed an unreasonable limit to constitutional rights.

For some calibers I've seen the stat that Russian ammo is 40% of the supply. That's fuckin' huge. So this is absolutely significant. Now what's the government purpose, other than to buttfuck gun owners?

Also, gotta correct you on one thing. This isn't a matter of the state ensuring supply. This is the state artificially intervening in the marketplace to choke off supply.

 

[BearGrounds]

Biden gives me Manchurian Candidate vibes.

 

[MRT]

...'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall only be reasonably infringed upon' - amirite?



nothing screams adult and high ground like being objectively/fundamentally wrong and namecalling.

I get it...you don't appreciate context, depth, etc. and want neat and tidy answers to everything.

You seem unaware that none of your constitutional rights are 'limitless'...and thus there are reasonable 'infringements' upon them, despite their broad wording.

You have the right to keep and bear arms...but not everyone...not all kinds...not everywhere...and not at all times. The state indeed 'reasonably infringes' upon that right in many ways...as it does even for 'inalienable' rights, such as liberty.

Do you deny this?

 

[rob mafia]

I get it...you don't appreciate context, depth, etc. and want neat and tidy answers to everything.

You seem unaware that none of your constitutional rights are 'limitless'...and thus there are reasonable 'infringements' upon them, despite their broad wording.

You have the right to keep and bear arms...but not everyone...not all kinds...not everywhere...and not at all times. The state indeed 'reasonably infringes' upon that right in many ways...as it does even for 'inalienable' rights, such as liberty.

Do you deny this?

yup. "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear. the founders had cannons and machine guns. and... french/british/etc arms/ammo.

but you're right in that the state infringes upon the right. too bad that wasn't your argument.

 

[MRT]

Yes, you understand correctly.




For some calibers I've seen the stat that Russian ammo is 40% of the supply. That's fuckin' huge. So this is absolutely significant. Now what's the government purpose, other than to buttfuck gun owners?

Also, gotta correct you on one thing. This isn't a matter of the state ensuring supply. This is the state artificially intervening in the marketplace to choke off supply.

40% would indeed be rather significant and would seem to open up ban up to a challenge, unless offsetting steps were taken to ensure minimal disruption to supply/price.

Politically, the motivation definitely matters...legally, I assume not so much. Whether it is a politically-partisan move to screw gun owners...or something like a trade-war with Russia...it would still be a question of whether the ban unreasonable infringes.

You raise an important distinction...hands off vs. hands on...i.e. the legal obligation of the state not to infringe rather than being obligated to 'actively facilitate' something. I suppose that distinction would also be clearly seen in a case where supply were naturally diminished (e.g. Russia *chose* to not sell in the U.S. market), in that the state would not be constitutionally required to step in and ensure supply (although it would clearly be in some party's political interest to do so lol).

It will be interesting then to see how this plays out if supply and price become an issue...

 

[rearnakedchoke]

Good. Need to hold Russia’s feet to the fire. US can’t be weak with Russia.

 

[MRT]

yup. "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear. the founders had cannons and machine guns. and... french/british/etc arms/ammo.

but you're right in that the state infringes upon the right. too bad that wasn't your argument.

That the state reasonably infringes upon our rights is *precisely* the context under which I was asking my questions. In my initial post, I said:

"I'm curious about to the extent to which the right to bear arms requires the state to facilitate access (or at least not hinder it). Do you think banning Russian ammo would be struck down in court as unconstitutional?"

I bolded that part because it is critical...and it invalidates a response of 'what good are guns with no ammo?'. I am not asking if the state can effectively ban ALL ammo, as that would obviously be incompatible with the right to bear arms...but that does not mean that the state can't do ANYTHING with regard to the supply of ammo. I'm looking for the line, which is why I asked whether banning Russian ammo would be struck down.

I was indeed challenging someone to expand upon their claim that the ban "sounds like an infringement on the people's ability to keep and bear arms", because I felt that claim needed more context...i.e. what I was getting at is whether it would be ruled to be an *unreasonable* infringement, given that the state ';reasonably' infringes in all sorts of ways. The details matter.

I didn't know the % of the market Russia or what effect the ban would have on supply or price, so I'm interested in where the line is...i.e. to what extent the gov't has to ensure supply (though, as pointed out, it is more correct to ask to what extent the state can't interrupt the existing supply).

These details could matter a lot. If Russian ammo represents 2% of the market, good luck claiming the ban violates the constitution if overall supply would be uninterrupted and prices probably don't budge...but if is a significant %, and there are no alternate sources to fill the void, then supply could be severely impacted and prices might soar. Even if it is something in between and supply is modestly impacted'and prices go up 'a little bit'...is that unconstitutional? Do you have a right to as much ammo as you want? Do you have a right to it at a an affordable price? Or do none of these details even matter so long as the state isn't actively interfering in a negative way?

This is why the law is interesting...because what seems sooooooo simple and obvious often is not...and can raise a whole host of questions.