Gun laws are a pain in the rear, but we’re fortunate that we aren’t faced with an onslaught of new federal regulations coming at us all fast and furious (Yes, I went there). The fact that Congress is friendly toward the Second Amendment doesn’t make life any easier for many throughout this great land of ours.

The problem is that state governments are still infringing on the rights of their citizens by enacting unconstitutional gun control laws.

For many gun owners, that’s not a big thing. They don’t live in, say, California so what do they care?

Well, you’d better care for one reason if nothing else. You’d better care because gun laws are rarely content to stay put.

Back in June, supporters of a ballot initiative to prohibit the sale of semiautomatic firearms and large-capacity magazines pulled the plug. They had run out of time to gather enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot. But the dangers associated with such weapons have not gone away. If passing gun laws is too hard, maybe ammunition laws are achievable. California’s new rules for ammo could serve as a model.

A gun only becomes really dangerous when it is loaded, and in Oregon there are no rules about buying and selling ammunition. There are no background checks, sales aren’t tracked, and people can buy ammo online and have it shipped to their home.

Oregon and America have barriers to illegal gun buying and ownership to keep weapons away from people who have demonstrated that they can’t be trusted with them. Similar barriers should apply to ammunition. A spousal abuser who has been denied the right to own a firearm shouldn’t be allowed to buy ammo. What use could he possibly have for bullets, unless he’s acquired a gun illegally?

In California, he wouldn’t be allowed to under new ammunition laws. Background checks for ammo will take place. Internet sales are prohibited. And sales records go into a database, just as they do for gun sales.

What did I tell you?

Now, we’ve talked about the pointlessness of California’s ammo control–a law that I’ll bet money will have zero effect on crime, I might add–but just like that, we already see people trying to import the idea to other states. We see that a bad idea that threatens our liberty isn’t anything to take lightly. Someone will look at it and think, “That’s a hell of an idea.”

I do believe we’re going to start seeing more and more ammunition control proposals pop up all over the country. Anti-gun states will happily adopt the new regulations while pro-gun states will steadfastly refuse to do any such thing. It’ll start showing up in the halls of Congress as anti-gun legislators use the bill to virtue signal to their anti-gun constituents, but if we’re not very careful, it’ll pass.

That’s not good for anyone.

On paper, it may sound like a great idea, but if bad guys already barred from getting guns are still able to get them, then why in the hell would ammunition be any different?

Then again, these are the people who get outraged when someone is found to have a hundred rounds of ammunition! We look at that same number and think things like, “Alright, so what? He had a couple of boxes of ammo. Big deal. I’ve got more than that in some calibers I don’t even have guns for.”

Yet they vote, they consider themselves sufficiently informed on the issue to have a valid opinion, and we’re going to have to deal with them.

Personally, I’d rather we start beating them in California or Massachusetts than having to wait until the idea has gone viral.