PDA

View Full Version : Aurora victim's family suing ammo supplyer. Right or wrong?



garhkal
09-17-2014, 08:58 PM
Yesterday i heard on the news that some of the families of victims of the Aurora Colorado theater shooting, were attempting to sue the online store that supplied the ammo, body armor and magazines (as well as teargas grenades).

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-aurora-shooting-guns-20140916-story.html

http://www.wisn.com/national/parents-of-aurora-victim-sues-ammo-sellers/28098082

http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2014/09/16/theater-shooting-victims-parents-sue-ammo-seller

http://www.kktv.com/home/headlines/Theater-Shooting-Victims-Parents-Sue-Ammo-Seller-275312681.html

While i may see a point in regards to the 100 round magazine being sold, does this not open up the gate for people to say sue Target.com or walmart.com cause someone bought ammo/guns from them, and shot up a place? What about those online pharmacies who let people get prescription medications without needing a doctors prescription note/form? Should people be allowed to sue those places cause their family member got addicted to meds, or suffered pain/issues from allergies to the medication or side effects?

When i hear of things like this, my mind goes back to a great film with John Cusack and Gene Hackman, Runaway jury. Where Cusack is a friend of a victim of a school shooting trying to sabotage a jury in a lawsuit against gun makers, for not background checking people better before letting their guns get sold.

What's everyone else's thoughts?

sandsjames
09-17-2014, 09:03 PM
Yesterday i heard on the news that some of the families of victims of the Aurora Colorado theater shooting, were attempting to sue the online store that supplied the ammo, body armor and magazines (as well as teargas grenades).

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-aurora-shooting-guns-20140916-story.html

http://www.wisn.com/national/parents-of-aurora-victim-sues-ammo-sellers/28098082

http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2014/09/16/theater-shooting-victims-parents-sue-ammo-seller

http://www.kktv.com/home/headlines/Theater-Shooting-Victims-Parents-Sue-Ammo-Seller-275312681.html

While i may see a point in regards to the 100 round magazine being sold, does this not open up the gate for people to say sue Target.com or walmart.com cause someone bought ammo/guns from them, and shot up a place? What about those online pharmacies who let people get prescription medications without needing a doctors prescription note/form? Should people be allowed to sue those places cause their family member got addicted to meds, or suffered pain/issues from allergies to the medication or side effects?

When i hear of things like this, my mind goes back to a great film with John Cusack and Gene Hackman, Runaway jury. Where Cusack is a friend of a victim of a school shooting trying to sabotage a jury in a lawsuit against gun makers, for not background checking people better before letting their guns get sold.

What's everyone else's thoughts?

I'm not sure where to draw the line. I will say this...the ammo store is not responsible for the shootings. I'll also say this, though...could they have raised a flag? If someone buys all of the components to make a bomb from a single location, I believe the store owner has some sort of responsibility to pass the info on to law enforcement.

Should the ammo shop have to pay? Not at all. It's just the family's way of trying to cope, I guess. There always has to be someone to blame other than the actual assailant.

efmbman
09-17-2014, 10:52 PM
If the laws of the state in which the buyer resides are being broken, the seller has the obligation to act. Otherwise, no. Not everyone that purchases ammo and gun-related items is felon waiting to strike. I live in the Peoples Democratic Republic of Connecticut and I have to email in my drivers license and permit with each purchase I make online. Too easy.

garhkal
09-18-2014, 05:33 AM
Never heard Connecticut called that before. Heard it about the people republic of Virgina!

And i agree, unless we start allowing online sellers access to criminal records and medical records to see who is potentially going to flip out, we ain't going to stop this.

efmbman
09-18-2014, 12:02 PM
Never heard Connecticut called that before. Heard it about the people republic of Virgina!

And i agree, unless we start allowing online sellers access to criminal records and medical records to see who is potentially going to flip out, we ain't going to stop this.

I do not support allowing online sellers access to criminal records and / or medical records. That is a gross invasion of privacy by a commercial entity. The states can (apparently) impose whatever restrictions they wish on their citizens, so it is the state that must screen the customers. If I have a license / permit from Connecticut, then I am good to go.

To date, I have only found one online seller willing to do business with me. Most end the conversation once I tell them I live in Connecticut. I explain that I have all the required permits and licenses, but to no avail. It is almost as if the sellers are punishing the people of CT in the hopes that will cause us to force change in the law. No chance... not after "Sandy Hook". So, like many before me, I will vote with my feet.

garhkal
09-18-2014, 10:03 PM
That sucks. Guess CT is going on my list of states to not bother living in.

Stalwart
09-19-2014, 03:22 PM
Yesterday i heard on the news that some of the families of victims of the Aurora Colorado theater shooting, were attempting to sue the online store that supplied the ammo, body armor and magazines (as well as teargas grenades).

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-aurora-shooting-guns-20140916-story.html

http://www.wisn.com/national/parents-of-aurora-victim-sues-ammo-sellers/28098082

http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2014/09/16/theater-shooting-victims-parents-sue-ammo-seller

http://www.kktv.com/home/headlines/Theater-Shooting-Victims-Parents-Sue-Ammo-Seller-275312681.html

While i may see a point in regards to the 100 round magazine being sold, does this not open up the gate for people to say sue Target.com or walmart.com cause someone bought ammo/guns from them, and shot up a place? What about those online pharmacies who let people get prescription medications without needing a doctors prescription note/form? Should people be allowed to sue those places cause their family member got addicted to meds, or suffered pain/issues from allergies to the medication or side effects?

When i hear of things like this, my mind goes back to a great film with John Cusack and Gene Hackman, Runaway jury. Where Cusack is a friend of a victim of a school shooting trying to sabotage a jury in a lawsuit against gun makers, for not background checking people better before letting their guns get sold.

What's everyone else's thoughts?

If the ammunition supplier was operating within the law, then they should be held accountable. If they were operating within the law, and someone uses their product to break the law I don't see why we should hold them accountable or be angry with them per se; if I buy a baseball bat at Target, then use it to assault and kill someone is Target also liable? Granted, the general purpose of bullets is to produce bodily harm (whether in an offensive or defensive role.) If the state wishes to apply a screening or permit to buy ammunition, that is for the state to decide.

Also, yes if you came into my store and purchased everything you needed to buy a bomb you may get my attention. At an online retailer it may or may not be the same warehouse worker filling that order; and his/her understanding of what creates a danger may not be the same (a gun expert is a gun expert, a stocker is a stocker.) Is it the company's job to screen orders for possible 'ingredient lists' ... I don't really think it is legally. It is morally ... don't know.

TJMAC77SP
09-19-2014, 03:53 PM
I do not support allowing online sellers access to criminal records and / or medical records. That is a gross invasion of privacy by a commercial entity. The states can (apparently) impose whatever restrictions they wish on their citizens, so it is the state that must screen the customers. If I have a license / permit from Connecticut, then I am good to go.

To date, I have only found one online seller willing to do business with me. Most end the conversation once I tell them I live in Connecticut. I explain that I have all the required permits and licenses, but to no avail. It is almost as if the sellers are punishing the people of CT in the hopes that will cause us to force change in the law. No chance... not after "Sandy Hook". So, like many before me, I will vote with my feet.

CT's responses (along with almost everyone else's) was simple knee jerking. The single initial focus was on the killer's use of a Bushmaster 'assault weapon' as if without that this tragedy wouldn't have happened. Anyone claiming that is the worst kind of fiend and says it while standing on the graves of 27 kids (yes, I engaged in a bit of hyperbole). The Virginia Tech shooter used two pistols, a .22 caliber and a 9mm. Using the same logic, shouldn't those be banned as well? What if there was a total gun ban in the US? Would that have prevented these attacks? You still have a bent individual determined to hurt people. While removing the most 'effective' tool for killing certainly might reduce the casualty numbers (would 10 children killed with a machete have been more palatable?) no one can legitimately guarantee any proposed gun ban would prevent anything (when speaking of these types of attacks).

I am no fan of the ownership of an assault weapon. I simply don't get the appeal of owning one. However, banning them with not "keep our children safe" as was claimed. These arguments are disingenuous at best.

The role that the mental health system played in the Sandy Hook shooting wasn't seriously mentioned until 6 months after the incident (probably because it was mentioned in the various investigative reports produced). We won't see any real reform there either because the answer is mandatory reporting and the AMA will never back that.

I am not sure that I even support that but I do know that I hate to see these type situations blamed on peripheral issues. It started with the Columbine shootings. Evidently that happened because the shooters played Doom. Well I played Doom and never had the (real) urge to shoot anyone because of it. These were bent kids. When I was a kid there was a story of another kid who jumped off the roof wearing a homemade cape of some sort because he watched the Superman TV show. Well, I loved that show and used to jump off the back of the couch while wearing my bathrobe as a cape. I didn't jump off the roof because I knew that it would frapping kill me..........I wasn't bent. It wasn't the fault of the TV show is my point.

garhkal
09-19-2014, 06:53 PM
Evidently that happened because the shooters played Doom. Well I played Doom and never had the (real) urge to shoot anyone because of it. These were bent kids. When I was a kid there was a story of another kid who jumped off the roof wearing a homemade cape of some sort because he watched the Superman TV show. Well, I loved that show and used to jump off the back of the couch while wearing my bathrobe as a cape. I didn't jump off the roof because I knew that it would frapping kill me..........I wasn't bent. It wasn't the fault of the TV show is my point.

That is one of the things i feel a lot of those on the left either fail to grasp or don't want to grasp. Many millions of people played games like doom or other first person shooters. Does not mean we all want to go out and shoot people for real.

SomeRandomGuy
09-19-2014, 08:03 PM
That is one of the things i feel a lot of those on the left either fail to grasp or don't want to grasp. Many millions of people played games like doom or other first person shooters. Does not mean we all want to go out and shoot people for real.

If you are going to go after the left for their idiocy shouldn't you call out the right too? People are in jail for selling marijuana while at the same time you can legally purchase alcohol just about anywhere. Casinos and gambling are slowly gaining traction but for the longest time gambling was illgall while at the same time the state was selling Powerball tickets. At least in the various casino games you can get a probability of winning around 47%. In the freaking lottery you are looking at between 7 and 17%.

You can point fingers at the left all you want but the right does the same things. The bottom line is that laws enacted to protect people from themselves do not work and never will.

If you don't like my marijuana or gambling analogies I have one more for you. Voting rights. People on the right work just as hard to block people from voting as people on the left work to block people from owning guns. Both are rights spelled out in the constitution. The sides simply disagree on how much documentation you should have to provide to enact said right.

Chris_1991-2011
09-19-2014, 08:34 PM
Blaming things like mass/school shootings on video games is, IMHO, the easy/lame route. Rather than place blame where it likely belongs, the parents, it's easy to latch onto something easy and/or something you don't understand and say it's the reason for what happened. It reminds me of groups like Ozzy and Judas Priest being sued back in the 80's because some young person committed suicide, and they either were fans and listened often, or the music was playing when they did it. Anyone that thinks people can be influenced by video games, music, etc. to commit heinous/tragic acts is, IMHO, rather foolish/stupid. If a person is found to have been influenced by video games, music, etc. after committing a monstrous act, there was (likely) something wrong with them to begin with, and if a video game, song, etc. hadn't caused them to lose it, something else would have.

Without reading the above linked articles, I don't see how the family has any leg to stand on. My heart goes out to them, but this suit seems like it's either an attempt for money, to hold someone accountable, and/or an attempt to push some sort of anti-gun position (for understandable reasons having lost a loved one). As has been said, after someone purchases an item and uses the item for things the item was not designed or intended for, you can't hold the company liable. I hope the family gets some measure of peace, closure, justice, etc. for their loss, but it won't be gained from this suit.

Measure Man
09-19-2014, 08:56 PM
Rather than place blame where it likely belongs, the parents,

Another cop out, IMO. Just like many can say, "well, I played Dune and never killed anyone", many people can say they have bad parents and never killed anyone.

To say this is all the parents' fault is to say there is no such thing as mental illness.

Or...it would be like saying a child has cancer, it's the parents fault.

Mental illness is a real thing...and there is often very little the family can do about it. Heck, a lot of these families see a tragedy coming and there is still very little they can do about it. It's easy for people to say "get them help"...but guess what? There is no help out there. The best you can do is lock them up for a few days against their will...counseling, psychatrists, psychotherapists...not super effective, and are only effective at all if the subject is really interested in getting better.


it's easy to latch onto something easy and/or something you don't understand and say it's the reason for what happened. It reminds me of groups like Ozzy and Judas Priest being sued back in the 80's because some young person committed suicide, and they either were fans and listened often, or the music was playing when they did it. Anyone that thinks people can be influenced by video games, music, etc. to commit heinous/tragic acts is, IMHO, rather foolish/stupid.

Influenced? That's a pretty broad word...yes, I think people can be influenced by music and video games. I think it rather foolish/stupid to think they do not have any influence.


If a person is found to have been influenced by video games, music, etc. after committing a monstrous act, there was (likely) something wrong with them to begin with, and if a video game, song, etc. hadn't caused them to lose it, something else would have.

Now, you are getting closer. These are VERY difficult issues and there is no good answer.


Without reading the above linked articles, I don't see how the family has any leg to stand on. My heart goes out to them, but this suit seems like it's either an attempt for money, to hold someone accountable

Well, those are really the reasons for any lawsuit...what else would be a valid reason for a lawsuit?


, and/or an attempt to push some sort of anti-gun position (for understandable reasons having lost a loved one). As has been said, after someone purchases an item and uses the item for things the item was not designed or intended for, you can't hold the company liable. I hope the family gets some measure of peace, closure, justice, etc. for their loss, but it won't be gained from this suit.

Unfortunately, with the doctrine of joint and several liability, they only have to be found 1% at fault and can be forced to pay for the entire amount of damages. The tendency of the jury is going to be to find them at least 1% at fault.

Rainmaker
09-19-2014, 09:12 PM
If you are going to go after the left for their idiocy shouldn't you call out the right too? People are in jail for selling marijuana while at the same time you can legally purchase alcohol just about anywhere. Casinos and gambling are slowly gaining traction but for the longest time gambling was illgall while at the same time the state was selling Powerball tickets. At least in the various casino games you can get a probability of winning around 47%. In the freaking lottery you are looking at between 7 and 17%.

You can point fingers at the left all you want but the right does the same things. The bottom line is that laws enacted to protect people from themselves do not work and never will.

If you don't like my marijuana or gambling analogies I have one more for you. Voting rights. People on the right work just as hard to block people from voting as people on the left work to block people from owning guns. Both are rights spelled out in the constitution. The sides simply disagree on how much documentation you should have to provide to enact said right.

Should you have to prove that your a US citizen to purchase a fire arm?

CYBERFX1024
09-19-2014, 10:28 PM
Honestly, I saw this the other day and I got mad as hell. I buy 99% of my ammo online, hell I just bought 1k rounds of ammo yesterday for my AK. Does that make me crazy? No. Does that mean I am doing it Illegally? No, at least not yet according to CA state law.

TJMAC77SP
09-19-2014, 11:02 PM
If you are going to go after the left for their idiocy shouldn't you call out the right too? People are in jail for selling marijuana while at the same time you can legally purchase alcohol just about anywhere. Casinos and gambling are slowly gaining traction but for the longest time gambling was illgall while at the same time the state was selling Powerball tickets. At least in the various casino games you can get a probability of winning around 47%. In the freaking lottery you are looking at between 7 and 17%.

You can point fingers at the left all you want but the right does the same things. The bottom line is that laws enacted to protect people from themselves do not work and never will.

If you don't like my marijuana or gambling analogies I have one more for you. Voting rights. People on the right work just as hard to block people from voting as people on the left work to block people from owning guns. Both are rights spelled out in the constitution. The sides simply disagree on how much documentation you should have to provide to enact said right.

You start with a good premise.........both sides employ idiocy in their fringe arguments but then give examples that are fraught with logic fallacies.

Whatever your arguments about drug laws, pot is still illegal in most states and in violation of federal law. Use the ballot box to change that.

Slot machines actually pay out much more that you cited but I don't understand how you tie any of that to Dems alone. You know Harry Reid is from Nevada right?

I have still never seen a definitive explanation of how voter ID laws prevent a particular demographic (minorities) from voting. I have read the claim over and over again but haven't seen an explanation of why the allegation is true. Anti-gun people would like to see guns banned. Not simply restricted. They settle for restriction.

TJMAC77SP
09-19-2014, 11:06 PM
Another cop out, IMO. Just like many can say, "well, I played Dune and never killed anyone", many people can say they have bad parents and never killed anyone.

To say this is all the parents' fault is to say there is no such thing as mental illness.

Or...it would be like saying a child has cancer, it's the parents fault.

Mental illness is a real thing...and there is often very little the family can do about it. Heck, a lot of these families see a tragedy coming and there is still very little they can do about it. It's easy for people to say "get them help"...but guess what? There is no help out there. The best you can do is lock them up for a few days against their will...counseling, psychatrists, psychotherapists...not super effective, and are only effective at all if the subject is really interested in getting better.



Influenced? That's a pretty broad word...yes, I think people can be influenced by music and video games. I think it rather foolish/stupid to think they do not have any influence.



Now, you are getting closer. These are VERY difficult issues and there is no good answer.



Well, those are really the reasons for any lawsuit...what else would be a valid reason for a lawsuit?



Unfortunately, with the doctrine of joint and several liability, they only have to be found 1% at fault and can be forced to pay for the entire amount of damages. The tendency of the jury is going to be to find them at least 1% at fault.

I always suspect the simplest answers are just too simple. I agree that bad parenting alone is not at fault for these situations. They could and probably do play a role to some degree in some but the problem is more complicated than that. We seem to like to be able to answer these kinds of situations with a quip. "It's because they played Doom", "It's the parents fault", "The guns are too easy to get".....

efmbman
09-20-2014, 12:09 AM
Honestly, I saw this the other day and I got mad as hell. I buy 99% of my ammo online, hell I just bought 1k rounds of ammo yesterday for my AK. Does that make me crazy? No. Does that mean I am doing it Illegally? No, at least not yet according to CA state law.

It probably got you on someone's watch list, though. Right under my name.

MrMiracle
09-20-2014, 01:51 AM
Filing with the court is simply a way to bring people to the negotiating table and make a splash with the public. The lawyers know this won't make it past the first appeal, but they're more than happy to take the victim's money.

garhkal
09-20-2014, 07:54 PM
If you are going to go after the left for their idiocy shouldn't you call out the right too? People are in jail for selling marijuana while at the same time you can legally purchase alcohol just about anywhere. Casinos and gambling are slowly gaining traction but for the longest time gambling was illgall while at the same time the state was selling Powerball tickets. At least in the various casino games you can get a probability of winning around 47%. In the freaking lottery you are looking at between 7 and 17%.

I agree on the issue of the powerball/casinos. Why is one form of gambling ok, while the other not?
BUT as to the MJ and beer, one is a legal product, the other is not. Now if more states legalize it, then i would like to see the laws changed to where selling MJ does not get you jail time.



I have still never seen a definitive explanation of how voter ID laws prevent a particular demographic (minorities) from voting. I have read the claim over and over again but haven't seen an explanation of why the allegation is true. Anti-gun people would like to see guns banned. Not simply restricted. They settle for restriction.

Those against voter id laws (usually those on the left) seem to always harp on the "it will negatively impact minorities" cause they feel minorities are the least likely to have proper photo ID. BUT if that's the case, how do they collect welfare, pay bills, buy beer/smokes, enter any govt building (such as the local DMV, courts etc), etc.

MikeKerriii
09-21-2014, 06:33 PM
Filing with the court is simply a way to bring people to the negotiating table and make a splash with the public. The lawyers know this won't make it past the first appeal, but they're more than happy to take the victim's money.

that is why we need real penalties for frivolous law-suits, against the Lawyers

garhkal
09-21-2014, 07:57 PM
that is why we need real penalties for frivolous law-suits, against the Lawyers

And the judges who allow them to waist tax payer time in court!

socal1200r
09-22-2014, 02:27 PM
Some judge with common sense should immediately toss this lawsuit as being frivolous and without merit, and fine the lawyers for filing it in the first place. But oh no, I'm sure this will wind its way thru the court system, with the online retailers being forced to spend thousands of dollars defending themselves from something that was legal in the first place.

Stalwart
09-22-2014, 03:46 PM
Actually, I think the case should be heard and adjudicated. Let it run its full course and get a judgment. Hopefully it will establish a precedent that a business is not responsible for the illegal use of a product that is legally purchased/obtained from said business. Then at that point, there is a legal backing to further establish that individuals are responsible for their illegal actions.

Yes, it will cost the defendants up front, but in the long run it is likely to be worth it.

garhkal
09-22-2014, 09:08 PM
How many other lawsuits have been taken out against gun makers and such in the past though where it WAS decided back then that they are not responsible for what criminals do with their products. Is that not setting the precedent?

socal1200r
09-25-2014, 02:20 PM
Isn't this similar to an overweight person suing the utensil maker? Or the illiterate person suing the pencil maker? The fork didn't make the person fat, nor did the pencil make the person illiterate. And people wonder why lawyers don't fare well on surveys of jobs that are held in high esteem...

Stalwart
09-25-2014, 02:30 PM
Isn't this similar to an overweight person suing the utensil maker? Or the illiterate person suing the pencil maker? The fork didn't make the person fat, nor did the pencil make the person illiterate. And people wonder why lawyers don't fare well on surveys of jobs that are held in high esteem...

In a way, yeah. An overweight person who uses a fork as it intended and gets fat is also (at least physically) only harming themselves.

Someone who buys ammunition is also using the ammunition as intended (I don't think the real intent of bullets is just target practice); but by killing someone you are using the bullet to break the law.

IMO, the trigger puller is still responsible and should be held accountable, the difference between the two examples is that the trigger puller has also now harmed someone else -- but again -- via an illegal act. But I would agree that asking ammunition distributors to screen customers for mental illness or potential for violence is also a reach.

A medium I could see would be requiring a license to purchase guns or ammo, that is somehow tied to database of people who are not eligible to purchase guns or ammo due to felony conviction, mental illness (if it is legal in that state to purchase said items based on mental health qualifiers) etc. Absent that license number, you would not be eligible. I am not sure if that would run afoul of the 2d amendment or not in court; but it does seem more reasonable to let the states determine the eligibility, let the distributor know the method they will communicate that eligibility and march on vice holding a commercial distributor accountable for what they "should have known" in spite of operating within the current law.

MikeKerriii
09-25-2014, 03:56 PM
Actually, I think the case should be heard and adjudicated. Let it run its full course and get a judgment. Hopefully it will establish a precedent that a business is not responsible for the illegal use of a product that is legally purchased/obtained from said business. Then at that point, there is a legal backing to further establish that individuals are responsible for their illegal actions.

Yes, it will cost the defendants up front, but in the long run it is likely to be worth it.

That allows thugs for harm anyone that doesn't have enough money to cover the costs of a frivolous law suit

Stalwart
09-25-2014, 04:38 PM
That allows thugs for harm anyone that doesn't have enough money to cover the costs of a frivolous law suit

I don't follow you. I am saying rather than throw it out, let the case be heard and set a legal precedent (some of which exist in certain cases already) If there is already precedent on the merits that preclude a lawsuit, then it will stop there. In some cases the business even now can go back to people who file frivolous litigation, but in general businesses do on some level have to spend money to defend themselves in order to stay in business ... the cost of doing business.

garhkal
09-25-2014, 11:44 PM
A medium I could see would be requiring a license to purchase guns or ammo, that is somehow tied to database of people who are not eligible to purchase guns or ammo due to felony conviction, mental illness (if it is legal in that state to purchase said items based on mental health qualifiers) etc. Absent that license number, you would not be eligible. I am not sure if that would run afoul of the 2d amendment or not in court; but it does seem more reasonable to let the states determine the eligibility, let the distributor know the method they will communicate that eligibility and march on vice holding a commercial distributor accountable for what they "should have known" in spite of operating within the current law.

And how do you prevent cross country ammo purchases like can happen now on the internet? Would those sellers need to have access to every state's database?

Stalwart
09-25-2014, 11:54 PM
I am not sure, it was a passing thought; but yes under that idea some type of access to a listing of legit licenses [edit:] or those disqualified from ownership would be needed. I am not overly sure on how the interstate commerce clause effects this issue with the shipment of ammunition across state lines, but it possibly leaves open the involvement of the federal government.

garhkal
09-26-2014, 07:54 AM
The thing i can't understand is i thought you couldn't ship ammo in the mail anyway? So how do interstate sellers get by that?

socal1200r
09-26-2014, 02:50 PM
The thing i can't understand is i thought you couldn't ship ammo in the mail anyway? So how do interstate sellers get by that?

That's not correct. I've bought all kinds of ammo online, from out of state retailers. There are some states like CA where certain retailers won't ship, or won't ship certain calibers, but the interstate shipment of ammo is allowed.

TJMAC77SP
09-26-2014, 03:56 PM
That's not correct. I've bought all kinds of ammo online, from out of state retailers. There are some states like CA where certain retailers won't ship, or won't ship certain calibers, but the interstate shipment of ammo is allowed.

I think the USPS will not transport ammo so its' left to UPS and FEDEX. Am I correct?

socal1200r
09-26-2014, 05:44 PM
I think the USPS will not transport ammo so its' left to UPS and FEDEX. Am I correct?

That's probably a true statement. I'm pretty sure all my ammo deliveries were done by UPS, and my Remington 700 heavy barrel that I had to send back for a trigger recall had to be sent via FedEx. I don't think USPS will handle complete firearms or ammo, maybe just parts?

CYBERFX1024
09-26-2014, 05:46 PM
I think the USPS will not transport ammo so its' left to UPS and FEDEX. Am I correct?

Yes, you are correct. When I buy ammo online they have to ship either by UPS or Fedex no USPS. So it's an added 30-40 dollars for a 1k rounds.

CYBERFX1024
09-26-2014, 05:47 PM
The thing i can't understand is i thought you couldn't ship ammo in the mail anyway? So how do interstate sellers get by that?

You can if you use FEDEX or UPS. No USPS.

CYBERFX1024
09-26-2014, 05:48 PM
That's not correct. I've bought all kinds of ammo online, from out of state retailers. There are some states like CA where certain retailers won't ship, or won't ship certain calibers, but the interstate shipment of ammo is allowed.

I have shipped 7.62x39 and .40 ammunition here to California with no problem.

garhkal
09-26-2014, 06:14 PM
That makes no sense to me. If the postal service is unable to deliver ammo, how can UPS/Fed ex bypass the regulations?

sandsjames
09-26-2014, 06:19 PM
That makes no sense to me. If the postal service is unable to deliver ammo, how can UPS/Fed ex bypass the regulations?

Same reason that UPS/FEX EX are allowed to ship many things that the post office isn't. They are regulated differently.

efmbman
09-26-2014, 08:08 PM
The thing i can't understand is i thought you couldn't ship ammo in the mail anyway? So how do interstate sellers get by that?

The majority of the websites have a smaller window with the question: Can we ship to you? You enter your zip code and get the answer. After speaking with a rep from these websites, it is just as likely that they CHOOSE not to ship to you instead of it being a legal issue. CT has no such restrictions regarding online purchase, but a few ammo suppliers are boycotting CT in the hopes that it will spark the residents to get the draconian gun laws overturned. Fat chance of that...

Rainmaker
10-04-2014, 09:03 PM
http://www.gunbot.net/ammo/rimfire/22wmr/
hedge accordingly