Biden bans russian ammo

JohnKSa said:
I don't think the consumers are going to benefit from this, but the domestic ammo manufacturers probably will--at least for a while until imports start coming in from other countries to replace the Russian stuff.
Click to expand...

jrinne0430 said:
^^agree^^ I see more demand being placed on the other manufactures resulting less inventory and higher prices.
Click to expand...
Possible.

Consider the potential flip side. The reason American manufacturers haven't responded to this ammo shortage by adding capacity (meaning more square feet and more machines, as opposed to just increasing hours and/or adding shifts) is that during the previous big shortage they did expand capacity -- and then the ammo panic evaporated and they were stuck with excess capacity they didn't need but still had to pay for. More than one company has stated on the record that they don't want to do that again, so they will build as much ammo as they can using their existing facilities, but that this time around they won't expand physical capacity.

Perhaps the elimination of a large(-ish) component of import competition might provide sufficient incentive to convince some of the American ammo makers that it is safe to invest in expanding physical capacity.
 
I would imagine that the ammo Manufacturers are and will still be Running scared to expand. We have 3 1/2 years of Biden mess to contend with. Nothing is safe for their investment. Actually nothing safe period. Biden and staff have made it well known they are out to destroy he 2nd Amendment. Ammo manufactures are taking his word at this. Why wouldn't they?

BIDEN BAN-
 
Political international sanctions aside this recent ban reeks of the left and anti-gunner tactics to incrementally chip away at 2A rights: slowly outlaw all forms of ammo in in an attempt to make all existing guns non-operable. Mission accomplished.
 
Here is a link https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/sam-gabbert-of-sgammo-on-the-status-of-russian-ammo.893919/of SGAmmo’s response to a THR member on the potential affects of the band.

From what I understand, the USA commercial market consumes around 800,000,000 rounds of ammunition from Russia every year...The calibers we believe will be most effected are soviet metric calibers like 7.62x39, 5.45x39, and 7.62x54R because there is almost zero available manufacturing capacity for these calibers outside of Russia...
Click to expand...
 
I’ve been selling to ammo makers for almost 30 years. They are running 24/7 and they are expanding. War is always in the back of the decision makers minds. Remember back when you couldn’t get 9mm and 5.56 due to it going to our brave men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Russia ammo was good in that it kept prices down. If the market is allowed to function normally, U. S. Makers will make up the difference and gladly.
 
this recent ban reeks of the left and anti-gunner tactics to incrementally chip away at 2A rights: slowly outlaw all forms of ammo in in an attempt to make all existing guns non-operable.
Click to expand...

While I agree that seems to be their plan, I would caution you about lumping everything firearms related under our "2nd Amendment rights".

Regulating or even banning imports doesn't affect our rights, only our wants, and one should remember that authority has belonged to the government as long as we have had a government.

Remember the boy who cried "Wolf!"
 
44 AMP said:
....I would caution you about lumping everything firearms related under our "2nd Amendment rights". ...
Click to expand...

Retired guy here with little to do so I'm just spouting off. Thought some time back it odd that we have an "unalienable right" to own guns. I believe the intent of the 2nd Amendment is we have an "unalienable right" to protect /defend that which we value. If laser blasters were the most efficient and available tool when the 2nd was written we would be fighting for our laser blaster rights. A rancher's 2A rights down on the Arizona border may be better served with a string of Claymores and a couple M60's.
So many questions with no answers. Who determines he's a paranoid nut job and shouldn't have the tools he deems necessary?
I apologize for my soap box. I'm sure this topic has already been discussed ad nauseam.
 
jdc606 said:
Retired guy here with little to do so I'm just spouting off. Thought some time back it odd that we have an "unalienable right" to own guns. I believe the intent of the 2nd Amendment is we have an "unalienable right" to protect /defend that which we value.
Click to expand...

Devil's advocate here.

2A said:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...
I do not see the word "unalienable" anywhere in the Second Amendment.

The word "unalienable" does not come from the Second Amendment, it does not come from the Bill of Rights, and it does not come from the Constitution. It comes from the Declaration of Independence:

Declaration said:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Click to expand...
The Declaration of Independence was a much more general, philosophical statement than the Constitution. It's difficult enough to explain the 2A to, and defend it against, people who don't want to believe what it says. Please don't make it more difficult by adding in language that isn't there.

Secondly, the 2A does not say that we have a right (unalienable or not) to protect anything. On its face, it says we have a right to keep and bear arms. That's ALL it says. To get at the reasons why the Founders put the RKBA into the Bill of Rights you have to do some research, and find the writings of the influential members of the constitutional convention on the topic. The 2A itself does not say anything about what we are allowed to do with the right to keep and bear arms.
 
"Last week ******* Biden:mad: signed an Executive Order effectively banning the import of Russian ammunition. Listen as we talk to Charlie Brown, President of MKS Supply and the importer to Barnaul Steel-Case Ammunition, as he discusses the reason behind the ban and its effect on everyday U.S. shooters. He and Host Brent T. Wheat also talk about the myths and misconceptions of steel ammo, which currently comprises 35% of all U.S. ammo sold."

I do not care how you call it. 35% is a devastating hit. Especially when 2A folks are already BLEEDING! And forget the Biden LIE that this was about anything else, BUT going after 2A.:mad:
Listen to the PODCAST

https://gunsmagazine.com/podcast/banned-russian-ammo-gmp-95/

Listen to podcast with Barnaul ammo.
 
Last edited:
You guys don't get it, do you? Much of what Biden does has a Hunter/China connection.

Biden closed Afghanistan so China can go in and make a ton of money off their resources.

Do you want to bet the Chinese will start getting awarded infrastructure projects?

Biden restricts Russian ammo; just wait, Chinese ammo will probably replace those demands, just give it time.

The Big Guy gets his 10% cut off the top.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
Devil's advocate here.


I do not see the word "unalienable" anywhere in the Second Amendment.

The word "unalienable" does not come from the Second Amendment, it does not come from the Bill of Rights, and it does not come from the Constitution. It comes from the Declaration of Independence:


The Declaration of Independence was a much more general, philosophical statement than the Constitution. It's difficult enough to explain the 2A to, and defend it against, people who don't want to believe what it says. Please don't make it more difficult by adding in language that isn't there.

Secondly, the 2A does not say that we have a right (unalienable or not) to protect anything. On its face, it says we have a right to keep and bear arms. That's ALL it says. To get at the reasons why the Founders put the RKBA into the Bill of Rights you have to do some research, and find the writings of the influential members of the constitutional convention on the topic. The 2A itself does not say anything about what we are allowed to do with the right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Yeah, the meaning of keep and bear arms means that you get to have a flintlock musket above your fireplace. If you don't have a fireplace, you're out of luck.
 
Well, here the main problem a simple difference of opinion about what a "right" entails. There are people who believe that if you can have a gun, of some kind, then your right to keep and bear arms is not being violated.

I think those of us here would disagree with that line of reasoning, and I believe our Founders did as well. Just read what they wrote, directly, and not through any "modern" filter and its clear.

TO be precise, the Bill of Rights is about rights, but it grants no rights. Not one. It is a list of restrictions on what the government can do regarding SOME of the rights of citizens, and it also specifically states that citizens have rights not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

Our rights are our rights not because any paper says they are, nor do they exist because some government allows them. They exist because we do.

If you don't care for the term "God given" or "Endowed by the Creator" then use the other term that was common in the days of our Founders, call them "Natural rights".

I look at the ammo ban a little differently than many here seem to. Its a ban on a foreign made, imported product. This is not an attack on our right to arms, it is an attack on our right to free choice in the marketplace.

Its a royal pain in the rear, its going to cost people money and some people will lose jobs and some companies may go away and that's the breaks. Its a risk everyone who deals in or is a consumer of foreign products.

Consider this, if the President had banned importation of ammunition made in Russia 50 years ago, who would have cared??

Damn few.

With the fall of the Soviet Union we got access to low cost ammo, that we previously could not get. We like low cost, and we went for it in a fairly big way. Now, we're used to having it, and its going away. That alone makes us grumpy, but its not a direct attack on our rights, its an attack on our enjoyment of shooting through our wallets.

yes it absolutely is an anti-gun move. Just not a direct legal threat to our actual rights, as I see it.

You're welcome to disagree.
 
JohnKSa said:
Clinton banned most Chinese ammo imports (as well as most Chinese small arms imports) over Tianenmen Square. Those bans are still in effect.

Obama banned some Russian ammo imports (and some Russian small arms imports) over the Russian actions in the Ukraine. Those bans are still in effect.

Biden has now banned any remaining Russian ammo/small arms imports that were still allowed under the Obama action.

These actions do have an effect on supply and therefore on prices. It's hard to know what the long term effect will be since imports from other countries could replace the lost supply and U.S. ammunition manufacturers will likely increase production capabilities if they perceive a permanent change in demand.

It's interesting to note, however, that the U.S. no longer has the capability to turn lead ore into lead metal. EPA restrictions made it infeasible to maintain smelting operations in the U.S. and the last smelter operating in the U.S. closed down in 2013.

Assuming that the same amount of ammo is purchased and used in the U.S., then any of that new supply that isn't from imports will be met by U.S. ammo makers. That would mean an increase in lead use/demand in the U.S. and since we don't have our own lead production, that means imports of lead would increase.

I guess what I'm saying is that however the lost supply is replaced, it's going to require imports--either to replace the manufactured ammo, or to bring in more lead for use in U.S. ammo production.
Click to expand...
When you say that Biden banned Russian ammo and weapons, do you mean the importation has been stopped? Russian ammo and weapons are still readily available, although very expensive.
 
As I think was mentioned previously, the ban applies to new contracts. Since there are still many existing contracts that haven't yet expired or been fulfilled, we won't begin to experience any shortages that may (or may not) arise due to this until most of those contracts run out.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
As I think was mentioned previously, the ban applies to new contracts. Since there are still many existing contracts that haven't yet expired or been fulfilled, we won't begin to experience any shortages that may (or may not) arise due to this until most of those contracts run out.
Click to expand...
Got it.
Thanks. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top