The 2nd say nothing about ammo. The staff attorney is absolutely right. Ammo is every bit as deadly as cold medicine used for meth, there is no reason one should be able to order ammo over the Internet and have it delivered right to your door.

Republicans are found of the saying a "few bad apples" etc etc. Well this is a case where a "few bad apples" have made it necessary to make procurement of these items harder to do. As for the talking point that the"bad guys" won't obey the laws that's a red herring, we have lots of laws and there are always going to be people that ignore them that does mean we should not have them.

registering ammo with the dealer was part of the Gun Control Act. Your DL info, lot number of the ammo, and caliber. It was ditched in 1986, even the ATF said it was a waste of time then.
Actually, the 2d does say ammo. It is part of arms.

Ammunition has been considered part of "arms" as far as legal issues for decades. So "stop trying to be too cute by half" as the Appellate court told the City of Chicago when it tried to ban ammo and shooting ranges in the city limits.

The material required to exercise a constitutional right is intrinsic to that right. See Minneapolis Star Tribune vs. County Assessor, over excessive taxing on printers ink. It wont fly any more than any outright ban will pass legal muster.

It will just mean Cali will be writing a big check to the NRA, SAF and anybody else that gets in on the suit for at minimum 7 figures for legal fees.

But I'm sure the two shooters would have obeyed this new law because it's so special and creative, while walking past several "no guns allowed" signs to commit multiple murders.