Friday, April 26, 2013
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Congressman Frank Lucas (R-OK-3) introduced in their respective chambers the Ammunition Management for More Obtainability (AMMO) Act of 2013 on Friday. The legislation would require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a report on the purchasing of ammunition by federal agencies, except the Department of Defense, and its effect on the supply of ammunition available to the public. The AMMO Act would restrict agencies from obtaining additional ammunition for a six-month period if current agency stockpiles are higher than its monthly averages prior to the Obama Administration.
“President Obama has been adamant about curbing law-abiding Americans’ access and opportunities to exercise their Second Amendment rights,” said Inhofe. “One way the Obama Administration is able to do this is by limiting what’s available in the market with federal agencies purchasing unnecessary stockpiles of ammunition. As the public learned in a House committee hearing this week, the Department of Homeland Security has two years worth of ammo on hand and allots nearly 1,000 more rounds of ammunition for DHS officers than is used on average by our Army officers. The AMMO Act of 2013 will enforce transparency and accountability of federal agencies’ ammunition supply while also protecting law-abiding citizens access to these resources.”
“After hearing from my constituents about the shortage of ammunition in Oklahoma and the Department of Homeland Security’s profligate purchases of ammunition,” said Lucas. “We have introduced the AMMO Act of 2013 to curtail these purchases so Americans can exercise their Second Amendment rights without being encumbered by the federal government. I was surprised to find out the DHS has the right to buy up to 750 million rounds of ammunition over the next five years, while it already has two years worth of ammo already. This is an issue that must be addressed, and I am pleased this legislation provides us the opportunity to do so.”
If situational awareness is the skill to identify a threat, then tactical readiness deals with the advantages you’ll need to capitalize on in order to defeat an imminent attack: Things like speed, approach, tactics, and control. If a firefight cannot be avoided, wouldn’t the best time to prepare for how to act be right now?
Here are five key principles tied to the concept of tactical readiness that you should closely examine in your training sessions, remember and add to your tactical repertoire.
1. Rapid response
It’s one of the things I find myself repeating the most when I’m training students: Speed matters. Speed and distance matters, speed and draw matters, speed and set up matters, speed and accuracy matters. No matter how you look at it, the unifying theme here is speed. If speed was the ruler that the Old West gunslinger was to be judged by, very little has changed today. It all comes down to how quickly you can react and successfully perform all the little ancillary moves conspiring to slow you down. Here are a couple of examples:
How many times have you failed to take your weapon off “safe” before attempting to pull the trigger? Next time you are at the range and this happens to you, take a moment and just say to yourself “I’m dead”. On an AR style platform, for instance, shooters should rest the thumb of their shooting hand on top of the safety selector switch (yes, even for southpaws who don’t sport an ambidextrous-safety selector). Pistol shooters (who carry with the safety on) need to practice removing the safety with every round they draw and fire to the point that putting the weapon on “fire” becomes an automatic, muscle memory response.
Practicing removing the safety with each draw/shot combo will help make incorporate the motion into your muscle memory.
What about when you have to conduct an immediate action drillin the event of a misfire / failure to feed? Malfunctions need to be dealt with quickly and efficiently to get you back in the gunfight as soon as possible. Regardless of whether it’s with a semi-auto pistol, a shotgun or an AR-15, the malfunction clearance needs to happen up high, at about shoulder height.
Malfunctions and reloading should take place in the vision of the shooter, where he/she can get back on target quickly. By dropping your hands (and weapon) down low to deal with the problem, both the gun and your eyes will be taken totally off target. The half-second it takes to raise your gun and acquire the target may be your last.
2. Action v. Reaction
An action is inherently faster than a reaction, so it stands to reason that being reactive puts self-defense shooters slightly behind the power curve. This presents a bit of a paradox for the defense minded because the law of the land often demands that the victim is the reactive party. Though overzealousness can lead to serious legal consequences, there are skills that tactically ready shooters can foster that can even the playing field.
The most important of these is to spot the threat as soon as possible and this comes with developing situational awareness—that six sense or warrior’s gift that tells those in tune with their surroundings who and what to watch. But beyond identifying where and who the threat is, it’s almost just as important to have a strong grasp of your terrain and situation. An understanding of these two elements will dictate your tactics.
In support of this, remember and practice the three-foot rule. If you are facing a threat and you are 3-feet away from cover (not concealment), get there ASAP. If not, engage the threat if necessary. Shooting while moving to cover is a great option here (throwing a little firepower at an assailant will likely force him to seek cover himself) and you definitely don’t want to be OTF — Out There Flapping— all alone without cover when someone has the potential to use a gun against you.
Do not fall victim to the thinking a gunfight will be like a Mexican stand-off (seen far too often in the movies), with you and another guy standing with guns pointed at each other wondering who’ll shoot who first. Gunfights are dynamic so get to cover and know how to use your weapon well.
3. Confident attitude
The guy who succeeds against unbelievable odds has the drive to win, the will to survive and the fighting attitude that believes both. A winning attitude is a symptom of confidence and confidence is paramount to success in battle.
We develop confidence by overcoming obstacles and bad days at the range, proving to ourselves that, through discipline and focus, we can rely on our abilities to get the job done. In kind, real confidence cannot be developed without practicing things you can’t do and skills you don’t yet have.
A confident attitude essentially comes with being mentally prepared for every situation and a lot of being well prepared springs out of first hand experiences. I find this means for a lot of shooters not just shooting at practice static targets from a static position, but engaging in realistic training scenarios with elevated physical activity and the threat of consequences for mistakes.
This type of training can take the form of run n’ gun courses with live rounds but I think some of the best dynamic defense shooting practice for civilians are things like paintball, Airsoft or training with dye-marking rounds. Training like this can be highly reality based and players receive some physical, though not serious, pain when they make a mistake. As most athletes know well, pain is weakness leaving the body.
4. Predetermined tactics
A professional baseball player knows how many outs there are and what base to throw the ball to should it come his way. The same goes for those with the warrior mentality. Deciding and drilling what actions to take long before – maybe even years before – an attack could mean the difference between being a victim or a survivor. In fact, the very decision to purchase a handgun, investing in a quality holster, storing a gun in a quick access safe in your den or obtaining a CCW in order to legally carry concealed, are some of the most basic examples of pre-determined tactics.
Moving on to the more tactical level, pre-determined tactics cover things like your approach in different
Predetermining the shooting lanes in your house with a good vantage point and a minimal risk of over-penetration.
scenarios: essentially the football plays of the self-defense world. For example, consider how differently you would react have to act if you were attacked in a crowded movie theater than if you were attacked in an empty alleyway? How about a mall or a high school football game? What would you do if someone started shooting? What if they tackled you? What about a home invasion? How would you protect your family?
Determining a game plan before violence befalls you is essential tactical readiness and I recommend workshopping all of your domiciles, places of work, etc. and developing basic defense strategies. Consider what you’d do if you were with your family as protecting them first is likely priority. In crowds, the biggest concern is hitting an innocent by-stander so depending on where you are, the best plan may be to head for cover or leave the area. Situation dependent however, you may have the chance to get close enough to take a kill shot without a fear of crossfire or over penetration and save a lot of lives. Thing is though, you won’t do either of these things if you don’t think about them first.
5. Controlled violence
Techniques may give anybody a basic defense platform but the truth is that in most deadly encounters, violence of action wins. Aggressiveness, even though it may be against our more sensitive natures, is what all shooters need to practice in their defense training but this is not a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde approach. The violence needs to be controlled as well; uncontrolled rage is blind and gets people hurt or killed.
Controlling the use of your skills and training one possesses, aside from being a sign of maturity and mental health, is the safest and most effective way to engage any target. Knowing the right move (pre-determined tactics) and acting deliberating with extreme force is an example of controlled violence. When the switch from civilized and gentle demeanor must occur – and it may occur very rapidly – a calm, rational but aggressive side needs to appear.
Until next time, continue to hone your skills and keep adding to your tactical toolbox.
Photos courtesy of J. Moosman Photography
In a brazen move to directly influence lawmakers and the legislation they create, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has pledged his vast personal fortune to help defeat gun control opponents.
Effectively declaring war on the National Rifle Association, Bloomberg has already poured $12-million into field campaigns and commercials across the country in a bid to defeat legislators who voted against gun control proposals.
“This is just a toe in the water,” said John Feinblatt, Bloomberg’s chief policy adviser. And he’s not kidding – Forbes estimates the mayor to be worth about $27-billion.
“It defies common sense that anyone, even a terrorist, can walk into a store in America and buy explosive powders without a background check or any questions asked,” Lautenberg said Tuesday. “Requiring a background check for an explosives permit is a small price to pay to ensure the safety of our communities.
Under current law, people can buy up to 50 pounds of explosive “black powder” with no background check, and can buy unlimited amounts of other explosive powders, such as “black powder substitute” and “smokeless powder.”
Lautenberg’s bill would require a background check for the purchase of any of these powders.
It would also let the attorney general stop the sale of explosives if a background check shows the applicant is a known or suspected terrorist, and if there is a belief the explosives will be used for terrorism.
It would also require a permit to make homemade explosives, and direct the government to study how to better trace the use of explosive powders.
Proponents of background checks for gun sales are exploring ballot options
By Mike Baker, Associated Press | Associated Press – 1 hr 14 mins ago
Associated Press –
FILE – In this Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2013 file photo, a Glock representative explains features of the Glock 37 Gen 4 .45 caliber pistol at the 35th annual SHOT Show, in Las Vegas. After …more
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — After struggling to sway both state and federal lawmakers, proponents of expanding background checks for gun sales are now exploring whether they will have more success by taking the issue directly to voters.
While advocates generally prefer that new gun laws be passed through the legislative process, especially at the national level, they are also concerned about how much sway the National Rifle Association has with lawmakers.
Washington Rep. Jamie Pedersen, a Democrat who had sponsored unsuccessful legislation on background checks at the state level, said a winning ballot initiative would make a statement with broad implications.
“It’s more powerful if the voters do it — as opposed to our doing it,” Pedersen said. “And it would make it easier for the Legislature to do even more.”
On Monday, proponents of universal background checks in Washington will announce their plan to launch a statewide initiative campaign that would require the collection of some 300,000 signatures, according to a person involved in the initiative planning who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to pre-empt the official announcement.
The Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility has scheduled a fundraiser in Seattle at the end of next month and hopes to have a campaign budget in the millions of dollars.
Ballot measures may be an option elsewhere, too. Hildy Saizow, president of Arizonans for Gun Safety, said an initiative is one of the things the group will be considering as it reconsiders strategies. An organizer in Oregon was focused on the Legislature for now but wouldn’t rule out a ballot measure in the future if lawmakers fail to pass a proposed bill there.
While advocates have had recent success on background checks in places like Connecticut and Colorado, they’ve been thwarted in some other states and in Congress. The U.S. Senate rejected a plan to expand background checks earlier this month, although lawmakers in the chamber are still working to gather additional votes.
Brian Malte, director of mobilization at the national nonprofit lobbying group Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said passage through Congress is the ideal in order to have a national solution and so that states with strong gun laws aren’t undermined by nearby states with weaker standards. He noted that initiative campaigns are costly endeavors that can drain important, limited resources.
Still, Malte said, the ballot measures are an option to consider.
“At some point, certainly decisions need to be made about what the right time is to say we take it to the people,” Malte said.
Brian Judy, a lobbyist who represents the NRA in Washington state, did not return calls seeking comment about the new initiative. He has previously said the NRA would likely oppose such an effort, arguing that the recently proposed laws on background checks would largely impact law-abiding citizens instead of the intended targets such as criminals and the mentally ill.
Gun measures have had mixed results at the ballot. More than 70 percent of Washington state voters rejected a 1997 initiative campaign that would have required handgun owners to pass a safety course. After the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, voters in Colorado and Oregon approved ballot measures the next year to require background checks for buying weapons at gun shows.
Following another massacre in Colorado earlier this year, state lawmakers approved a bill to expand background checks to private transactions and online purchases. A similar expansion plan in Oregon is stalled in the state Senate.
Some states don’t see initiatives as a viable option right now. In Missouri, state Rep. Stacey Newman has been pushing for background checks with little success. While she spoke positively about the idea of a ballot initiative, she said there’s no serious consideration of it because of the cost and coordination required just to get it on the ballot. Instead, the supporters of background checks in the state are simply working to prevent NRA-supported legislation from passing the state’s General Assembly.
“We’re continually on defense,” she said.
Gun buyers currently must undergo a background check when they purchase a weapon from a federally licensed firearms dealer but can avoid checks in most states by using private purchases, such as at gun shows.
Washington state advocates believe polls show the public is sufficiently on the side of expanding background checks further. An independent Elway Poll conducted two months ago found that 79 percent of registered voters in Washington state supported background checks on all gun sales, including private transactions.
That wasn’t enough to shepherd the bill through the Legislature. Even in the state House, which is controlled by Democrats, supporters fell short after an NRA campaign put pressure on some lawmakers. Pedersen had offered concessions through the process, including the option of sending the measure out for a public vote and exemptions for people who already have concealed pistol licenses or law enforcement credentials.
Pedersen said he was working with the initiative organizers on language for the proposal, and he said the Legislature would first have another chance to adopt the measure early next year. If it fails among lawmakers again, the proposal would then automatically go to the ballot, where Pedersen said he welcomed a campaign competing against groups like the NRA.
“I’m not afraid of it at all,” Pedersen said. “The public is really with us. It’s the right policy. I think it can be useful for further progress.”
AP Writer Mike Baker can be reached on Facebook: http://on.fb.me/HiPpEV
The decision was in part motivated by the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. The tragic event happened not far away from GE’s headquarters in Fairfield, and many of the company’s employees called Newtown home. Adam Lanza, the shooter who took the lives of 27 people including his mother and himself, was the son of Peter Lanza, vice president of taxes for GE. Soon after, the company held several meetings to help employees affected by the shooting cope with the trauma.
GE spokesperson Russell Wilkerson wrote in an email that the new policy is a result of “industry changes, new legislation and tragic events that have caused widespread reexamination of policies on firearms.”
Wilkerson also added that the financing to gun shops from GE is “an immaterial part of our sales volume.”
Firearm retailers have already begun receiving letters notifying them of the program’s end. Stores that sell other merchandise in addition to firearms, such as Wal-Mart, will not be affected by the new policy.
General Electric is not the first major company to revise its relations with the firearm industry after Newtown. Earlier this year, Comcast Cable and online deal-and-coupon company Groupon announced they were pulling most firearm-related advertisements. Perhaps the largest stone in the pond is Cerberus Capital Management’s ongoing bid to sell the Freedom Group, a major player in the firearm industry that includes names like Bushmaster and Remington Arms.
Gun owners are like Deadheads. We’ve remained incredibly loyal throughout the years, we travel well in packs, and we always show up in great numbers – especially at the ballot box.
Pew Poll: Reactions to Senate Gun Vote
Gun control advocates, on the other hand, are like fans of Clay Aiken. Surprisingly, they do exist. But the majority of them are not all that fervent and their ability to mobilize is suspect.
So, when it comes time to make a stand or organize a rally or protest in Washington, gun owners certainly have the edge. This fact was highlighted in a recentPew poll that examined voters’ reactions to thedefeat of the expanded background check bill, which was drafted by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA).
Those who were “very happy” that the bill died in the Senate outnumbered those who were “angry” by a margin of 5 percentage points illustrating that when it comes down to it, pro-gunners have a more intense and more politically engaged base than the gun control community.
Of course, this is just one poll. But further evidence for this can be witnessed all around. For example, just check out the paltry turnout at the Stop the NRA March on Thursday, sponsored by a bevy of pro-gun control outfits.
Gun control is a low priority amongst voters. Looking at the numbers, people really don’t see it as a super important issue that desperately needs to be addressed.
According to Gallup poll numbers, only 4 percent of the public believes that gun control is a high priority for America, which is down from 6 percent in February.
Gallup Poll: Most Important Problem Facing the Country
Bottom line, the lack of urgency and the public’s waning interest on this issue doesn’t bode well for the gun control activists.
The number is 60, not 50. To get any gun control measure passed in the Senate, lawmakers need to get a supermajority of 60 votes, not a simple majority of 50-something, thanks to the filibustering effortsof conservative pro-gun senators, e.g. Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Cruz (R-TX), Marco Rubio (R-FL).
If one considers the centerpiece of Obama’s gun control agenda, the Manchin-Toomey proposal, that only got 54 votes, six shy of the three-fifths needed to clear the Senate.
Votes on the Manchin-Toomey Amendment (Credit: BosGuy.com)
A quick breakdown of the reveals that even if all five Democrats who voted against the amendment last time – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Max Baucus (MT), Mark Begich (AK) and Mark Pryor (AR) – vote for the proposal the next time around, they’d only have 59 votes. They’d still be one short.
4. Crime Rates
As concealed carry participation has increased throughout the country over the past two decades, crime rates – violent crime, property crime and the homicide rate – have continued to decline.
Aside for folks who live in areas where violent crime is skyrocketing – gun free areas, like Chicago, IL– most people seem to recognize that society, as a whole, is less dangerous than it was in years past.
While demonstrating a causal relationship between rates of gun ownership and crime has proved to be an elusive feat, primarily due to the complex nature of crime, most criminologists and social scientists will concede that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens does not increase crime rates.
Concealed Carry Expansion
In light of these findings, pushing for tougher gun laws that would only impact responsible gun owners makes little sense.
Gun control is ineffective. Or, put more succinctly, its efficacy is a subject of great debate. Multiple times in the past Guns.com has pointed to numerous government studies that substantiate the questionable impact that tougher gun laws have had on crime.
This time, however, we’ll refer you to Paul Barrett, an author and journalist, who writes for Bloomberg Businessweek. At SHOT Show 2013, Barrett sat down with Guns.com to discuss this very issue, here’s what he had to say:
There is not overwhelming social science evidence that the so-called Assault Weapons Ban, which included the magazine capacity limit that was enacted in 1994, had a significant effect on ordinary crime. There have been a number of studies done — some done very early on that advocates of the ban like to cite because right when the ban was enacted violent crime started to go down in a sort of secular change that was much, much bigger than that one law.
But then when you look at the studies from a few years out, you see that the ban itself is not the causative variable. Then it gets extremely painful for the advocates of the ban in 2004, 2005, 2006, etc. as violent crime continues to go down after the ban expired.
So, honest criminologists will tell you – like Public Policy Prof. Mark Kleiman at UCLA – that the AWB did not have a powerful obvious effect on ordinary crime.
It stands to reason that this is at least part of the reason why claims that gun control “saves lives” fall on deaf ears.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is a double-edged sword for the gun control community – his activism cuts both ways. Sure, he’s got oodles of cash to throw at the cause, but there’s evidence to suggest that his tactics have backfired.
Specifically, his strategy of dumping more than $12 million into ads attempting to bully Senatorsaround the country into supporting gun control measures seemed to have the opposite effect of its design.
One of the targets of those ads, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), spoke to POLITICO about how her constituents reacted to the Bloomberg-backed media campaign that was launched by his pro-gun control organization, Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
“People look at that and say, ‘He’s the mayor of New York City, what does he know about North Dakota?’ I’m not kidding,” Hetikamp said.
On some level, the more outspoken he is, the more money he spends, the more active he is in the push for tougher gun laws, the more people he pisses off. That can’t be good, especially if they goal is to win more hearts and minds.
Regardless of what the cause is, the majority of folks who believe in a Constitutional Republic resent this ambitious billionaire who tries to foist his agenda on the rest of the country.
The NRA still matters, despite what some liberal pundits have argued in the past. The nation’s leading gun lobby still has political clout and sway in Washington.
As NRA President David Keene told a group of NRA members at the Iowa Capitol on Thursday, lawmakers really seek an NRA endorsement “because there are people, a lot of people out there who trust the NRA on 2nd Amendment issues, who care about those issues and who look to us for leadership.”
“If we say a [candidate] is somebody you can rely on 2nd Amendment issues, there are a lot of voters that will take that and vote for that member, that candidate, for that reason. That’s what they want.”
Indeed. With 5 million members and counting, the NRA can help determine the outcome of an election. Politicians are keenly aware of the power the NRA wields, consequently most do what they can to curry favor with the gun lobby so that they can maintain that precious ‘A’ or ‘B’ rating.
In the end, for vulnerable politicians in key swing states, endorsing gun control could be political suicide.
These are all pretty formidable roadblocks to gun control reform. Nevertheless, it is still possible that more moderate pieces of legislation find their way through the Senate, i.e. a new version of the expanded background check bill.
As for bans on high-capacity magazines or so-called ‘assault’ style weapons, these measures – barring another major tragedy on par with Sandy Hook – are most likely dead in the water.
This article was originally posted by S.H. Blannelberry
Since 1998, John Lott’s seminal work More Guns, Less Crime has been used to show that areas with the highest gun ownership in America experience the least crime on a per capita basis.
It now appears that what Lott discovered as true for the U.S.A. is true for the world as well as.
Maps made by the U.N. office on Drugs and Crime (circa 2007) clearly show that where gun ownership is highest in the world, crime is lowest on a per capita basis.
For example, here is the map for gun ownership:
Notice the high levels of private gun ownership per 100 people in the United States versus the rest of the world.
Now, here is the map for homicides:
Notice the correlation between high gun ownership and lower homicide rates.
This fact will be extremely important to keep in mind in March when the U.N. revisits the Arms Trade Treaty, which the Obama administration and other 2nd Amendment opponents will want us to embrace as a solution to the supposed heightened violence in America versus other countries.
As these maps show, “more guns, less crime” is true internationally as well as domestically.
Roy H. Williams, President & CEO, visited today’s High Noon Club meeting held at H&H Shooting Sports. During his visit he discussed the econmic growth that Oklahoma City has seen over the last decade. He also participated in a Q&A session with those in attendance.
Senate and House Republicans are set to introduce a joint bill Friday that would significantly limit the amount of ammunition that federal agencies are permitted to purchase and stockpile over the next six months.
The bill, authored by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R., Okla.) and Rep. Frank Lucas (R., Okla.), comes as numerous lawmakers across Capitol Hill have expressed concern that certain federal agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), are stockpiling high quantities of ammunition.
DHS, for instance, has placed two-years worth of ammunition, or nearly 247 million rounds, in its inventory.
Inhofe said these agencies must provide greater “transparency and accountability” over its ammo stockpiles so that the public can learn about its precise use.
“President Obama has been adamant about curbing law-abiding Americans’ access and opportunities to exercise their Second Amendment rights,” Inhofe said in a statement provided to the Washington Free Beacon. “One way the Obama administration is able to do this is by limiting what’s available in the market with federal agencies purchasing unnecessary stockpiles of ammunition.”
Dubbed the “Ammunition Management for More Obtainability Act,” or AMMO, the legislation would prevent all government agencies except for the Defense Department from purchasing and storing what lawmakers say is an excess amount of ammunition.
The bill’s reach would include DHS and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), two agencies that have found themselves at the center of the ammo controversy.
“As the public learned in a House committee hearing this week, the Department of Homeland Security has two years worth of ammo on hand and allots nearly 1,000 more rounds of ammunition for DHS officers than is used on average by our Army officers,” Inhofe said. “The AMMO Act of 2013 will enforce transparency and accountability of federal agencies’ ammunition supply while also protecting law-abiding citizens access to these resources.”
An agency covered by the legislation would not be permitted to purchase or store more ammunition than that agency retained on average between 2001 and 2009, according to an advance copy of the legislation provided to theFree Beacon.
The U.S. government is purchasing and storing millions of bullets while average Americans experience widespread shortages and soaring costs, Lucas said.
“After hearing from my constituents about the shortage of ammunition in Oklahoma and the Department of Homeland Security’s profligate purchases of ammunition,” Lucas said in a statement. “We have introduced the AMMO Act of 2013 to curtail these purchases so Americans can exercise their Second Amendment rights without being encumbered by the federal government.”
DHS officials defended the department’s ammunition purchases during a House hearing on Thursday. They maintained that the department’s stockpile of 247 million rounds of ammo is necessary and does not constitute “hoarding,” as critics have argued.
Nick Nayak, DHS’s chief procurement officer, told lawmakers that the department reserves the right to purchase 750 million rounds of ammunition over the next five years.
DHS has already purchased around 41 million rounds of ammunition this year alone, according to Nayak. Approximately $37 million in taxpayer dollars will be spent on ammunition purchases in the entirety of fiscal year 2013.
It’s “simply not true” that DHS is stockpiling ammunition, Nayak said in response to pointed questions from lawmakers.
Lucas said he was startled to learn that DHS can purchase up to 750 million rounds over ammo over the next several years.
“I was surprised to find out the DHS has the right to buy up to 750 million rounds of ammunition over the next five years, while it already has two years worth of ammo already,” Lucas said. “This is an issue that must be addressed, and I am pleased this legislation provides us the opportunity to do so.”
The AMMO Act would also compel the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to audit federal agencies purchases of ammunition.
“The Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to Congress a report regarding the purchasing of ammunition by agencies, which shall include an assessment of the effect of the purchasing of ammunition by agencies on the supply of ammunition available to the public,” the legislation states.