Actually, bulk storage of primers, and of course of black powder and precussion caps, both require permits (and blowout boxes or other safe storage).

'Course you know that, given your passtime ;-) .

Funny enough (at least I always found it amusing), loaded ammunition is generally not subject to such restrictions, unless one is legally classified as an "arsenal" (the federal definition is amorphous. Some states have their own definition), or a manufacturer (which have their own arcane safety rules, between the ATF and OSHA).

Many municipalities however do have zoning and hazmat regulations about bulk ammunition storage for dealers (though generaly not for private individuals); and most states have at least some regulations at the state level.

I say this as someone who once worked for a very busy gunshop with an extremely large inventory (over a million rounds, several hundred thousand primers, 100,000 or so precussion caps, a couple hundred pounds of powder) that ignored the regulations and was severely fined for it.

So yes, the reporter is an ignorant bigot; but it is likely the dealer was violating some state and local laws or regulations.

Oh and I should note, I've got about 25,000 rounds of ammo in my house at the moment (if you include .22), I think... maybe more, I haven't done inventory in a while.

At that level, I feel that I'm running low. I've got less than 2000 rounds of .45 left, less than a thousand rounds of 9mm left, and less than 1000 rounds of 5.56 left at the moment; and that's just unacceptable.

Heck, last large ammo buy I did included 35K of .22lr

I'm confused.

He had "hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition. Some had been fired, others had not."

What, exactly, is a "round of ammunition" that's been fired? Empty brass?

How is that explosive?

So...the reporter could have been describing someone with, say, 2 or 3 boxes of live ammo and 200,000 empty brass casings right?

Anyway, the whole thing is just an example of a bigoted reporter going out of his way to emphasize their personal belief that firearms and ammunition are dangerous things.

The obvious point being to try to stir up the typical reaction from the sheep: "someone should DO something about that".

It was the chief of the fire department that supposedly expressed the concern about the quantities.

I wonder what the FD is going to demand to be "notified" about next. Cans of gasoline in the garage? "Bulk quantities" of ammonia under the kitchen sink? Large quantities of highly flammable newspaper?

I even have it under good authority that many houses are constructed completely out of highly flammable wood. Structural supports, walls, floors, even wooden roof shingles!

How long are we going to keep the FD in the dark that these houses are flammable?

It was the chief of the fire department that supposedly expressed the concern about the quantities.

That's true...however, we don't know if the Chief was accurately quoted nor how he was led to make those statements either.

This "journalist" was obviously biased. They're shooting for a narrative. A spin that they want to put on the story...so they ask leading questions and repeat questions in different ways until they finally get what they're looking for.

NOTE: The following is nothing more than my interpretation of how the exchange MAY have taken place to illustrate my point. It is NOT indicative of any actual conversation:


"Chief wasn't the ammunition dangerous?"

"Well, we run into these things from time to time, it's just part of the job"

"But did you know that the ammunition was there?"

"No, not initially"

"Were your firefighters in any danger?"

"No. The ammunition was properly stored, did not ignite or explode no one was harmed."

"Doesn't the fact that the ammunition was even there, in the fire, cause any concern for the safety of your firefighters?"

"Of Course there are concerns. We have some concerns in the fact that we have some rather large quantities of explosive materials, just as we have concerns in any business or industrial fire that the contents of the building could make more hazardous...but we train and practice continually to minimize those risks. We probably should have been aware that the ammunition had been stored there, but ammunition is actually pretty stable and is not considered "explosives" under the law, so they aren't required to have a permit that we would know about. There is always uncertainty when we address a fire in a business. Because of the uncertainty of what's in there; Because of the uncertainty as to why it's in here, the quantities of it's being here creates some risk. We don't believe that the proprietor has done anything wrong, but due to the fact that there was no permit process we felt that to cover all the bases we shouldn't take anything for granted so we've notified the ATF"

Then the "journalist" cherry picks the statement for the things that most fits the narrative he's after and, viola! Instant outrage. Just add ignorance. Shaken, not stirred.

Trying to scare the white people. I'm sure it worked.