That's like saying the phone company should be free because you have a right to "free" speech.
The phone company doesnt're require a fingerprint. And they're not giving my personal info to the Gov (without a subpoena).

Making you give a thumbprint when you buy ammo isn't infringing anything and for the scenario you describe above I don't imagine it would have any effect at all - including the price, unless a dealer somewhere decided it was a good excuse to jack prices to "cover the cost of all this damn Zog recordkeeping"
The legal analysist have already stated that prices will go up. I could provide the link, but you're a smart guy and you know how this is true for anything that has regulations slapped on it.

The purpose is not to track ammo, prevent crime or infringe on anything. It is a tool law enforcement thinks it needs to make some RICO cases.
RICO - "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations". Are you advocating that this law is to help police with this kind of white collar crime????? CMON now.

It is more about being able to track sales patterns - mostly through particular dealers. I don't know if it as a good law or a bad law or if it will work or it won't but I don't feel at all personally threatened by it. If I were selling ammo I'd hate it, but then I hate pretty much anything involving government, regulation and taxes.
No, it's about tracking purchasing patterns of ordinary citizens in the useless hope that somehow, somewhere, and someday, the poor defensless convenience store clerk who was gunned down might have his killer caught. Forget the fact that the poor guy might had a fighting chance had he been packing a Glock 40 when the thug came into his store.

But it is a lot less of a feel good piece of nonsense than hand-gun bans or "assualt" weapon bans. ( though both of those have been a financial windfall for a segment of the gun-dealing community. Ain't nothin' drives up the price like a feel-good law)
Isn't that all this is?? Make the public think the Gov is doing something?

Effective law enforement has nothing do to with adding more laws, rather it's about enforrcing what's there. Suppose the thug who gunned down our functional store clerk WAS indeed caught becuase the ammo he used was being somehow tracked. He'd get 20 to life, and be out in 10 on good behavior.

The law didn't fail. The judge did.