Ca: Bullet/Case serialization could be final straw?


PDA






Jim Diver
June 1, 2005, 01:20 AM
A bill (SB 357 [love the bill number.... :barf: ]) that amounts to a ban on handgun ammunition is on the move in the PRK Legislature.

Serialization requires each box of cartridges to have its own serial number. Matching numbers would then be engraved inside cases and on the bases of bullets. When a box of ammunition is sold, the serial number would be registered to the buyer. Then, presumably, at a crime scene, police would be able to match bullets or cases with an alleged purchaser.

Reasons this is not possible or practical are listed here: http://www.nssf.org/share/PR/042505.cfm?wTPL=x&print=N and at http://www.saami.org/ .

It is likely, should this bill pass, that the ammo manufacturers will ABANDON PRK and refuse to make a product for PRK.

Could this be the straw that breaks the camel's back?

If you enjoyed reading about "Ca: Bullet/Case serialization could be final straw?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Bob
June 1, 2005, 03:42 AM
As a resident of California, it is my hope that should it come to that, the ammo manufacturers would not only not sell to citizens in the state, but they would also refuse to supply ammo to ALL firearms users. I mean this to specifically include ALL law enforcement, government agencies, and the national guard. When we are ALL in the same stinking boat, someone will have some motivation to stop this stupid crap. But not until then.
Bob

Crosshair
June 1, 2005, 04:06 AM
I think there is actualy a good possibility that ammo makers WOULD stop selling to the entire state. What if some LEO ammo gets stolen. What if a LEO takes some home. What about a national guard member. No ammo maker is going to comply with this law and SN their ammo. Even if LEOs are allowed non-SN ammo, nobody is going to supply them with it because of liability concerns. Considering how lawsuit happy KA is, I think they will just say FU to KA. Lets get a letter campaign going to the ammo makers.

pbhome71
June 1, 2005, 04:15 AM
How do they come up with this stuff....


(c) (1) For purposes of this chapter, "serialized handgun
ammunition" means any of the following, which are subject to
serialization pursuant to subdivision (d):
(A) Ammunition as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 12323.
(B) .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
(C) Assembled handgun ammunition packaged for retail sale.
(D) Bullets used for reloading or handloading handgun ammunition
that are packaged for retail sale.
(2) Serialized handgun ammunition does not include blank
cartridges, shot-shells, or projectiles used in black powder
handguns.



(a) Commencing July 1, 2007, and except as provided in subdivision
(g), any person who manufactures, causes to be manufactured, imports
into the state for sale or personal use, keeps for sale, offers or
exposes for sale, or who gives or lends any handgun ammunition that
is not serialized pursuant to this section is punishable by
imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year or in the state
prison.
(b) Commencing July 1, 2007, and except as provided in subdivision
(g), any person who possesses in any public place any handgun
ammunition that is not serialized is guilty of an infraction
punishable by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500), or is
punishable as a misdemeanor.



(e) For purposes of this chapter, every 50 pieces or fewer of
assembled ammunition or bullets used for reloading or handloading
shall constitute a separate and distinct offense.


If you have a brick of "old" .22lr at a public range, that is 10 infraction/misdemeanor. It is getting harder to be lawful...

Jim Diver
June 1, 2005, 04:25 AM
(e) For purposes of this chapter, every 50 pieces or fewer of assembled ammunition or bullets used for reloading or handloading shall constitute a separate and distinct offense.


I know it is not the intent of the bill, but I read this as 50 bullets could mean 50 crimes.... Nothing says they have to break it down for every 50 or less.

My question is what will happen when the handgun ammo supply dries up in the state.... Any guesses?

JDThorns
June 1, 2005, 05:04 AM
I think we have a golden opportunity to ram this bill up the collective butts of the sponsors.
We should write all the ammo makers to let them know we will support them if they decide to stop all sales to law enforcement and the military until this piece of garbage is thrown in the trash where it belongs. I would think this bill would have a very short life span

Jim T :cuss:

taliv
June 1, 2005, 09:13 AM
i'm surprised it's not a felony

Elmer
June 1, 2005, 09:23 AM
As a resident of California, it is my hope that should it come to that, the ammo manufacturers would not only not sell to citizens in the state, but they would also refuse to supply ammo to ALL firearms users. I mean this to specifically include ALL law enforcement, government agencies, and the national guard. When we are ALL in the same stinking boat, someone will have some motivation to stop this stupid crap. But not until then.
Bob

I don't think we can depend on the major ammo companies to abandon California. They are all public companies, with a duty to shareholders, not political causes. 20% of the business is in California, and if one of the companies blink, they all will.

Igloodude
June 1, 2005, 09:55 AM
(a) Commencing July 1, 2007, and except as provided in subdivision
(g), any person who manufactures, causes to be manufactured, imports
into the state for sale or personal use, keeps for sale, offers or
exposes for sale, or who gives or lends any handgun ammunition that
is not serialized pursuant to this section is punishable by
imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year or in the state
prison.
(b) Commencing July 1, 2007, and except as provided in subdivision
(g), any person who possesses in any public place any handgun
ammunition that is not serialized is guilty of an infraction
punishable by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500), or is
punishable as a misdemeanor.

Looks like home reloaders/bullet casters will become felons, too.

Anyone have subdivision (g) handy?

Old Fuff
June 1, 2005, 10:06 AM
Elmar:

Are you saying that 20% of the ammunition sold in the United States is sold in California, or just handgun ammunition, or ammunition sold to law enforcement agencies?

Elmer
June 1, 2005, 10:13 AM
Are you saying that 20% of the ammunition sold in the United States is sold in California, or just handgun ammunition, or ammunition sold to law enforcement agencies?

I've heard the 20% figure thrown out by the manufacturers many times, but I don't have statistics, so I probably shouldn't have quoted it.

But whether it's 20%, or 10%, (and my hunch is the 20% figure is closer,) none of the majors can afford to abandon it.

Henry Bowman
June 1, 2005, 10:15 AM
I do not see any exemption for the king's men (state LEOs, etc.) in the quoted portion of the bill. :confused:

auschip
June 1, 2005, 10:21 AM
But whether it's 20%, or 10%, (and my hunch is the 20% figure is closer,)none of the majors can afford to abandon it.

Respectfully, I disagree. If the cost of producing ammo for CA is so high that it doesn't make financial sense to try, I predict they would walk away faster. Then you would have niche manufacturers who would step in and produce specialty ammo for a much higher price. Talking pure guesstimates, I wouldn't expect the ammo companies to completely retool their entire line of products to fit CA. Then again, I could always be wrong.

Elmer
June 1, 2005, 10:21 AM
I do not see any exemption for the king's men (state LEOs, etc.) in the quoted portion of the bill.

And I doubt there would be. Iit would be hard to justify why we wouldn't want to identify bullets fired by law enforcement also.

Can't wait till they find out what the cost difference will be. The idiot promoting this says it can be done for a penny a round. (Course, he gets a license fee.) My contacts say with all the documentation, it may be closer to a buck a round.

Elmer
June 1, 2005, 10:25 AM
Respectfully, I disagree. If the cost of producing ammo for CA is so high that it doesn't make financial sense to try, I predict they would walk away faster. Then you would have niche manufacturers who would step in and produce specialty ammo for a much higher price. Talking pure guesstimates, I wouldn't expect the ammo companies to completely retool their entire line of products to fit CA. Then again, I could always be wrong.

I think you are wrong. Some of the gun companies make special models just for California. I've talked to 2 of the major ammo companies. They're making preparations for it now.

boofus
June 1, 2005, 10:33 AM
Any ammunition company that complies with this nonsense and passes the cost on to customers in other states will lose my business forever.

Do they want to lose 20% of their business or 100%? I know I won't be the only one pissed off at having to pay $1 per round because of ********** lunacy.

If a company wants to make **********-only ammo that costs KA customers $100 for a box of 50 that is their business. But I won't finance that nonsense.

Old Fuff
June 1, 2005, 10:36 AM
Elmer:

I disagree ... but only to a point.

What it will come down to is a question of liability and profits. Obviously there is no way they can keep non-searialized ammunition (made for sale in other places) out of California. They could label the boxes, "Not for sale in California," but that might, or might not be enough to give them protection from being charged under the new law, and it's always possible that a distributor might make a mistake and send the wrong stuff, after which both they and the manufacturer would probably be in trouble.

Another option would be to number all effected ammunition and components, and some, if not all of the manufacturers might consider it, but if the various related costs and liabilities exceeded any likely profits I think it is quite possible they'd cut out the state.

It's not a question of population or sales, but rather the cost of doing business vs. making money. Unquestionably they would continue to sell any ammunition not covered by this bill if it should become law.

BenW
June 1, 2005, 10:38 AM
Of all the gun laws this state has attempted to pass, this one shows the most blatant bias "for the King's Men" as Henry Bowman put it.

If passing such a law, wouldn't you ESPECIALLY want to know where bullets from police guns end up after armed encounters? This is for the sake of proving that bullets fired from LEO guns never stray from their mark. Including the police in this law actually protects them from anti-cop bias and lawsuits.

At least that's the general gist of the language that I would put forth if I were a gun rights organization and wanted to get police included in the legislation, and thus get police unions to oppose the legislation.


Note to LEOs on the forum: In light of the recent cop bashing threads, I find I must make clear that my opinion is not anti-LEO, but rather anti special interest group favoritism.

Elmer
June 1, 2005, 10:41 AM
Any ammunition company that complies with this nonsense and passes the cost on to customers in other states will lose my business forever.

Do they want to lose 20% of their business or 100%? I know I won't be the only one pissed off at having to pay $1 per round because of ********** lunacy.

I doubt they'll do that, I'm sure they will just have a limited selection of "California" ammunition.

But make no mistake, it's heading your way. The liberals in your state will be watching California. It's why the NRA and other national pro-gun groups are not just giving up on California any more. If they get away with it here, they'll eventually export it to your state.

Old Fuff
June 1, 2005, 10:43 AM
Elmer:

>> I think you are wrong. Some of the gun companies make special models just for California. I've talked to 2 of the major ammo companies. They're making preparations for it now. <<

Interesting, which companies in particular?

Elmer
June 1, 2005, 10:47 AM
What it will come down to is a question of liability and profits. Obviously there is no way they can keep non-searialized ammunition (made for sale in other places) out of California. They could label the boxes, "Not for sale in California," but that might, or might not be enough to give them protection from being charged under the new law, and it's always possible that a distributor might make a mistake and send the wrong stuff, after which both they and the manufacturer would probably be in trouble.

Fuff, it's what they do now, with hi-cap mags, and "assault weapons", not to mention hundreds of models of guns that are not on the Ca "safe guns" list.

Sorry, but all the majors, and most of the minors, will comply with this if it becomes law.

Elmer
June 1, 2005, 10:50 AM
Interesting, which companies in particular?

Not going to throw them down. Trust me, they all will.

Elmer
June 1, 2005, 10:54 AM
You know, we always expect that the manufacturers are going to fight our battles for us. Other than a few small independently owned companies, it's never going to happen. They are publicly traded companies, with a responsibilty to their shareholders.

MechAg94
June 1, 2005, 11:07 AM
So, does this mean that criminals will just use shotguns and cap and ball revolvers for committing crimes?

Did I read that right? Shotgun shells are not numbered? Not even on the plastic case?

Zundfolge
June 1, 2005, 11:09 AM
They are publicly traded companies, with a responsibilty to their shareholders.

Absolutely correct.

Therefore if this passes in CA the rest of us need to unite and let the ammo companies know that they will lose more business outside of California if they don't boycott the state.

This will require a LOT of cooperation among the RKBA community, but we need to boycott EVERY ammo company that serializes their ammo for California.


We can't expect a publicly traded company to fight our political battles, but we can force them to choose sides. We must make it against their self interest to join the California side.


So, does this mean that criminals will just use shotguns and cap and ball revolvers for committing crimes?
No it just means that criminals will use out of state ammo, stolen ammo, "straw purchased" ammo or old ammo.

It will solve zero crimes and prevent even less. Its not about stopping crime, its about controlling and destroying the "gun culture".

Gordon Fink
June 1, 2005, 11:32 AM
Assuming this passes the Legislature, I doubt Governor Schwarzenegger would sign it. He has already vetoed a previous ammunition bill.

Still … it will be very interesting if this bill becomes “law.”

~G. Fink

Sindawe
June 1, 2005, 11:37 AM
Not going to throw them down. Trust me, they all will. Why not? Why are you seemingly giving loyalty to those who would sell us out for a profit? Mass voicing of displesure NOW, while plans are being made to re-tool may have a greater impact than later, AFTER the $$$ to re-tool has been spent.

MechAg94
June 1, 2005, 11:38 AM
I just thought it would be funny to hear of a perp robbing a bank with a cap & ball revolver. Probably not if he shot someone though.

Henry Bowman
June 1, 2005, 11:56 AM
Related stock tip: If this passes, invest in companies that sell brass catchers.

I would not want to leave brass registered to me laying around at the range or elsewhere. Perhaps they might also assess a deposit (like on cans and bottles, to please the enviros) that is refundable when the empties are returned. That way the empties are no longer registered to you and can be legally "transfered" to a reloader.

The law of unintended consequences would apply in full. The antis would see them as "fringe benefits," however.

DRZinn
June 1, 2005, 12:27 PM
I would not want to leave brass registered to me laying around at the range or elsewhere.No brass will EVER be registered to me.

Elmer
June 1, 2005, 12:46 PM
Why not? Why are you seemingly giving loyalty to those who would sell us out for a profit? Mass voicing of displesure NOW, while plans are being made to re-tool may have a greater impact than later, AFTER the $$$ to re-tool has been spent.

I'm not going to reveal private conversations, sorry if that doesn't make sense to you.

You know, when the other side hears about "boycotts," they have to be happy. Divide and conquer is a time tested tactic, and many are willing to jump right in. How does stopping folks in California from buying ammunition help the cause? Then people can't shoot, and our numbers shrink, not to mention we don't bring new shooters into the fold.

As far as punishing the CEO's for not doing something that would cost them their livelihood, how about you quitting your job, going to work for the NRA for free, selling your house, and donating the funds to the cause?

And if you wish the ammo companies not to comply, write to all of them, because I guaranty you, they all will if this passes.

R.H. Lee
June 1, 2005, 12:50 PM
How would/could this affect internet sales? What prevents me from taking a road trip to Nevada a couple of times a year?

Elmer
June 1, 2005, 12:54 PM
How would/could this affect internet sales? What prevents me from taking a road trip to Nevada a couple of times a year?

Only threat of prosecution. I'm sure many will ignore the law. The bitch will be getting caught.

Sindawe
June 1, 2005, 12:55 PM
I'm not going to reveal private conversations, sorry if that doesn't make sense to you. No, it makes perfect sense to me now that you've stated HOW you came by the information.

Elmer
June 1, 2005, 12:57 PM
Assuming this passes the Legislature, I doubt Governor Schwarzenegger would sign it. He has already vetoed a previous ammunition bill.

Still … it will be very interesting if this bill becomes “law.”

~G. Fink

I hope you're right, but who knows? He's in a struggle for the next election, and the other side would fry him in the media.

R.H. Lee
June 1, 2005, 01:02 PM
California is not able to enforce existing gun law as it is now. Take a trip to any formal (or informal, as in the hills/forests) range as see if you can count the number of 'banned' firearms -'assault weapons' :rolleyes:

They pretend to regulate and we pretend to be regulated. I don't know what the rate of prosecution for firearms 'violations' is here, but it must be low.

Elmer
June 1, 2005, 01:26 PM
They pretend to regulate and we pretend to be regulated. I don't know what the rate of prosecution for firearms 'violations' is here, but it must be low.

You are correct, but for those who have been prosecuted and made an example of, that's not much comfort.

jefnvk
June 1, 2005, 01:38 PM
Riley, I'd be suprised if anyone in NV would sell to you. Or off the internet.

And you all do realize that if the major ammo companies go ahead with this, probably all ammo will go up in price to pay for the new stuff, regardless if it is marked or not.

Glad my ammo cabinet is usually stocked with surplus.

R.H. Lee
June 1, 2005, 01:42 PM
Why? Do they ask for ID in NV for ammo purchases? And while we're at it, how can California enforce its law on non residents? And what happens if I reload serialized brass 'registered' to someone else?

This makes no sense, and is unenforceable on any practical level.

bg
June 1, 2005, 01:53 PM
If this passes and gets signed here in Corruptfornia, what makes you folks
think other states won't follow ? AS signed the bill making 50 BMG rifle
an "assault rifle" with all the crap that goes with that, and now a few
other "states" are going after it as well as the some in the Congress.

Like the old saying, s**t flows down hill. The s**t in this case being Kali
and the paths would head north, south, and east. I've already contacted
both my Assembly Member and Senator and they are both pro-gun
people. They're voting no on both AB352 and SB357.

Bob
June 1, 2005, 02:21 PM
Well, we won't be 20% of their business when this becomes effective. The only possible reason for this legislation is to take away firearms from the general populace. It will create a whole new class of criminals out of ordinary people. It will have no effect whatsoever on people who prey on others. Like I said before though, nothing will happen to stop this until EVERYONE in the state is affected by it.
Bob

Poodleshooter
June 1, 2005, 03:12 PM
And while we're at it, how can California enforce its law on non residents?

This is what I want to know. Why would any non CA based ammunition manufacturer,retailer or wholesaler care what California thought about them selling ammo there? They could simply sell online to CA residents. What would stop them from making direct sales? True,the California AG can ban them from doing business with CA vendors of their products,but if the law effectively bans them from doing so anyway, why not simply ship direct to the huge market of CA customers and bypass their local CA middlemen? They have nothing to lose as an out of state ammunition manufacturer/distributor. It's not as if the CA AG can sue them in their home state.

Also,some relevant pictures for CA shooters:
http://www.leeprecision.com/graphics/shoppingcart/molds.jpg

http://www.leeprecision.com/graphics/CLASSICCASThomepage.jpg

jefnvk
June 1, 2005, 03:24 PM
I would imagine if this goes through, that at least shops near the border would start checking ID. And online retailers already have a list of places they won't ship ammo to.

any person who possesses in any public place any handgun
ammunition that is not serialized is guilty of an infraction
punishable by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500), or is
punishable as a misdemeanor.

That is what keeps poodle's idea from working.

R.H. Lee
June 1, 2005, 03:34 PM
any person who possesses in any public place any handgun
ammunition that is not serialized is guilty of an infraction
punishable by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500), or is
punishable as a misdemeanor. {{shrug}} Down the road, swap ammo, reload 'serialized' brass, they'll never be the wiser. You won't really accomplish anything except a private f/y to the system.

papaone
June 1, 2005, 03:44 PM
My gun brethren: you may be shocked at what the ammo companies will do. :cuss: :fire:

Standing Wolf
June 1, 2005, 04:54 PM
Assuming this passes the Legislature, I doubt Governor Schwarzenegger would sign it. He has already vetoed a previous ammunition bill.

Is that the same R.I.N.O. Schwarzenegger who recently signed the .50 caliber ban, or some other R.I.N.O. Schwarzenegger?

Elmer
June 1, 2005, 05:14 PM
Expecting any of the firearms related business's to act like anything other than business's is unrealistic. If your 401K were in Olin stock, or Remington stock, or ATK stock, you'd be pretty pissed if the company made a political statement that cost them marketshare, and reduced the stock value.

I hate to say it, but sometimes I wonder if all the huffing and puffing about the manufacturers is just a way to avoid responsibility......

Not that most of the manufacturers don't do plenty for 2nd ammendment causes.

Elmer
June 1, 2005, 05:20 PM
True,the California AG can ban them from doing business with CA vendors of their products,but if the law effectively bans them from doing so anyway, why not simply ship direct to the huge market of CA customers and bypass their local CA middlemen? They have nothing to lose as an out of state ammunition manufacturer/distributor.

Filing felony charges against someone in another state happens all the time. Try shipping hollow point ammo to New Jersey, or Hi Caps to California.

Elmer
June 1, 2005, 05:22 PM
Is that the same R.I.N.O. Schwarzenegger who recently signed the .50 caliber ban, or some other R.I.N.O. Schwarzenegger?

Bingo!

Zundfolge
June 1, 2005, 05:31 PM
Expecting any of the firearms related business's to act like anything other than business's is unrealistic.

I agree, and we should push them hard outside of California to not sell any ammo in California if this silly law passes even to (well maybe especially to) Law Enforcement.

The reason is, once the infrastructure is in place in CA it will only be a matter of time before this stupid law is made federal (or at least spreads from state to state).

You know, when the other side hears about "boycotts," they have to be happy. Divide and conquer is a time tested tactic, and many are willing to jump right in. How does stopping folks in California from buying ammunition help the cause? Then people can't shoot, and our numbers shrink, not to mention we don't bring new shooters into the fold.

This crap has to be stopped now because frankly if this spreads beyond California I believe that puts us one step closer to "time to feed the hogs" and I, for one, don't ever want that day to come. (if it comes to that your 401k is going to be worthless).

But aside from liberty issues, if this law where to spread beyond California what do you think that would do to the stock values of the ammo industry? It would price many people out of the ammo buying market (and thus make for less new shooters into the fold ... which is the entire point of the law).

Fighting this crap in CA is in the best interest of the share holders of Winchester, Remington, Federal, et al.

griz
June 1, 2005, 05:52 PM
A couple things:

1. I didn’t see the requirement for a serial number on the case . Did I miss that in the wording?
2. Would the cost of serializing ammo make it cheaper to put a number on all ammo instead of just left coast ammo?
3. Even with the manufacturing cost, I would think the cost of the bureaucracy for registering each and every sale would be far and away the highest expense. So assuming that other states sell the same serial numbered ammo, how could you tell it was unregistered in CA just by looking at it?
4. Does the law make old ammo illegal?

Poodleshooter
June 1, 2005, 05:52 PM
Filing felony charges against someone in another state happens all the time. Try shipping hollow point ammo to New Jersey, or Hi Caps to California.
And exactly what happens if charges are filed in CA? If the CA AG filed felony charges against me in a CA court, I would laugh heartily and continue to sell products,safe in the knowledge that they had no jurisdiction to arrest me. I would consider them slightly more of a threat then Saudi Arabia sentencing me to death in absentia for mailing Bibles to Saudi citizens. I'd refuse to hand over customer lists if subpoena'd by a CA court,and I would expect my home state to protect my right to do business.
Keep in mind, that's theoretically what I'd do assuming my state (or Commonwealth) doesn't have provisions that prohibit this kind of interstate activity. Now, my revised question-do any states prohibit interstate sales of products that are illegal in the destination state?



any person who possesses in any public place any handgun
ammunition that is not serialized is guilty of an infraction
punishable by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500), or is
punishable as a misdemeanor.
That can explain why Californians might not buy,but why would the manufacturers or retailers stop selling?
For example, a similar penalty prohibits fireworks that fly or explode in the state of Virginia. Magically however, they are still purchasable by VA residents in WV,PA,SC and other states and are quite visibly in use by VA citizens every year around the 4th of July.
Jurisdiction is critical.....

cpileri
June 1, 2005, 06:02 PM
Who would be the best to send this to for wide distribution beyond this forum? GOA? NRA? Anyway, here's my idea.

"Dear (Ammunition Manufacturer/ Distributor):

We, the undersigned, oppose California bill SB357 and its counterpart, AB 352, the Ammunition Serialization bills.

We, the undersigned, urge you to BOYCOTT sales of your product to the state of California entirely, to include government and law enforcement agencies, if it passes.

If you do so boycott sales to California:

We, the undersigned, promise to PURCHASE ONE-THOUSAND ROUNDS OF YOUR AMMUNITION, and furthermore
you will henceforth receive our exclusive patronage; as

We, the undersigned, promise to NEVER AGAIN purchase ammunition from manufacturers and distributors who do not boycott California.

Please note that We, the undersigned, reside outside the state of California.

Sincerely,

(we, the undersigned)

R.H. Lee
June 1, 2005, 06:08 PM
The passage of this goofy legislation would/should be a call for open, notorious and widespread civil disobedience. A massive march on Sacramento, each person holding aloft an unserialized round. Let 'em arrest us all. When we make bail, go back and do it again, and keep doing it until the system chokes.

How long would it take for them to understand what the next step might be, considering each person arrested is a gunowner?

Elmer
June 1, 2005, 06:19 PM
And exactly what happens if charges are filed in CA? If the CA AG filed felony charges against me in a CA court, I would laugh heartily and continue to sell products,safe in the knowledge that they had no jurisdiction to arrest me.

Good luck. Last I checked all the states have extradition agreements. But hey, more power to you!!

Zundfolge
June 1, 2005, 06:31 PM
3. Independent of the manufacturing cost, I would think the cost of the bureaucracy of registering each and every sale would be far and away the highest expense. So assuming that other states sell the same serial numbered ammo, how could you tell it was unregistered in CA just by looking at it?
This is the main reason why Arnold (even though he's a RINO) would veto it if it made it to his desk.

alan
June 1, 2005, 06:44 PM
This "serilization of bullets and cartridge cases" is way over the top, even for the California Legislature, state bureaucracy and Attorney General, Bill Lockyer, who seems to be a prime mover of the thing.

If you have any access to the 10 June issue of the New Gun Week, see page 12 thereof, for comment headed SAAMI Statement Critical of California Bullet Serilization, and read carefully, remembering that the idiocy born in California sometimes heads both east as well as north.

The above mentioned idiocy, dangerous idiocy could find supporters in your state too. Beware.

Jim Diver
June 1, 2005, 07:10 PM
I got this from a good source (a rep of our lobby) that ammo manufacturers WILL abandon PRK should this pass.

The ammo market is a very low profit market. Complying with this bill would require that all the manufacturers build NEW plants to make this ammo. The existing plants cannot be converted to comply.

A few people asked what happens to your old ammo. It does not become illegal, you just cannot remove it from your house. To remove it from your house is a crime.... so your stuck with it. Can't shoot it, can't trade it, can't sell it.

Reloading is also out unless it is serialized as well.

Elmer
June 1, 2005, 07:22 PM
3. Independent of the manufacturing cost, I would think the cost of the bureaucracy of registering each and every sale would be far and away the highest expense.

As far as the mechanics, there is a system that automates it with barcodes on cases and boxes. The guy that developed it, (and patented it), has been lobbying to get this law passed.


So assuming that other states sell the same serial numbered ammo, how could you tell it was unregistered in CA just by looking at it?

Police would have access to the same technology. Individual serial numbers could also be entered into the database and checked.

Beethoven
June 1, 2005, 07:24 PM
I got this from a good source (a rep of our lobby) that ammo manufacturers WILL abandon PRK should this pass.


That's nice to hear, but seeing as how the govt and its JBT's are all exempt from the law (sorry, no disrespect intended to local LEO's) I'll bet a lot of money that the ammo manufacturers will still keep right on selling to the govt. as if nothing happened.

Elmer
June 1, 2005, 07:24 PM
The ammo market is a very low profit market. Complying with this bill would require that all the manufacturers build NEW plants to make this ammo. The existing plants cannot be converted to comply.

I think it would just add a stage in the process. I don't think a new plant would be neccessary.

Elmer
June 1, 2005, 07:25 PM
That's nice to hear, but seeing as how the govt and its JBT's are all exempt from the law (sorry, no disrespect intended to local LEO's) I'll bet a lot of money that the ammo manufacturers will still keep right on selling to the govt. as if nothing happened.

Folks, I'm 99% sure, LE would not be exempt. No use starting a class war on this one......

Jim Diver
June 1, 2005, 07:36 PM
I think it would just add a stage in the process. I don't think a new plant would be neccessary.

SAAMI says it would require new plants. View http://66.221.79.203/RIMFIRE_CENTERFIRE.wmv to see why.

jefnvk
June 1, 2005, 07:37 PM
I cannot see anywhere in the bill where police are exempt. Of course, if you can show me, I'll agree with you.

As far as a new factory, I don't think that is out of line at all.

EDIT: That video is cool

Beethoven
June 1, 2005, 07:40 PM
(g) Subdivisions (a) and (b) do not apply to the following:
(1) The possession, for purposes of investigation or disposition
of any nonserialized handgun ammunition by a forensic laboratory or
any authorized agent or employee thereof in the course and scope of
his or her authorized activities.
(2) The possession, for purposes of investigation, evidence, or
disposition, of any nonserialized handgun ammunition by any state,
county, city, or city and county agency charged with law enforcement
or the administration of justice or by any authorized agent or
employee thereof, within the course and scope of their official
duties.

(5) Possession by peace officers from other states during the
discharge of their official duties in California.
(6) Possession by members of the California National Guard during
the discharge of their official duties.

Source: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_357_bill_20050518_amended_sen.html

Brett Bellmore
June 1, 2005, 07:43 PM
Two ways it says police are exempt:

1. They can possess unserialized ammo to lawfully dispose of it. It's dirt simple to just decide that using the ammo for their regular duty is an acceptable means of "disposal". Waste not, want not, right?

2. This little thing called "selective prosecution".

Trust me, if they don't want it to apply to police, then it won't apply to police, even if it doesn't include an explicit exemption.

Beethoven
June 1, 2005, 07:46 PM
Trust me, if they don't want it to apply to police, then it won't apply to police, even if it doesn't include an explicit exemption.


Very well said!

I really cannot believe that there are some here who are still so naive as to believe that the government would actually abide by its own laws!

Jim Diver
June 1, 2005, 07:48 PM
If anyone should be forced to use serialized ammo it should be LEO. Think of how many shots LEO fires (like in Compton last month) that are untraceable.

jefnvk
June 1, 2005, 07:49 PM
Selective prosecution I could go with.

But why would they put this in:
(5) Possession by peace officers from other states during the

If Cali LEO was exempt? Why wouldn't they just say any Peace Officer?

The NG is understandable, though.

Bob
June 1, 2005, 07:54 PM
The point is this, you may have non-serialized ammo in your possesion on your own property, you may not have non-serialized ammo off your own property. There is NO provision for transporting non-serialized ammo to the range, or for using it at the range. If you are found with it, you are liable before the law. Doesn't matter if it's factory ammo or home brew, I check because I cast and load my own. I have sufficient quantities on hand, but if this takes effect, I can't use it any where but on my own property - I live in town and I don't think the community ordinances will allow for discharging firearms within city limits. So the law has the effect of disarming me, unless I buy the serialized ammo at whatever the going rate is and have my id checked and recorded at the time I buy it. I am unaware any provision for out of state CCW to bring non-serialized ammo into the state either. It's just whole big can of worms and it's going to lead to lots of otherwise innocent, ordinary people becoming the subjects of prosecution, and some might say persecution.
Bob

Beethoven
June 1, 2005, 07:56 PM
The point is this, you may have non-serialized ammo in your possesion on your own property, you may not have non-serialized ammo off your own property.


No, my understanding is that, under this bill, after July 1 2007, posession at all of any unserialized ammo will be a crime, no matter where it is.

Jim Diver
June 1, 2005, 08:01 PM
posession at all of any unserialized ammo will be a crime, no matter where it is.


Please site your referance that makes you believe this.

Beethoven
June 1, 2005, 08:09 PM
The bill would require, commencing July 1, 2007, that
handgun ammunition be serialized. The bill would specify the nature
of the serialization and provide various exceptions to certain
prohibitions in the bill. Manufacture, transfer, and possession, as
specified, of nonserialized handgun ammunition after that date would
be an offense, as specified.

The_Antibubba
June 1, 2005, 08:17 PM
Reloaders are not exempt, which means we'd have to buy our bullets pre-serialized; no more casting our own, either.

SIGarmed
June 1, 2005, 08:29 PM
Reloaders are not exempt, which means we'd have to buy our bullets pre-serialized; no more casting our own, either.

Not only that all bullets will require a tax so its a double wammy. With no savings why will people reload?

This is why this bill needs to die a terrible death!

Elmer
June 1, 2005, 08:42 PM
Trust me, if they don't want it to apply to police, then it won't apply to police, even if it doesn't include an explicit exemption.

Step away from the aluminum foil guys......

There will be plenty of watchdogs in the form of trial attorneys who would have a field day if departments tried to issue non serialized ammo. No city in their right mind would want to be exempt from this.

Coronach
June 1, 2005, 09:07 PM
The Poh-leece want exempted from NJ's smart-gun laws because Smart-Guns are a stupid idea from a functionality standpoint. PDs will stand in line to adopt serialized bullets because it will remove (in theory) the guesswork behind whose bullet goes where, with no impairment of functionality.

Mike

jefnvk
June 1, 2005, 09:13 PM
The Poh-leece want exempted from NJ's smart-gun laws because Smart-Guns are a stupid idea from a functionality standpoint.

Didn't the whole idea pop up FOR police?

Bob
June 1, 2005, 09:25 PM
The bill needs to die a terrible death because it's only reason for being is disarming normal, ordinary civilians. You know, the folks who pay their taxes, vote, buy things, raise children, help their neighbors. This legislation is ONLY aimed at those people. It is about people who think they are our betters telling us how to live and what to do. The saddest thing is most people either don't know or don't care that this is happening. Our rights are not rights, they are privliges that can be given or taken away at the whim of those in power. This is the very antithesis of the kind of society our founding fathers fought and bled and died for.
Bob

dpesec
June 1, 2005, 09:28 PM
What makes you think *********** would eat the cost, they'd slap a tax on the sale to cover the costs and then some. :cuss:
Remember R.I.N.O.s have never seen a tax or regulation they don't like. Gee sounds like another party doesn't it :eek:

fjolnirsson
June 1, 2005, 09:34 PM
For those of you in CA, I believe RileyMc had a fine idea:

The passage of this goofy legislation would/should be a call for open, notorious and widespread civil disobedience. A massive march on Sacramento, each person holding aloft an unserialized round. Let 'em arrest us all. When we make bail, go back and do it again, and keep doing it until the system chokes.

Maybe the CRPA (http://www.crpa.org/) would be interested?

jefnvk
June 1, 2005, 09:35 PM
Remember R.I.N.O.s have never seen a tax or regulation they don't like

I bet you can name at least one. Heck, someone here should be able to name one.

Coronach
June 1, 2005, 09:36 PM
Didn't the whole idea pop up FOR police?yes, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the politicians are morons who will try to force unwanted and stupid stuff down the cops' throats too. The police in NJ pitched such a fit that they were exempted. To their shame, I might add. They should have just tried to scuttle it, period.

Mike

dpesec
June 1, 2005, 09:42 PM
Well, I know in Ohio, we have R.I.N.O.s all over the place, taxes have sky rocketed, administrative rules, regulations and the like have done the same.
Spending, well let's say it's far outpaced inflation and even the revenues. This was happening even with the boom of the 90's.

One of our true Republicans said "we don't have a revenue problem, but a spending problem". I liked that.

dpesec
June 1, 2005, 09:49 PM
Why should they. Any group with political clout will always seek to enforce it's will on others. The key is power, once their wishes are met, it doesn't matter about anybody else's. Remember, NJ LEOs can use their service pistols, so what's in it for them? Nothing, why spend political capital for somebody else?

griz
June 1, 2005, 10:28 PM
Quote:
So assuming that other states sell the same serial numbered ammo, how could you tell it was unregistered in CA just by looking at it?



Police would have access to the same technology. Individual serial numbers could also be entered into the database and checked.

What I'm getting at is it would seem to open up a huge black market for serial numbered ammo from other states. Even if you were firing it at the range, it would appear legal. Unless the police scan every box of ammo they come across they would have no reason to suspect that the non registered ammo was in fact not registered. After all it is numbered. Even in California it would seem the cops have better things to do with there time than go to the range and scan the ammo boxes of all the customers.

bjbarron
June 1, 2005, 11:10 PM
You know, we always expect that the manufacturers are going to fight our battles for us. Other than a few small independently owned companies, it's never going to happen. They are publicly traded companies, with a responsibilty to their shareholders.

I'm sure that some manufacturers would go for this, at least at the beginning. Unfortunately for them, the law of unintended consequences applies.

1. The companies make PRK-only ammo and sell it at a huge profit...they would think that was good.
2. Until they get sued as part of a wrongful shooting case...and don't say they are exempt, you can sue anybody for anything. And in Kali the anti-gunners would win. They are suing the manufacturers of serialized guns...why not the manufacturers of serialized ammunition?

Cooler heads may prevail...someone has to be thinking about the long term effects of this. All it would take is the few companies who made ammo to decide not to do so after after problems with cost and liability...just like the 8 out of 10 companies that went out of the flu vaccine business because of the cost of liability...ooops, no vaccine during flu season.

If these ammo companies were run by Ronnie Barrett, Kali would be SOL. Then again, if their shareholders are not Kali residents they might tell the company to let Kali pound sand.

Oh, and don't get me started about Smart Guns in NJ...the details of the law are a nightmare.

Zundfolge
June 1, 2005, 11:28 PM
Zundfolge
What makes you think *********** would eat the cost, they'd slap a tax on the sale to cover the costs and then some.
:cuss:
Remember R.I.N.O.s have never seen a tax or regulation they don't like. Gee sounds like another party doesn't it :eek:


Schwarzenegger vetoed the law that would have registered ammo sales once already ... part of his rational was that it would cost too much.

This legislation falls under the same line of thinking.


Still ... Eternal Vigilance is the price of Liberty

jefnvk
June 1, 2005, 11:31 PM
What I'm getting at is it would seem to open up a huge black market for serial numbered ammo from other states

Ok, you guys talking about smuggling SN'd ammo from other states are missing one obvious point. That stuff is probably going to be registered, too. Else, why would they sell it in the other states?

Selfdfenz
June 2, 2005, 12:01 AM
Until they get sued as part of a wrongful shooting case...and don't say they are exempt, you can sue anybody for anything. And in Kali the anti-gunners would win. They are suing the manufacturers of serialized guns...why not the manufacturers of serialized ammunition?

Excellent point.

Eventually no ammo in Cali.
Good guys unarmed. BGs go crazy. Good guys react at the ballot box or vote with their feet or both.

Eventually the pro-serialized pols get the boot.

S-

R.H. Lee
June 2, 2005, 12:03 AM
Good guys unarmed.
heh. Some maybe. Not all.

Elmer
June 2, 2005, 12:05 AM
2. Until they get sued as part of a wrongful shooting case...and don't say they are exempt, you can sue anybody for anything. And in Kali the anti-gunners would win. They are suing the manufacturers of serialized guns...why not the manufacturers of serialized ammunition?

The manufacturers are anything but exempt, they get sued on a regular basis now.

Jim Diver
June 2, 2005, 07:57 PM
This little b*stard passed out of the senate today....

It is likely the assembly will pass it as well.

PromptCritical
June 2, 2005, 09:16 PM
Didn't catch if someone mentioned this: I am willing to bet the bullet SN will have to match the case SN. If this is the case, reloading is going to go away, as the new bullets will have to have different SN's. The only way to work this situation would be to have bullet and case registration SN's separate but keyed together. Also, the private party selling of any bullets or casings will have to be transferred just like guns. This is the only way to keep everything correct. I'm sure there will also be a transfer tax. In addition, I did not see a requirement for reporting the use or disposal of ammunition. If there is none, the amount of SN's registered in the DB will become astronomical in a very short time. We're talking BILLIONS of numbers here. *** happens if the DB crashes? Are thousands SOL?

BTW: That would be a real shame if the system crashed... ;)

PromptCritical
June 2, 2005, 09:22 PM
I predict wholesale theft of ammo or smuggling for the criminal market. That, or there will be a huge rise in shotgun murders. This would, of course, necessitate the passing of laws requiring the serializing of individual shodgun pellets.

CA DOJ to ammo manufacturer (Lumberg voice) "Yeah... We're gonna need you to put numbers on bird shot... Did you get that memo?

Ammo manufacturer: "I deleted it. Engraving birdshot is absurd."

CA DOJ: "Yeah... We'll send that memo again."

Ammo manufacturer: "GO F**** YOURSELF!"

R.H. Lee
June 2, 2005, 09:51 PM
If this is the case, reloading is going to go away, as the new bullets will have to have different SN's. My cast bullets don't have any serial numbers at all.

cropcirclewalker
June 2, 2005, 10:02 PM
Serialization requires each box of cartridges to have its own serial number. Matching numbers would then be engraved inside cases and on the bases of bullets. This is a hoot. Unenforcable.

So you buy your ammo at Wally World, dump it into a zip lock bag and discard the box in the WW trash can.
Time passes. You are at the range.

John Law walks up to you and asks, "Is that ammo serialized?"
You respond, "Yes".
Mr. Law says, "Prove it."
You say, "How?"
He says, "Show me the inside of your case and the base of its bullet."
You say, "Get a warrant."

What a joke.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ca: Bullet/Case serialization could be final straw?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!