Time to end the confusion: READ HERE About CA SB 357 and AB 352!!!!


PDA






Beethoven
June 19, 2005, 08:15 PM
Sorry, but I'm fed up with the amount of misinformation out there about these two bills.

Currently, there are TWO ultra-bad bills in the works in CA. I want to give a very brief overview to clear confusion about them.

SB 357:

This bill will effectively ban handgun ammo in the state of CA should it be signed into law.

What this bill requires is that EACH AND EVERY BULLET SOLD IN THE STATE AFTER JULY 1, 2007 HAS ITS OWN, UNIQUE SERIAL NUMBER. THIS INCLUDES ALL HANDGUN AMMO, EVEN .22LR.

After July 1, 2007, it will be a crime to EVEN POSSESS unserialized ammo, so stockpiling/hoarding is USELESS. (Unless you want to risk getting caught, jailed, etc.)

This ALSO means that making your own bullets would be ILLEGAL as well.

The unstated purpose of this legislation is to effectively BAN handgun ammo in the state of CA and anyone who tells you otherwise is either LYING or ignorant, most likely lying.



AB 352

This bill will require new guns introduced for sale into the state to stamp the case and/or bullet (I believe it requires BOTH the cartridge AND BULLET to be stamped) with a serial number every time the gun is fired.


That's pretty much it folks.


Now for the most important thing:

CLICK HERE FOR CONTACT INFO TO CALL AND WRITE!!!!!

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=143204

If you enjoyed reading about "Time to end the confusion: READ HERE About CA SB 357 and AB 352!!!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Beethoven
June 20, 2005, 01:43 PM
Bump.

rick_reno
June 20, 2005, 02:41 PM
SB 357: bill will effectively ban handgun ammo

How does putting a s/n on ammo ban it? Maybe you're getting too much sun in Lala land, but I'm really lost on how this will "effectively ban handgun ammo". It could end up costing more, to cover the additional manufacturing costs - but it'll still be available.

R.H. Lee
June 20, 2005, 02:45 PM
How does putting a s/n on ammo ban it? Maybe you're getting too much sun in Lala land, but I'm really lost on how this will "effectively ban handgun ammo". It could end up costing more, to cover the additional manufacturing costs - but it'll still be available.
You're assuming the ammo manufacturers will roll over and spend the $$ to re-tool in order to comply. They may not and just cease doing business with the California market. That effectively bans handgun ammo sales here.

rick_reno
June 20, 2005, 02:52 PM
That's the biggest market in the US - there is no way a major manufacturer would walk away from it. Granted - Barrett did, but let's face it, he's got a niche product.

R.H. Lee
June 20, 2005, 02:58 PM
IF (and that's a big "IF") ammo mfrs acquiesce and re-tool, just how long do you think it will be before other states adopt the same law? NJ, NY and MA come immediately to mind. How long do you think the rest of you will be exempt?

You'd better hope 1) It doesn't become law; 2) If it does, that ammo makers simply drop the CA market.

rick_reno
June 20, 2005, 03:26 PM
I'm in Idaho, a part of the United States of America. Hell will freeze over before they pass something that ridiculous here. I also reload ALL my handgun ammo, and I've got enough components here to last me the rest of my life. I stocked up when Clinton was in office - he made me really nervous.

I still fail to see this as a "ban" on handgun ammo.

R.H. Lee
June 20, 2005, 03:31 PM
In fact, after it works so well in CA, NJ, NY and MA, the fed .gov will adopt it nationally. It's just a matter of time before the Democrats take over the Whitehouse and congress again.

Beethoven
June 20, 2005, 03:36 PM
How does putting a s/n on ammo ban it? Maybe you're getting too much sun in Lala land, but I'm really lost on how this will "effectively ban handgun ammo". It could end up costing more, to cover the additional manufacturing costs - but it'll still be available.


It will drive the cost of producing ammo to unreal levels.

The ammo manufacturers themselves have stated such.

LAR-15
June 20, 2005, 03:38 PM
It will still ban ammo plain and simple.

The ammo companies do not have the $$$$ to retool their equipment.

Colt46
June 20, 2005, 04:26 PM
ammunition that may not have a serial number on it then I'd call it a ban. Banning handloading outright is a ban.

Gung-Ho
June 20, 2005, 04:37 PM
How does putting a s/n on ammo ban it?

Number one, I will NEVER use or buy ammo that has a S/N on it and
TWO, since most of what I shoot is reloads, they ARE banning my ammo. If this passes, I'm not long for this state. SE Wyoming is my next stop.

railroader
June 20, 2005, 10:03 PM
I good example of why it would be a ban. They want serial numbers on 22 ammo also. A 500 round brick is about $10. If sb357 passes ammo will be sold in lots of 50 rounds, no bricks. I wouldn't be surprised if 50 rounds would be at least $10 probably more. How long are are gun stores going to be in business if ammo gets so expensive that people quit buying ammo? Walmart already stopped selling guns because they screwed up with cali laws and I can guarrantee that they won't be selling ammo if sb357 passes. As there are less gun stores and ranges open there are less people buying ammo and it just gets worse. Why would ammo companies want to spend all kinds of money to retool for a market that is going to be iffy. Heck with the politicians in this state they are constantly coming up with some lame gun control bill you never know what's around the corner. What really worries me is after the next gubenatorial election. If we get a hardcore democrat who is anti gun we are completely screwed. At least with Arnold there is a chance that some of this stuff will get vetoed. mark

yucaipa
June 20, 2005, 10:39 PM
I posted this in an earlier thread,
SB357


Ammunition manufactures have made it clear that they cannot engineer bullet serialization technology into their assembly lines,that it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars (possibly bankruptcy) to even attempt it,and that it would slow down their operation to the point where they could no longer keep up with the demand for ammunition,including sales to law enforcement and the military. As a result,it has been determined that it would make far more business sense to simply abandon the California market for handgun and .22 rimfire ammunition. If SB 357 becomes law,this will be the end result."

Gerald Upholt
Manger of Governmental Affairs
California Rifle & Pistol Association Inc.

The Firing Line
Issue #906
June 2005

What will gun manufactures do if AB352 passes who knows ?
FWIW. it appears there is a grandfather clause for existing,(guns)
unlike SB357

athlon64
June 21, 2005, 12:12 AM
I think the worst thing about SB357 is that it'll create criminals out of many unsuspecting CA handgun owners who may forget about ammo they purchased prior to the cutoff date. i.e. those guys who keep a few boxes on hand and shoot once every 3 years or so.... more gun owners fall into this category than not. If classified as a felony, gun owner would lose rights to own guns. An effective indirect way to mass gun confiscation.

Old Fuff
June 21, 2005, 12:30 AM
RileyMc:

Even our big-city Democrats know better then to propose anything like SB357 in Arizona, or for that matter in most any of the "red" conservative states. If the Democrats proposed this on the national level before an election they'd be in worse shape then they are now.

The only reason that California Democrats are pushing SB357 is because it plays well with they're left-thinking sheeple voter base ...

And they are sure it will be vetoed. :cuss: :evil:

Don of Kalifornia
June 21, 2005, 01:34 AM
With SB 357, you will NOT be able to load your own, as even bullets for reload must have serial numbers. It also makes without serial number illegal in any place but your home. Bill Lock-u-up the AG in Kommiefornia wants you the gun owner to turn in all non serial number ammo, with NO compensation.

Carnitas
June 21, 2005, 02:07 AM
Here's why it 357 would "ban" ammo.... at least as we appreciate the concept of ammo.

The law requires for the numbering of the bullet (on the base since that's the only portion of the bullet on which engraving might survive) and the case.

So.... right now the ammo pours primed cases, powder and bullets into a big machine the machine whirs for a while and ammo starts pouring out the shoot into a machine that rejects bad cases, lines the rounds up and puts them into a tray and a card board box. The box of ammo, like thousands of other like boxes travels down a conveyor belt, and gets stacked on a pallet, the pallet gets loaded on a truck, and the truck delivers the ammo to a distribution center where smaller lots of ammo are distributed to the gun stores where its sits on a shelf for you to pick up and buy for something between 5 and 10/box.

Now lets see how it would be different.

First at some point in the process probably just before the cases are loaded presumably, you have to engineer a micro laser engraver into the system, two actually; one for the case and one for the bullet. This engraver has to be driven by a computer with an accounting system so that the mfgr. can guarantee that only 50 (or whatever size box you're going to produce) rounds will ever be produced with that unique number. The machine also has to make sure that the bullet feeder and the case feeder are in sync so that only like numbered components will end up in the assembled round. It just wouldent do to have the police retrieve a bullet with your number on it and the number of the schlub that bought a box after your's number on the brass. Now the rounds cant just pour out of the machine they have to come out in segregated 50 round lots unless you want microscope wielding tehcnicians sorting the rounds by hand. If one of the rounds doesnt pass QC the bullet press will have to be coaxed to spit out another round with the unique number and identify it for a person that can hand carry that round and catch it up with its 49 brothers. Now, those 50 rounds have to go into serialized box with some sort of tamper resistant feature, and, of course, the number on the box must match the number on the bullet. It just wouldent do for the state to have ammo registered to your name turn up at a shooting in LA because the box labeler got out of sync with the 50 round lots comming out of the bullet press. I suppose the best way to do it would be to have a person QC everything by cross checking the rounds with the box but its not likely they could/would check all 50 microscopic tags and they couldent check the numbers on the base of the bullets if they wanted to. If you dont see how this is completely contrary to the current mass production methods that currently exist and deliver ammo to us for $5/box you're not paying attention.

So, now your ammo is in the box. But now its just not like any other box of ammo; its unique. Its also a product that the mfgr is obliged to secure and track much like a gun maker tracks a frame. No more pallet in a warehouse. Inventory loss that's acceptible under the current scheme is no longer acceptible. "Off Paper" ammo would be as valuable a comodity to a criminal as an off-paper gun. Its time for secure storage, bonded transport, certified tracking, etc; all of it staffed by higher wage employees than are currently employed in warehousing and transport.

Now, Ammo shows up at your gun dealer, he's going to have to log it in, and secure it from theft, just like his guns. When you buy it he's going to have to collect your informaiton and log it in. He's going to have to maintain records, inspectible by the state, to verify his complaince. He's also criminally responsible for any errors he makes. Obviously for the additional hassle, time, and risk of imprisonment he will demand a larger profit.

Its really more appropriate to think of searilized ammo in the same sense that you think of a searalized gun frame. Of course given the expense, and criminal liability, it will behoove you to treat the ammo with your name on it just like you'd treat a gun; locked up in a safe and dont leave any cases behind at the range.

All of the above is vertually certian to happen. Now, to get into speculation.

I'd be REALLY suprised if it didnt cost 10 times as much for the ammo company to produce and deliver the product to a gun store. I'd expect the gun shop to want to collect 5 bucks a box for the record keeping and risk.

So..... if ammo off the shelf ends up costing $50/box (conservative I believe at only 10x the price of cheapy fmj 9mm) what do you think that will do to volume. Yeah, it will go down, way down. Now the expense associated with all those new machines, all the special storage, tracking, and the new procedures and personal gets spread over a much smaller volume of ammo and prices go up some more. I dont think $75/50 is an unreasonable number but of course that's just a wag.

After a while a ticket on southwest to reno will be cheeper than the ammo an officer will shoot on a training/qualificaiton day. Same for you; if you want to go out for a 300 or 400 round range day it will cheeper to fly to vegas and rent a car.

You might feel different but its MHO that the big ammo companies will just say screw it. Its a hassle and by the time the volume price situation stabalizes there wont be enough volume to make it worth it. I believe that what ammo gets produced in this state will be done by individuals in front of a Dillon press, a laser engraver, and a PC. I think that's the appropriate "economy of scale" for the product the law describes. It will probably be quite a nice little home busines. They will be very precious carry rounds that an individual will track very closley.

If that's not an ammo ban its pretty darn close.

mics357
June 21, 2005, 03:24 AM
letters are on their way hope for the best

Jim Diver
June 21, 2005, 03:44 AM
So..... if ammo off the shelf ends up costing $50/box (conservative I believe at only 10x the price of cheapy fmj 9mm)

From what I have been reading in a letter from Hornady, try closer to $100 a box of 50. They are predicting $2.00 a round.

toivo
June 21, 2005, 03:51 AM
The only reason that California Democrats are pushing SB357 is because it plays well with they're left-thinking sheeple voter base ...I think the Dems will realize one day that they lose more voters than they gain with legislation like this. Actually I don't think they gain ANY, they just tickle their base a bit.

Doctor Suarez
June 21, 2005, 03:54 AM
I've been getting more agita about these bills than anybody, but I'm starting to believe that they were never written to be passed.

The Democrats know that the super-expensive databasing system and political ramifications are all non-starters. They know that the shamefully non-voting gun owners of Cali would revolt. They had six years of Gray Davis to propose these laws, and they didn't. What they are doing is proposing bills for Schwarzenegger to veto, so that they can use those vetoes as political capital.

Silky, ominous voice over: "Governor Schwarzenegger even vetoed crime prevention laws that would have ENDED GUN CRIME IN CALIFORNIA FOREVER!!!"

It's part of their strategy to make him look extreme and right wing so that he won't be reelected.

Still, this does not in any way change the fact that we have to write, fax, and call to get these bills killed dead.

And if Schwarzenegger vetoes them, we have to forgive him for the .50 ban and support him. If he vetoes these bills to keep the gun owners from going nuts, and we abandon him anyway, even California Republicans will decide that we're simply not a voting bloc they can trust.

So write him (as I have, three times), and hope his pal John Milius has gotten into his ear over this.

cpileri
June 21, 2005, 07:20 AM
The other bill that makes the gun imprint a mark is the one that wll 'ban' everything.

Cases: OK, maybe on the extractor or firing pin, or on the chamber wall as the brass expands and picks up a mark? what if brass wont reliably do that, or not without splitting (and thus being dangerous)? Then cases will have to be made of a new, more imprintable material? More re-working of the system which, if done will drive up prices.

Bullets: Well, here's the kicker, the real gem in the anti-gun crown. So manufacturers might mark the base where a s/n will survive; so where exactly is the firearm to do so? cant be on the rifling or bullet tip (remember it has to be imprinted BY THE GUN upon firing). How exactly would it be imprinted on the base during the firing sequence? Maybe a spring-piston airgun could be rigged to do it, but not a cartridge arm.

Guns: Oh how very soon will we be hearing: "Any gun that lacks this technology will circumvent the law. Only criminals and terrorists would want to circumvent such reasonable measures for the public safety. No grandfather clause, please turn in all non-compliant arms." And since no effective 'bullet imprinting firearm' is to be made as described above, no guns in CA.

Folks, AB 352 is the one to watch!

This combination is chilling in its effectiveness!

C-

Beethoven
June 21, 2005, 01:55 PM
Here's why it 357 would "ban" ammo.... at least as we appreciate the concept of ammo.

The law requires for the numbering of the bullet (on the base since that's the only portion of the bullet on which engraving might survive) and the case.

So.... right now the ammo pours primed cases, powder and bullets into a big machine the machine whirs for a while and ammo starts pouring out the shoot into a machine that rejects bad cases, lines the rounds up and puts them into a tray and a card board box. The box of ammo, like thousands of other like boxes travels down a conveyor belt, and gets stacked on a pallet, the pallet gets loaded on a truck, and the truck delivers the ammo to a distribution center where smaller lots of ammo are distributed to the gun stores where its sits on a shelf for you to pick up and buy for something between 5 and 10/box.

Now lets see how it would be different.

First at some point in the process probably just before the cases are loaded presumably, you have to engineer a micro laser engraver into the system, two actually; one for the case and one for the bullet. This engraver has to be driven by a computer with an accounting system so that the mfgr. can guarantee that only 50 (or whatever size box you're going to produce) rounds will ever be produced with that unique number. The machine also has to make sure that the bullet feeder and the case feeder are in sync so that only like numbered components will end up in the assembled round. It just wouldent do to have the police retrieve a bullet with your number on it and the number of the schlub that bought a box after your's number on the brass. Now the rounds cant just pour out of the machine they have to come out in segregated 50 round lots unless you want microscope wielding tehcnicians sorting the rounds by hand. If one of the rounds doesnt pass QC the bullet press will have to be coaxed to spit out another round with the unique number and identify it for a person that can hand carry that round and catch it up with its 49 brothers. Now, those 50 rounds have to go into serialized box with some sort of tamper resistant feature, and, of course, the number on the box must match the number on the bullet. It just wouldent do for the state to have ammo registered to your name turn up at a shooting in LA because the box labeler got out of sync with the 50 round lots comming out of the bullet press. I suppose the best way to do it would be to have a person QC everything by cross checking the rounds with the box but its not likely they could/would check all 50 microscopic tags and they couldent check the numbers on the base of the bullets if they wanted to. If you dont see how this is completely contrary to the current mass production methods that currently exist and deliver ammo to us for $5/box you're not paying attention.

So, now your ammo is in the box. But now its just not like any other box of ammo; its unique. Its also a product that the mfgr is obliged to secure and track much like a gun maker tracks a frame. No more pallet in a warehouse. Inventory loss that's acceptible under the current scheme is no longer acceptible. "Off Paper" ammo would be as valuable a comodity to a criminal as an off-paper gun. Its time for secure storage, bonded transport, certified tracking, etc; all of it staffed by higher wage employees than are currently employed in warehousing and transport.

Now, Ammo shows up at your gun dealer, he's going to have to log it in, and secure it from theft, just like his guns. When you buy it he's going to have to collect your informaiton and log it in. He's going to have to maintain records, inspectible by the state, to verify his complaince. He's also criminally responsible for any errors he makes. Obviously for the additional hassle, time, and risk of imprisonment he will demand a larger profit.

Its really more appropriate to think of searilized ammo in the same sense that you think of a searalized gun frame. Of course given the expense, and criminal liability, it will behoove you to treat the ammo with your name on it just like you'd treat a gun; locked up in a safe and dont leave any cases behind at the range.

All of the above is vertually certian to happen. Now, to get into speculation.

I'd be REALLY suprised if it didnt cost 10 times as much for the ammo company to produce and deliver the product to a gun store. I'd expect the gun shop to want to collect 5 bucks a box for the record keeping and risk.

So..... if ammo off the shelf ends up costing $50/box (conservative I believe at only 10x the price of cheapy fmj 9mm) what do you think that will do to volume. Yeah, it will go down, way down. Now the expense associated with all those new machines, all the special storage, tracking, and the new procedures and personal gets spread over a much smaller volume of ammo and prices go up some more. I dont think $75/50 is an unreasonable number but of course that's just a wag.

After a while a ticket on southwest to reno will be cheeper than the ammo an officer will shoot on a training/qualificaiton day. Same for you; if you want to go out for a 300 or 400 round range day it will cheeper to fly to vegas and rent a car.

You might feel different but its MHO that the big ammo companies will just say screw it. Its a hassle and by the time the volume price situation stabalizes there wont be enough volume to make it worth it. I believe that what ammo gets produced in this state will be done by individuals in front of a Dillon press, a laser engraver, and a PC. I think that's the appropriate "economy of scale" for the product the law describes. It will probably be quite a nice little home busines. They will be very precious carry rounds that an individual will track very closley.

If that's not an ammo ban its pretty darn close.



Carnitas:

Your post bears repeating.

Thanks for such an excellent, informative post!!!

All you "this isn't an ammo ban" sheep read Carnitas' post that I quoted above.

I must admit, I stopped reading halfway through as I was seriously getting a stomachache reading it. :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

Doctor Suarez
June 21, 2005, 02:08 PM
As a clarification, I've heard little more than rumors suggesting that SB 357 will allow unserialized ammo purchased before the ban to remain in your home. However, you may only transport it to shoot it off or deliver it to the Polizei. If you move, and transport it with you, you're a felon.

I think Schwarzenegger isn't so stupid as to sign these laws. They're being used to smear him, and he's just going to have to gird for the fight. And it's our job to let him know that we'll back him.

El Rojo
June 21, 2005, 08:12 PM
That's the biggest market in the US - there is no way a major manufacturer would walk away from it. Granted - Barrett did, but let's face it, he's got a niche product.That is it, I am going to declare it, Ronnie Barrett is a marketing genius. The State of California banned the sale of .50 BMG rifles to civilians in the state, so Barrett has no choice not to sell guns to PRKians. He can't sell to us even if he wanted to. So he has a handful or less of Barrett rifles that PRK government agencies use, so he cuts them off. We are talking a miniscule amount of rifles here. Suddenly he is a 2nd Amendment folk hero for taking on the whole State of California and "taking a huge revenue cut" all in the name of principle and he is now the can never go wrong .45 ACP of gun manufacturers. I will call him Ronnie "Garand" Barrett from now on because he is the holy grail of gun manufacturers for the stand he took in California and anyone who says anything bad about him is like a man who says the Garand isn't a battle rifle or that the .45 ACP is the king of handgun cartridges. :rolleyes:

Back on topic. I guess we shouldn't complain when our side uses scare tactics to try and motivate everyone to take political action. It isn't a ban, but it will increase the cost of ammo a whole lot. Lets just call it a ban anyway right? Misrepresenting the truth in order to scare the populace to take action is an acceptable way to get votes and motivate political action. The anti's do it all the time, so why shouldn't we?

Doctor Suarez
June 22, 2005, 05:13 AM
Small bit of good news:

The Police Protective League has come out AGAINST SB 357! (http://www.gunownersca.com/leg/bills05/SB357art.htm)

Don't give up the fight, but at the same time, don't lose hope. I think this one is starting to stink so bad even Arnold can smell it.

Gung-Ho
June 22, 2005, 11:22 AM
It isn't a ban, but it will increase the cost of ammo a whole lot.

Lets see if you feel the same way after somefinds a few pieces of brass you lost at the range....and sprinkles them around a crime scene.

Beethoven
June 22, 2005, 01:32 PM
Back on topic. I guess we shouldn't complain when our side uses scare tactics to try and motivate everyone to take political action. It isn't a ban, but it will increase the cost of ammo a whole lot. Lets just call it a ban anyway right? Misrepresenting the truth in order to scare the populace to take action is an acceptable way to get votes and motivate political action. The anti's do it all the time, so why shouldn't we?


Read Carnitas' post a few posts above yours and then try to tell me how this is not a de facto ammunition ban.

C'mon Rojo....you're smarter than that.

El Rojo
June 22, 2005, 11:29 PM
This is not a defacto ammunition ban. Facts are facts. Will it increase the cost of ammo a whole lot? Sure. Can you still get it? Yes. So is it a ban? No. We are splitting hairs and mainly I am aruging with you because I am right and I can. Should we fight this? Of course! Should peoplel call it an ammo ban even though it isn't in order to scare people into taking action? If they want, sure go for it. The end result is all that matters.

However, it isn't an ammunition ban. Sorry, it just isn't.

Lets see if you feel the same way after somefinds a few pieces of brass you lost at the range....and sprinkles them around a crime scene.What does the cost of ammunition going up under SB 357 have to do with the microstamping requirements of AB 352? The answer? Nothing. Second, how are they going to get microstamped brass from my grandfathered Glock 27 from the range and spread it around a crime scene? The answer? They aren't. Third, my lawyer is going to be the first to say, "My client first of all doesn't even have a handgun with the microstamping capability and even if he did, there is no proof he was at the scene of the crime because he does shoot at a public range so anyone could have planted that brass there." We know that this microstamping will have little to no effect on crime, even the anti-gunners will, that is why there is a revolver exemption! All this is going to do is make revolvers popular and in fact, it might increase public safety because gang bangers might do drive bys with 6 shot revolvers instead of their 17 shot Glocks or 30 round Macs, by the way which are probably stolen or are illegal and won't lead anyone to anything anyway.

See, nothing like using some little scare tactics to get people riled up and start spouting off about falacies of gun legislation without any real knowledge of what these bills do and what they are. Then again in Gung-Ho's defense, all gun bills should be opposed and they are often so confusing everyone can't help to not understand what they really do. The important thing is Gung Ho and everyone understands they are bad and need to be fought.

Get 'em riled up some more! It is working. Hey, by the way, did you guys see that video going around of the snipers in the Middle East blowing away terrorists that hide in rocks with a .50 BMG? :rolleyes:

One last point. What might it do to our credibility with non-shooters when they hear us spouting off, and I quote, "This bill will effectively ban handgun ammo in the state of CA should it be signed into law." Is that true? Will it ban handgun ammo? No it won't. Here pretend I am an anti gunner. The shooters are just hysterical babblers because the price of their ammo is only going to go up a half a cent and they are just trying to stop effective law enforcement in the name of saving a dollar on a box of ammo. This is not an ammo ban, people can still buy ammo and this is just a way to help law enforcement track criminals. See how easy that is to turn around on us? We all know the half cent tax is miniscule compared to the techinical costs of making the ammo. So make that the issue. Make references to cars. Make it sound like they are going to raise the costs of tires that must have microstamping tread that leave an impression in all surfaces so they can track criminal vehicles. And this will cost about 800% more or whatever it is just to solve a few crimes. Should everyone have to pay for this? Now what if someone steals your car tires or even your car? How effective is the database going to be?

I just am not a big fan of hysterics is all. Tell the truth and say what it is really going to do. Cost us a whole lot of money. Why do we always rag on anti-gunners and how do we know they are wrong? Because they like to blow things out of proportion and misrepresent what their bills are going to do. I in good conscious can't do what I critisize them for. However, I will be counting on a few of you :evil:s to do it for me! :p

Gung-Ho
June 22, 2005, 11:41 PM
I don't really care how you want to dance around this, but many including me will NEVER buy or use ammo with numbers on it. And TWO it DOES BAN reloaded ammo. I and many others have reloaded for years and years, and this will legally put an end to it. If this becomes law, the goverment can go make love to itself. I will move to Wyoming.

El Rojo
June 22, 2005, 11:46 PM
DOES BAN reloaded ammoWrong. It bans reloading unserialized ammo. You can still buy serialized bullets and reload them 50 at a time. :banghead: Sorry, I am in a splitting hairs mood tonight. I am with you Gung Ho. I will probably be a criminal if this one goes through. I will not comply. I do plan on giving Arnold hell when it clears the assembly and heads his way.

railroader
June 23, 2005, 03:30 AM
El Rojo, 1st with sb 357 the serial number will be on the brass and the bullet so picked up brass could spread at a crime scene. Ab 352 is for handguns that stamp a serial number on the brass. As for there being ammo and serialized bullets available from what I have read all the major ammo manufacturers want nothing to do with it because of the cost of retooling and the cost of the ammo will be way too high. So is some outside company going to step up and make this overpriced ammo? How long do you think the FFL's are going to be in business trying to sell guns that use very expensive ammo let alone sell the ammo itself. I don't know where you live but there are very few firearm dealers near me anymore just because it is so hard to do business in this state. So your local dealer goes under so where do you buy this ammo? Over the internet, no because it has to be registered through a dealer. Maybe a ban isn't the right word, how about a slow death? Mark

El Rojo
June 23, 2005, 09:23 PM
How long do you think the FFL's are going to be in business trying to sell guns that use very expensive ammo let alone sell the ammo itself.That is a good point. If you have nothing to shoot out of it, do you still want to buy a gun? Well since this only effects the handgun crowd, there will still be plenty of rifles and shotguns for sale. So we wouldn't die just yet.

SB 357 has nothing to do with brass. It is simply an ID number on bullets. (simply, that wasn't supposed to be a joke, but it turned into one) So under SB 357 brass will not come into play. Heck even with the microstamping required under AB 352, this doesn't apply to curious and relics, so there will still be other handguns you can bring in, and more importantly it won't apply to the million of handguns already in the state. So they can pick up my brass all they want, because my brass isn't going to have microstamping on it.

I can tell you what whill happen if SB 357 goes through. There is going to be a huge amount of non-compliance and most likely a black market. The worst thing about SB 357 is it will apply to all .22LR ammo!!! :what: Maybe I should get a .17 HMR afterall.

There is one manufacturer out there that is willing to make the bullets with the numbers on them. They are the geniuses who introduced this to the liberals in charge and they are the reason the anti-gunners can get away with saying the technology is available. If this thing passes, I might just buy some of their stock.

Brett Bellmore
June 23, 2005, 09:43 PM
Well since this only effects the handgun crowd

As I read the bill, all ammo that could be used in a handgun must be serialized. And it doesn't say it has to be a mass production handgun, either. So, as a practical matter, if there are any rounds out there that no custom gun currently is capable of firing, I suppose they could pay somebody to tool one or two up. And, bingo! It's handgun ammo.

So it effects everybody but the shotgunners.

R.H. Lee
June 23, 2005, 10:19 PM
You can still buy serialized bullets and reload them 50 at a time. No, you cannot buy serialized bullets because NOBODY MAKES THEM.
Sheesh.

El Rojo
June 24, 2005, 12:01 AM
No, you cannot buy serialized bullets because NOBODY MAKES THEM.
Sheesh.Not true. Read this from the SAAMI Website (http://www.saami.org/news/CA_ammoSer040505.htm).The California proposal being Attorney General Lockyer is based on technology under limited development and testing by Ravensforge Skateboard Solutions (www.ravensforge.com), a company that specializes in products to prevent damage by roller blades and skateboards. To our knowledge Ravensforge has not consulted with any firearms manufacturer on incorporating this technology into ammunition manufacturing. It appears Ravensforge is seeking to be a “sole source” provider of this technology and creating a monopoly for itself through legislative fiat.True it is under limited development, but they don't have to have it perfected to make money off of it. And it appears the fact that this isn't a tried and tested science won't deter our representatives any.

R.H. Lee
June 24, 2005, 12:25 AM
Interesting links, Red, but they only prove my point-the technology to make serialized bullets does not even exist. And if it did it would be prohibitively
expensive.

Note to everyone else in the other 49 states. The SAAMI website says If manufacturers were forced to abandon the California market, many could face bankruptcy, and our armed forces, homeland security, and state and local law enforcement would suddenly find themselves facing dramatically increased costs for their ammunition. So, if this horror becomes law, please take up the slack. Buy ammo and lots of it. You don't have to shoot it, just hang onto it for us. We'll buy it back from you after we clean house here. :D :evil:

SIGarmed
June 24, 2005, 12:38 AM
Wrong. It bans reloading unserialized ammo. You can still buy serialized bullets and reload them 50 at a time. Sorry, I am in a splitting hairs mood tonight. I am with you Gung Ho. I will probably be a criminal if this one goes through. I will not comply. I do plan on giving Arnold hell when it clears the assembly and heads his way.

El Rojo please read the bill.

If you mean you can reload after the bill theoretically gets signed into law that is technicaly correct. You should keep in mind that there is also no provision for taking any unserialized handgun ammunition outside of your home after the ban contrary to what has been said. This is a speculated revision that the gun prohibitionist may use to make it easier to swallow in the final version of the bill.

After this becomes law all reloading handgun bullets will have to be serialized. One thing also not mentioned is that there will be a special reloading tax of .05 on each bullet purchased after the sales tax you already pay. So why reload?

This is essentially the ammo tax bill that was vetoed last year by the governor incorporated into SB 357.

This is going to have a big effect on rifle and carbine shooters that use calibers considered hangun ammunition.

Gewehr98
June 24, 2005, 12:52 AM
That was SB-23. Passed the house and senate, Gray Davis signed it, and voila'! Civil disobedience began on a large scale.

What? You guys in ********** thought all of those thousands of banned magazine-fed autoloading rifles got registered with the ********** DOJ as soon as SB-23 became law? The DOJ still doesn't know why only a fraction of the banned guns they estimated were in the state ended up on the registry. They could've swore there were gonna be a bunch more registrations. :rolleyes:
The guns are still there, but instead of appearing at public ranges, they're toted up into the Sierra Nevadas and fired miles away from the peering eyes of those who would ban them. Been there, seen that.

Same thing will happen if SB 357 and AB 352 become law. People will just plain ignore the law, get more wheelweights from the America's Tire Company down the street, and cast their wadcutters at home in their garage. To avoid the potential for some silly component registry at the local gun store (kinda like the ammo registry at Sports Authority out there), they'll order their powder online from Wideners, and fire up the Dillon like nothing ever happened.

The guy with the Magma or Policlips automated bullet casting machine will be real popular on the PRK bullet black market.

El Rojo
June 24, 2005, 01:27 AM
I read the bill. It says a 1/2 cent tax on each bullet, not 5 cents. Also there is no provision for stamping brass in SB 357 as has been reported by some organizations. You might want to go read the bill again yourself. (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_357_bill_20050622_amended_asm.html)

In addition what is handgun ammo and what isn't? From the latest text of SB 357.(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.So what in the hell is "(A) Ammunition as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 12323."???Well 12323 says.12323. As used in this chapter, the following definitions shall
apply:
(a) "Handgun ammunition" means ammunition principally for use in
pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed
upon the person, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 12001,
notwithstanding that the ammunition may also be used in some rifles.So what in the hell does 12001 say?12001. (a) (1) As used in this title, the terms "pistol,"
"revolver," and "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person"
shall apply to and include any device designed to be used as a
weapon, from which is expelled a projectile by the force of any
explosion, or other form of combustion, and that has a barrel less
than 16 inches in length. These terms also include any device that
has a barrel 16 inches or more in length which is designed to be
interchanged with a barrel less than 16 inches in length.
(2) As used in this title, the term "handgun" means any "pistol,"
"revolver," or "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person."
So now that we have finished the trail of legal mumbo jumbo, the question really is, what does it mean by being principally for use in pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person and the additional notwithstanding that the ammunition may also be used in some rifles? Just because there are .223 pistols, I think my lawyer could argue that the .223 round was not created principally for use in handguns. This created principally is the tricky part, what does it really mean? I don't think they are going to be able to say because someone somewhere has a .300 WSM pistol, you have to register your .300 WSM ammo. But hey, don't let that stop you, spread that rummor and get the fear going. Afterall, that is what this thread is all about.

The bad news is it lists .22 caliber rimfire ammo by name, so we are screwed.

SIGarmed
June 24, 2005, 02:24 AM
I somehow got 1/2 and .05 messed up that I can admit.

Anyhow if this passes it's civil disobedience time. The gun banners need to hear from us, but I also don't think the governor will sign it.

M1 .30 carbine may be effected and cowboy action shooters will be. Lever guns. Never said anything about a .300 WSM although I wouldn't put it past the grabbers to try.


It's yet to be determined if the M1 .30 is going to be effected, but I'm sure there are some pistols chambered for this out here in California so it's a very good possibility.

If this travesty would pass I don't doubt for a second centerfire rifle cartridges are next. They never stop. The gun banners propose something every year.

Fear mongering? Is that what you call it. When a bill like this passes through the legislature like nothing it's fear mongering? You have to be kidding.

railroader
June 24, 2005, 02:47 AM
So 223 ammo isn't for handguns even though there are handguns chambered for it. That I agree with. Now are the lawyers going to argue with online ammo dealers that refuse to ship "rifle" ammo to california because the the law isn't specific enough. I know of one example of a company that has great deals and refuses to ship to california now. That would be CDNN investments. They will no longer ship any semi-auto firearm to california regardless if they are legal here or not. I asked them why and they said they don't want to have to deal with it anymore. That is just one company but there are others that refuse to ship certain firearms to california even though they are legal.So if our state isn't specific as to what is legal and what isn't I can see us getting screwed even on rifle ammo if dealers out of california are wary. Personally I reload and buy ammo online so I can afford to shoot. Mark

griz
June 24, 2005, 11:12 PM
I would like to challenge your claim that serialized bullets DO exist. Where can I buy them? When you go to the provided link, or search ravens forge, the best you can get is playground equipment. To me that adds up to non-existence of serialized bullets.

And before you say it's only handgun ammo, I will remind you that about 10 years ago entire shiploads of 7.62X39 ammo were prevented from entering this country because their steel cores made them armor piercing handgun ammo. Please don't count on the reasonableness of the people who are trying to price ammuniton out of the reach of non-government shooters. (Note that I didn't say ban, but that will be the result)

Yes I know that as the law now reads law enforcement agencys are not exempted. But if the ammo companies end up not making ANY serialized ammo, the exemption will only be a pen stroke away.

Lastly, the California Attorney General site (http://www.ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/2005/05-028.htm) shows a serialized bullet that was recovered after hitting a car door. The number is 123A06. unless they plan on expanding that number quite a bit, they will only be able to cover the first couple million rounds coming into CA.

R.H. Lee
June 24, 2005, 11:22 PM
I draw 2 conclusions from the California AG website:

1) If you're going to commit a crime, do it with an unserialized bullet.

2) Don't buy/register any serialized bullets as they could implicate you in a crime you didn't commit.

Gewehr98
June 25, 2005, 08:28 PM
1. Don't buy the serialized ammunition - steal it or somehow obtain it from a source without your information going on the sales register. Purchase using an alias of false identification. Break the chain so nothing associates you with the serial numbers of the bullets.

2. Use a firearm that doesn't microstamp in compliance with AB 352. There will be plenty of non-compliant guns in that state even after the bill is enacted. If it's a revolver, even better because you don't need to police up your brass afterwards.

3. After commission of (name your gun infraction here) make certain to either keep the fired brass for transport to an out-of-state handloader (one of the 49 states that doesn't give a rat's behind about either SB 357 or AB 352), or deposit all of the fired brass somewhere like a public pistol range, mixed in with thousands of other pieces of serialized and non-serialized PRK brass. Go get 'em, DOJ! :evil:

Librarian
June 25, 2005, 08:53 PM
Darned legislature with its numbering system...

AB352 is the case-marked-by-the-pistol bill:
AB 352, as amended, Koretz. Firearms: microstamping.
Existing law defines unsafe handguns as failing to pass certain
tests, or lacking certain features, as specified.
This bill would, commencing January 1, 2007, expand the definition
of unsafe handgun to include semiautomatic pistols that are not
designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters, that
identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched
into the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol,
and which are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when
the firearm is fired.
However, SB357 says (d) For purposes of this chapter, "serialized" means all of the
following have been met:
(1) The ammunition has been identified in a manner prescribed by
the Department of Justice so that all assembled ammunition contained
within a package provided for retail sale, or as otherwise specified
by the department, is uniquely identified.
(2) Bullets used for reloading or handloading contained within a
package provided for retail sale, or as otherwise specified by the
department, are uniquely identified.
(3) Identification of the manufacturer of the items described in
paragraphs (1) and (2).
(4) Identification on the exterior of the items described in
paragraphs (1) and (2) in a manner that permits visual inspection for
the purpose of determining if the assembled ammunition or bullet
complies with the provisions of this section.
(5) Identification on the exterior of the items described in
paragraphs (1) and (2) in a manner that is maintained subsequent to
the discharge of the ammunition and subsequent to the impact of the
bullet, based on standards prescribed by the department.
(6) Identification on the exterior of every package or container
of serialized ammunition, as prescribed by the department, with the
same unique identifiers used on the assembled ammunition or bullets
contained within the packaging or container. No package or container
shall be labeled with the same unique identifiers as any other
package or container by the same manufacturer. I don't see how the requirements of (4) and (5) can be met without marking the brass, and the analysis document here (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_357_cfa_20050425_143651_sen_comm.html) suggestshttp://www.ammocoding.com/index.php
[Ack! Ptui! :barf: Sorry for the plug, but it's in the analysis doc]

That is a website for Ammunition Coding System (ACS) with a
Seattle address and includes the following:

Bullet Identification Technology: A modern crime
fighting tool

In an effort to provide law enforcement with modern
crime fighting tools, a new patentpending bullet
identification technology known as the Ammunition
Coding System (ACS) has been developed. ACS assigns a
unique code to every round of ammunition manufactured,
and by recording sales records, law enforcement
personnel will be able to easily trace the ammunition
involved in a crime and have an avenue to pursue and
solve even the most difficult cases. The key to ACS is
the unique code that is micro-laser engraved on
factory-produced ammunition. This laser engraving is
etched on both the projectile and the inside of the
cartridge casing. Each code will be common to a single
box of cartridges and unique from all other ammunition
sold. The unique ACS codes will be tracked and records
maintained to identify individual ammunition purchases.
The ACS technology will provide a method for law
enforcement personnel to trace ammunition purchases and
link bullets and cartridge cases found at crime scenes
to the initial retail ammunition purchaser. This
system will not necessarily prove who pulled the
trigger, but it will provide law enforcement with a
valuable lead and a starting point to quickly begin
their investigations. The design of the ACS laser
engraving system will allow law enforcement personnel
to identify the bullet code in cases where as little as
20% of the bullet base remains intact after recovery.
Since bullets are designed to keep the base solid and
in its original configuration, the likelihood of ACS
codes remaining legible after recovery is very high.
Law enforcement testing has already shown a 99% success
rate in identifying the ACS code after bullet recovery. so the proponents of the bill appear to have such a thing in mind.

Can'thavenuthingood
June 25, 2005, 09:02 PM
The intent of these laws is to fight and solve crime.

So by using a different gun (non-microstamped) the investigation is not solved or closed. The only way to close this "untraceable ammo usage" is to ban guns that do not have the microstamping capability.

Nothing to it really, just keep passing laws until it all stops or someone triggers the reset button.

We're all criminals, we're just not yet charged, tried and convicted.

Vick

R.H. Lee
June 25, 2005, 11:03 PM
law enforcement
personnel will be able to easily trace the ammunition
involved in a crime and have an avenue to pursue and
solve even the most difficult cases. Right. Joe Gangbanger is gonna make a stop at Walmart, produce his driver's license when he buys the 'serialized' ammo, then go out and cap somebody with it. :rolleyes:

Yeah, that'll be happenin'..............

It works here the way Gewehr98 says. The state pretends to regulate and we pretend to be regulated.

Gung-Ho
June 26, 2005, 05:14 PM
The intent of these laws is to fight and solve crime.

Your chidding right? The intent of these laws is to disarm law abiding citizens.

Carnitas
June 26, 2005, 06:28 PM
Couple of interesting thoughts or observations....

On the PDF linked off the AG's site ( http://www.ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/2005/05-028.pdf ) its says "...unique sereial number for each handgun bullet within each box...." That means 50 sereal numbers per box. That drastically changes the complexity of the task. Now each box has 50 numbers attached to it. I'm not a computer guy so I dont know the bits and bytes but any way you dice it your database just got a whole lot larger.

Also, if you say "each" there's no longer the ability for the ammo manufactures to comply by creating larger units to sell. If it were 1 number per "sale" or "box" they could just put a thousand rounds in a "box" all with the same number and it would be a lot easier to coax that from the existing production methods.

Another thing that might be worth putting into the letters from the governor is the idea that seialized ammo only exists in theory. What would DOJ do if you asked them to show you an actual box of compliant ammo, with all the tamperproof packaging, and invintory codes that was created in a real production setting. I'd bet anything that that box doesnt exist. I've got money that says every searlized round that has been shot or produced to date has been placed, by hand infront of a laser that was programed by hand keyed entry, and loaded on a press with a production capacity no greater than the Dillon that's sitting in my garage. I bet the shell rack was picked up from the trash at the range and the cardboard box was created on a laser printer and glued together by somebody's secetary.

Mark in California
June 26, 2005, 06:28 PM
Since the numbers will microscopic, how will you know if they are there? How enforcement know they are there? And finally, how will they show "intent" if there is no way you verify complience and must depend on what someone tells you about serial numbers being present. Will they also stand trial for beleaving what someone else told them?

Carnitas
June 26, 2005, 06:30 PM
Interesting....Ravensforge is not even a Ca. company.....they're from Washington.

athlon64
June 27, 2005, 12:44 AM
summary at

http://www.calnra.com/legs.shtml#sb357

El Rojo
June 27, 2005, 01:09 AM
1. The date of implementation has been moved from 2007 to 2009 for sales, manufacture or transfer.
2 Transportation while moving to a new home is exempt.

3 Out of state residents can possess/transport up to 50 rounds while in the state but only for the firearms they possess

4 Possession of non-seriallized ammo in public places will be legal until 2016 (instead of 2007)
Well that is good. Now we can continue to buy non-serialized ammo and as long as they can't prove we bought it after the ban, it really isn't banned. Sort of like the normal capacity magazines ban. I bought all of my normal capacity magazines before the ban. :D

I just don't see how Arnold could put this through and expect to win the next election. Hopefully he is smart enough to know that.

bjbarron
June 27, 2005, 01:18 AM
I can't say I am much interested in listening to anyone who has justifications to these laws.

I have zero tolerance for gun laws of any type any more.

What I am interested in is the repeal of gun laws on the books...starting with the import ban of '89, the gun control act of '69, disband the '72 ATF, and dump the '94 Brady Act. Eventually I'd like to see the '34 and '38 gun control acts removed, and the icing on the cake would be the revocation of the 1911 Sullivan act.

That's what I call a compromise. Remove those restrictions on gun ownership and they can serialize all they want. Until then...these laws are just more nails in the coffin.

Texpatriate
June 27, 2005, 02:39 AM
This is the biggest bunch of BS I have ever heard. All I can say is, Thank God I don't live in California. If I were in y'all's situation I think I'd start quietly purchasing all the ammo I could afford and in as many calibers I presently need and may ever need. If the gubment figures out I've got it, well then they can just come and get it- but they better pack a lunch. Not to sound like an alarmist, but I perceive that with these two laws coming down the pipe (if they pass) and with the recent supreme court decision that broadens the scope of eminent domain, we are going to see a lot more Ruby Ridge and Waco type situations in the near future. Goodbye freedom- hello police state.

If you enjoyed reading about "Time to end the confusion: READ HERE About CA SB 357 and AB 352!!!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!