California bullet ids
- Thread starter PinnedAndRecessed
- Start date
- Status
mainmech48
Member
Gotta believe that the intent here is make legal ammo available only to the Chosen Few. If you make the bulk of the civilian ammo supply dry-up, their guns will be rendered essentially useless, at least that would appear to be the theory.
Can't just ban all firearms from being sold? Make the "qualification" process so convoluted and expensive that the manufacturers withdraw the product "voluntarily".
Legal as Church on Sunday (wait one; is that still legal in CA?) and as nauseating as last week's garbage. Also of about as much real usefullness in stopping/solving criminals as you-know-whats on a boar.
Look for provisions for asset confiscation when the "New, Improved" version of this dreck comes on-line if and when this one passes and doesn't "work".
If your legislature is truly a reflection of the mean-intelligence of the majority of it's constituents, it's time to GTFOOD. The place is beyond redemption.
Can't just ban all firearms from being sold? Make the "qualification" process so convoluted and expensive that the manufacturers withdraw the product "voluntarily".
Legal as Church on Sunday (wait one; is that still legal in CA?) and as nauseating as last week's garbage. Also of about as much real usefullness in stopping/solving criminals as you-know-whats on a boar.
Look for provisions for asset confiscation when the "New, Improved" version of this dreck comes on-line if and when this one passes and doesn't "work".
If your legislature is truly a reflection of the mean-intelligence of the majority of it's constituents, it's time to GTFOOD. The place is beyond redemption.
jlwatts3
Member
No sumpnz, we wouldn't want that. We need to save the room for our "undocumented aliens".
griz
Member
Does anyone know of the specific requirement to report/record the firing of ammo, or is that an assumption? I ask because it would seem to be a nightmare for a big match such as End Of Trail, the big cowboy match that used to be held in California.
Imagine 700 shooters running through 12 stages, with about 20 rounds per stage. That's not including shotgun ammo or side matches. Of course most shoot reloads now. But I suppose the expense and aggravation of buying factory ammo and doing more paper work than shooting would reduce the number of competitors greatly. That is probably the real intent of the law.
Imagine 700 shooters running through 12 stages, with about 20 rounds per stage. That's not including shotgun ammo or side matches. Of course most shoot reloads now. But I suppose the expense and aggravation of buying factory ammo and doing more paper work than shooting would reduce the number of competitors greatly. That is probably the real intent of the law.
PrudentGT
Member
Let's see... unintended consequences:
1) Ban standard capacity magazines -- can't spray and pray, criminals are forced to become better marksmen.
2) Institute a 'drop test' that costs manufacturer's money to have performed -- Criminals are forced to steal more reliable, higher quality guns.
3)Serialize ammo -- Criminals, having honed their skills due to 1), resort to wheelguns, which are typically of larger caliber.
Now instead of being held up with a .25 caliber Lorcin, you'll have a .480 Ruger revolver in your face! Thank you Sacramento! What would I do without your gentle reminders to buckle up for safety and your incessant (and expensive!) meddling in issues beyond your ken?
PS - Even though he couldn't afford it, guess who stocked up on CCI Blazer from Natchez? The UPS guy looked really uncomfortable...
1) Ban standard capacity magazines -- can't spray and pray, criminals are forced to become better marksmen.
2) Institute a 'drop test' that costs manufacturer's money to have performed -- Criminals are forced to steal more reliable, higher quality guns.
3)Serialize ammo -- Criminals, having honed their skills due to 1), resort to wheelguns, which are typically of larger caliber.
Now instead of being held up with a .25 caliber Lorcin, you'll have a .480 Ruger revolver in your face! Thank you Sacramento! What would I do without your gentle reminders to buckle up for safety and your incessant (and expensive!) meddling in issues beyond your ken?
PS - Even though he couldn't afford it, guess who stocked up on CCI Blazer from Natchez? The UPS guy looked really uncomfortable...
OneFireStick
Member
This is really bad news. I live in CA and after hearing this, I'm going to start stockpiling reloading componants for the long haul.
TRLaye
Member
Ok folks. Let's take a breath here.
1. You're discussing two separate bills in the Kalif legislature, not an assembly and senate version of the same bill.
SB357 is the ammunition serialization bill where a serial number will be engraved on lots of 50 handgun bullets. This bill may, or may not, apply to law enforcement but does not apply to the state National Guard. It does apply to bullets used for handloading. You will not be able to cast your own bullets if this bill passes.
Hoarding ammo won't work as you will not be able to legally transport it outside of your personal property. Whether to take out of the state or to the range to shoot it.
AB352 is an amendment to the California Safe Handgun act in that any semi-auto handgun that does not mark it's ejected case with information identifying that specific handgun is declared unsafe.
1. You're discussing two separate bills in the Kalif legislature, not an assembly and senate version of the same bill.
SB357 is the ammunition serialization bill where a serial number will be engraved on lots of 50 handgun bullets. This bill may, or may not, apply to law enforcement but does not apply to the state National Guard. It does apply to bullets used for handloading. You will not be able to cast your own bullets if this bill passes.
Hoarding ammo won't work as you will not be able to legally transport it outside of your personal property. Whether to take out of the state or to the range to shoot it.
AB352 is an amendment to the California Safe Handgun act in that any semi-auto handgun that does not mark it's ejected case with information identifying that specific handgun is declared unsafe.
Shalako
Member
I am trying to brainstorm a list of why this bill (SB357) is a detriment to California.
This bill is bad for the Economy
The recordkeeping will burden small business and reduce their profits.
The sales of ammo will drop and reduce profits of small business.
Fees for the database will hurt small business.
This bill is bad for the State Budget
A bureaucracy will need to be maintained to manage the database, collect fees, collect data and regulate bookkeeping violations.
This new bureaucracy will compete for funding with critical infrastructure needs that are already short on funds.
California law enforcement agencies will have to pay additional hundreds of thousands of dollars for higher priced ammunition.
California courts and law enforcement will be burdened by the creation of a whole new class of criminals to seek and prosecute.
Reduction in ammunition sales will diminsh tax revenues from in-state ammunition retailers.
This bill is bad for California citizens
The registration of every box of handgun ammunition at the store counter will usurp our very valuable time.
The Government's knowledge of every caliber, cartridge type, and quantity of ammunition that is bought infringes on our right to privacy.
The burden of having to painstakingly collect every peice of brass cartridge casing ejected at the range is an infringement on our valuable time.
This bill will only impact legal handgun shooters and can be interpreted as the persecution of a minority of individuals engaging in a legal activity.
Legal handgun shooters will be targeted by criminals as sources of ammunition.
Computer and database errors could falsely trigger the infringement of liberties of legal handgun shooters.
Selection and availability of ammunition and components could be reduced and thus impact ammunition sales and hinder the enjoyment of a legal activity.
Citizens who stocked up on ammunition in quantities commensurate with high volumes of competitive shooting may be forced to liquidate stocks of ammunition in a manner counter to their budgeted usage.
An unlawful black market of unserialized ammunition will emerge and fuel further criminal activity.
Criminals will opt to use unserialized ammunition for crimes or steal serialized ammunition from legal purchasers.
Otherwise law abiding citizens may be caught unawares with a friend's or partner's serialized ammunition left in their possesion subsequent to a hunting trip, shooting event, or other legal activity.
Human error in the serializarion, recordization, or database entry could cause undue hardship or loss of liberties to a law abiding citizen.
Shooting enthusiasts who choose to load their own ammo would fire the same casings numerous times with different projectiles, therefore causing a lack of consistency in the numbering scheme that would confuse the database and enforcement entities and thereby cause undue scrutiny of a law abiding citizen.
No effort will be made by the database to track the removal of serialized ammunition from circulation by legal means, thereby each projectile and casing will be owned by the purchaser in perpetuity. This creates an undue burden on the citizen enjoying a lawful activity.
Please feel free to modify or add to this list and use it at your convenience.
We need to get the message out!
This bill is bad for the Economy
The recordkeeping will burden small business and reduce their profits.
The sales of ammo will drop and reduce profits of small business.
Fees for the database will hurt small business.
This bill is bad for the State Budget
A bureaucracy will need to be maintained to manage the database, collect fees, collect data and regulate bookkeeping violations.
This new bureaucracy will compete for funding with critical infrastructure needs that are already short on funds.
California law enforcement agencies will have to pay additional hundreds of thousands of dollars for higher priced ammunition.
California courts and law enforcement will be burdened by the creation of a whole new class of criminals to seek and prosecute.
Reduction in ammunition sales will diminsh tax revenues from in-state ammunition retailers.
This bill is bad for California citizens
The registration of every box of handgun ammunition at the store counter will usurp our very valuable time.
The Government's knowledge of every caliber, cartridge type, and quantity of ammunition that is bought infringes on our right to privacy.
The burden of having to painstakingly collect every peice of brass cartridge casing ejected at the range is an infringement on our valuable time.
This bill will only impact legal handgun shooters and can be interpreted as the persecution of a minority of individuals engaging in a legal activity.
Legal handgun shooters will be targeted by criminals as sources of ammunition.
Computer and database errors could falsely trigger the infringement of liberties of legal handgun shooters.
Selection and availability of ammunition and components could be reduced and thus impact ammunition sales and hinder the enjoyment of a legal activity.
Citizens who stocked up on ammunition in quantities commensurate with high volumes of competitive shooting may be forced to liquidate stocks of ammunition in a manner counter to their budgeted usage.
An unlawful black market of unserialized ammunition will emerge and fuel further criminal activity.
Criminals will opt to use unserialized ammunition for crimes or steal serialized ammunition from legal purchasers.
Otherwise law abiding citizens may be caught unawares with a friend's or partner's serialized ammunition left in their possesion subsequent to a hunting trip, shooting event, or other legal activity.
Human error in the serializarion, recordization, or database entry could cause undue hardship or loss of liberties to a law abiding citizen.
Shooting enthusiasts who choose to load their own ammo would fire the same casings numerous times with different projectiles, therefore causing a lack of consistency in the numbering scheme that would confuse the database and enforcement entities and thereby cause undue scrutiny of a law abiding citizen.
No effort will be made by the database to track the removal of serialized ammunition from circulation by legal means, thereby each projectile and casing will be owned by the purchaser in perpetuity. This creates an undue burden on the citizen enjoying a lawful activity.
Please feel free to modify or add to this list and use it at your convenience.
We need to get the message out!
The singlemost effective thing you can possibly do is to write two letters.
The first goes to Senator Larry Craig, R-Idaho
The other goes to Congressman Tom DeLay, R-Texas
In both, you simply ask that in light of developments in California, that they pass legislation reserving to Congress the power, under the interstate commerce clause, to pre-empt the legislative powers of the various state in regards to firearms design and ammunition manufacturing.
Some might think that a dangerous precedent, to give Congress power over gun and ammo design. Think about it though. They have already spoken on this topic several times, from barring the CPSC from regulating these items, to banning "cop-killer" bullets.
The argument is that the Feds have supreme power over the topic and so Congress should make a law instructing the US Attorney to order the states to clear the field. The goal is to pass a federal law ending "co-soveriegnty" over the issue of gun and ammo manufacture and design.
Problem solved, though the act of Congress would occupy a lot of Bill Lockyer's time and budget.
“Preemption” describes the removal of a government’s power to regulate a specific subject matter. When an act of Congress removes a local or state government’s power to regulate a specific subject matter, the process is called “federal preemption.” State and local laws are often challenged on the theory that Congress has preempted the subject matter. However, in examining such challenges, the courts presume that the state or local law is not preempted. The courts have developed the following rule. For a court to find that Congress has “preempted” the power of a lower level of government to regulate a subject matter, the court must be “absolutely certain” that Congress intended to preempt that field of regulation. Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 464 (1991). When the state or local law in question concerns public health and safety, the law is within the historic police power of the States, and thus the requirement of “absolute certainty” of congressional intent to preempt is “particularly warranted.” Rice v Sante Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947).
To determine congressional intent, the courts look for one or more of the following:
* An express statement by Congress that it is taking over that field of regulation;
* A pervasive scheme of federal regulation of the field that leaves no room for state or local regulation; or
* An actual conflict between the federal law and the challenged state or local law.
However, the courts find such a conflict only when compliance with both the federal regulation and the challenged law would be physically impossible.
With respect to regulation of firearms, the courts have held that Congress made no explicit statement of its intent to take over that field of regulation. They have also found that congressional regulation of firearms is not a scheme so pervasive that it leaves no room for state and local law. Thus, absent a specific, actual conflict between a challenged state or local firearms law and a federal enactment, there is no federal preemption of that state or local law. See Richmond Boro Gun Club, Inc. v. City of New York, 896 F.Supp. 276, 285-288 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) (discussing the fact that Congress has nowhere made a statement of intent to preempt local regulation of firearms and the federal laws regulating firearms do not establish a pervasive scheme of regulation, and holding that New York City’s ordinance banning ”assault weapons” was not in actual conflict with the provisions of the Federal Civilian Marksmanship Program).
So, under the current state of the law, all that is required is clear Congressional intent to pre-empt the field, leaving no wiggle room for the states.
The first goes to Senator Larry Craig, R-Idaho
The other goes to Congressman Tom DeLay, R-Texas
In both, you simply ask that in light of developments in California, that they pass legislation reserving to Congress the power, under the interstate commerce clause, to pre-empt the legislative powers of the various state in regards to firearms design and ammunition manufacturing.
Some might think that a dangerous precedent, to give Congress power over gun and ammo design. Think about it though. They have already spoken on this topic several times, from barring the CPSC from regulating these items, to banning "cop-killer" bullets.
The argument is that the Feds have supreme power over the topic and so Congress should make a law instructing the US Attorney to order the states to clear the field. The goal is to pass a federal law ending "co-soveriegnty" over the issue of gun and ammo manufacture and design.
Problem solved, though the act of Congress would occupy a lot of Bill Lockyer's time and budget.
“Preemption” describes the removal of a government’s power to regulate a specific subject matter. When an act of Congress removes a local or state government’s power to regulate a specific subject matter, the process is called “federal preemption.” State and local laws are often challenged on the theory that Congress has preempted the subject matter. However, in examining such challenges, the courts presume that the state or local law is not preempted. The courts have developed the following rule. For a court to find that Congress has “preempted” the power of a lower level of government to regulate a subject matter, the court must be “absolutely certain” that Congress intended to preempt that field of regulation. Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 464 (1991). When the state or local law in question concerns public health and safety, the law is within the historic police power of the States, and thus the requirement of “absolute certainty” of congressional intent to preempt is “particularly warranted.” Rice v Sante Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947).
To determine congressional intent, the courts look for one or more of the following:
* An express statement by Congress that it is taking over that field of regulation;
* A pervasive scheme of federal regulation of the field that leaves no room for state or local regulation; or
* An actual conflict between the federal law and the challenged state or local law.
However, the courts find such a conflict only when compliance with both the federal regulation and the challenged law would be physically impossible.
With respect to regulation of firearms, the courts have held that Congress made no explicit statement of its intent to take over that field of regulation. They have also found that congressional regulation of firearms is not a scheme so pervasive that it leaves no room for state and local law. Thus, absent a specific, actual conflict between a challenged state or local firearms law and a federal enactment, there is no federal preemption of that state or local law. See Richmond Boro Gun Club, Inc. v. City of New York, 896 F.Supp. 276, 285-288 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) (discussing the fact that Congress has nowhere made a statement of intent to preempt local regulation of firearms and the federal laws regulating firearms do not establish a pervasive scheme of regulation, and holding that New York City’s ordinance banning ”assault weapons” was not in actual conflict with the provisions of the Federal Civilian Marksmanship Program).
So, under the current state of the law, all that is required is clear Congressional intent to pre-empt the field, leaving no wiggle room for the states.
PinnedAndRecessed
member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2004
- Messages
- 1,541
If you would help..............
Please email the governor and let him know your displeasure on this bill.
http://www.govmail.ca.gov/
Please email the governor and let him know your displeasure on this bill.
http://www.govmail.ca.gov/
Librarian
Member
Shalako's list is pretty good.
It would be useful, if only the Assembly and Senate cared about the effects and thought them 'bad'. H. L. Richardson, former CA state Senator 66-88, wrote a book "What makes you think we read the bills?"; some folks there really are clueless. Most legislators are party hacks. And a large number are positively anti-gun, and see all the negative effects listed as either benefits or reasonable costs to get those benefits.
Maybe Arnold will listen.
It would be useful, if only the Assembly and Senate cared about the effects and thought them 'bad'. H. L. Richardson, former CA state Senator 66-88, wrote a book "What makes you think we read the bills?"; some folks there really are clueless. Most legislators are party hacks. And a large number are positively anti-gun, and see all the negative effects listed as either benefits or reasonable costs to get those benefits.
Maybe Arnold will listen.
PinnedAndRecessed
member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2004
- Messages
- 1,541
I normally don't subscribe to the notion that, re gun laws, as California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. Granted, there are isolated pockets of anti-gun liberalism, e.g., New York city, Chicago, et al, but they don't need help from California.
And I often hear people out here on the left coast say that the rest of the nation will follow our assault rifle ban, drop safety test, etc. I don't agree with that.
However, this bullet id law maybe different. If the anti gun legislators in Kal manage to pull this off and if the only inconvenience is higher price for ammo, I'd guess you could look for a lot more states to follow.
What does this mean? It means that we should all apply as much pressure as possible on the gov of Kal to veto this. Even if you're not in state, the email address that I listed earlier does not require an address.
Arny is no friend of gun owners. But he is politically sensitive.
No, it's this condescending high and mighty attitude that (some of you) feel you're somehow immune from gun control legislation simply because you don't live in California. Like it's real easy to sit on your high horse and take gratuitous pot shots. I'm saying you shouldn't be so smug. IIRC, you've got a real lib governor in AZ, dontcha?
Didn't she just override the will of the people on some immigration issue?El Rojo
Member
Did you read where it says,
Start writing the governor.
Am I reading that right that all .22 ammo will have to be serialized? Well that is good news because the non-handgun shooting crowd better figure that out and realize the cost of a brick of 22 ammo is about to skyrocket. How in the hell do you serialize a .22LR bullet?
Start writing the governor.
sumpnz
Member
Same as all the rest of the affected bullets. That and good by 500 round bricks. 50 round boxes will be it.
sumpnz
Member
Just picked up on something:
Does this mean if you bought it wholesale it wouldn't have to be serialized? Or what if they simply didn't "package for retail sale" and packaged for some other arbitrary type of sale?
PinnedAndRecessed
member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2004
- Messages
- 1,541
sumpnz said, "Does this mean if you bought it wholesale it wouldn't have to be serialized?"
The bill will punish anyone having unmarked bullets, outside their home, after 2007. All bullets will have to be marked if taken outside their home. I guess if you have an indoor range in your house you'd be o.k.
One question. If, as I have been told, the id number is going to be on the base of the bullet which will be completely encased in the bullet case, how would a police officer know if the bullet is legal? Without pulling the bullet, that is?
The above is germane only if the version of the bill passes which says each "bullet" must be marked. IIRC, there is another version which says that each bullet "case" must be marked when the gun is fired. The latter version requires the chamber of the gun to do the marking.
Weird. Really weird. They are determined to just keep chipping away till it's too much hassle/too expensive to shoot anymore.
The bill will punish anyone having unmarked bullets, outside their home, after 2007. All bullets will have to be marked if taken outside their home. I guess if you have an indoor range in your house you'd be o.k.
One question. If, as I have been told, the id number is going to be on the base of the bullet which will be completely encased in the bullet case, how would a police officer know if the bullet is legal? Without pulling the bullet, that is?
The above is germane only if the version of the bill passes which says each "bullet" must be marked. IIRC, there is another version which says that each bullet "case" must be marked when the gun is fired. The latter version requires the chamber of the gun to do the marking.
Weird. Really weird. They are determined to just keep chipping away till it's too much hassle/too expensive to shoot anymore.
Librarian
Member
2 separate bills (see TRLaye's post) - we could get BOTH.
mussi
Member
I hope that one day, such a serialized casing blows up when firing, thus enabling the shooter to use the state of California so badly that it turns to the IMF for financial aid.
Black_Talon
Member
Probably by requiring the outside of the round to be identified as "serialized". Possily a special character on the headstamp for instance.
The PRK isn't that infectious.
I'm chuckling now. Coming from my "high and mighty" position here in Florida, where we still have unmolested C&R licenses, .50 BMG rifles, Title III firearms, and the '94 AWB really did expire, I dare say that the PRK's ammo serialization experiment is a long ways off for those of us in the free states. Methinks Riley's argument is more akin to sour grapes.
(Having escaped the PRK with my DOJ-banned collection just before SB-23 went into effect, myself, so I'm perfectly entitled to be smug)
Sounds like cap and ball revolvers will be the preferred, non-serialized method of defense on the Left Coast, perhaps followed by blackpowder stagecoach shotguns?
I'm chuckling now. Coming from my "high and mighty" position here in Florida, where we still have unmolested C&R licenses, .50 BMG rifles, Title III firearms, and the '94 AWB really did expire, I dare say that the PRK's ammo serialization experiment is a long ways off for those of us in the free states. Methinks Riley's argument is more akin to sour grapes.
(Having escaped the PRK with my DOJ-banned collection just before SB-23 went into effect, myself, so I'm perfectly entitled to be smug)
Sounds like cap and ball revolvers will be the preferred, non-serialized method of defense on the Left Coast, perhaps followed by blackpowder stagecoach shotguns?
How many BS bills have been passed that have made u more free....? On that note will the Senate just one day stop with these BS bills thinking that we are safe enough? Makes ya think. 
I see it comeing to the point of tracking guns with chips useing GPS or out-lawing guns all together.
I see it comeing to the point of tracking guns with chips useing GPS or out-lawing guns all together.
- Status
