Ammunition Serialization
Ref: http://ammunitionaccountability.org/Legislation.htm
Proposed legislation to serialize ammunition.
I hear a lot of people whining about the proposals, lets DO something.
Actually ALL of us have the ability to at least hamper this stupid effort (the numbering [encoding] of ammunition). Simply by pointing up to the proposed legislators that their estimate of one half cent per round ($.005, per their web site) is seriously flawed.
- - - Begin "logic" against the proposal - - -
To accomplish what they propose, the inside of the case would need to be completely redesigned to maintain the structural integrity during firing. Since there is no provision for a military exemption, it would add millions of needless dollars to the cost of maintaining our military. If the decision is reached to exempt military ammunition from serialization, then it would require tracking of ALL military ammunition, something that is not required now. Once again, adding significant cost to the military.
Following the military line of thought: Three of the major calibers used by the military (9mm, 5.56 and 7.62x51) also have significant use by civilians for target practice. Do you really think the manufacturer would place the cost of serialization on the civilian populace? Please think again. Even with very significant purchases by the military, the civilian population purchases far and away the majority of ammunition. As such, the military would incur a significant charge, once again, increasing our military budget.
Current information tells us that there are about 200,000,000 guns, legally owned, within the United States (I have read numbers from 150,000,000 to 250,000,000, so let's use the "average" just for discussion). From the people that I know, the "average" gun owner has one box of ammunition for each gun he/she owns. I personally think that figure is low, but let's use it, just for a starting point. That means that there are 10 TRILLION (200 million times fifty) rounds of ammunition located in American households. 10 TRILLION rounds that this proposal would outlaw in 2011. That means that you would automatically produce either millions of felons, retroactively, or produce thousands of TONS of hazardous waste, all with ONE piece of legislation. Are you really sure you want to answer to that question?
To accomplish what they propose, they would be REQUIRING that there be NO reloading. This would produce significantly more metals in need of recycling. Why would anyone in their right mind require that more money be spent collecting and melting down of brass, when the majority of the empty brass is currently reused? How many millions will that cost?
Also in the line of reloading, estimates run from 25% to 50% of shooters reload ammunition. Most of those maintain enough components to handle about one year's shooting (they buy it on sale to save a large percentage of the shooting cost). The proposed legislation would either produce millions of felons, once again retroactively, or produce thousands of TONS of hazardous waste. You sure you want to answer to that question?
- - - End "logic" against the proposal - - -
The above paragraphs are an example of what could easily be said in E-mails to [email protected] - the author of the proposed legislation template. i.e. BURY that clown in paperwork!
If each person were to post any suggestions for additional logic to bury the proposals, we could all copy the ones we like, make a few modifications and add it to the E-mails we send to the legislators involved. Remember, when legislators receive "form" letters, they pay far less attention to them - when they receive letters that say mostly the same thing but are unique, they realize that there are a LOT of really annoyed and well organized people watching.
Department of redundancy department, let's BURY these clowns in electronic paperwork. Remember, legislators are convinced that for EVERY comment they receive, there are at least ten others with the same opinion that have not written. Let's let them know just how likely they are to be voted OUT, the next election (I STRONGLY recommend that you NOT threaten them with that. It will be significantly more effective if they come to that conclusion by themselves).
Ref: http://ammunitionaccountability.org/Legislation.htm
Proposed legislation to serialize ammunition.
I hear a lot of people whining about the proposals, lets DO something.
Actually ALL of us have the ability to at least hamper this stupid effort (the numbering [encoding] of ammunition). Simply by pointing up to the proposed legislators that their estimate of one half cent per round ($.005, per their web site) is seriously flawed.
- - - Begin "logic" against the proposal - - -
To accomplish what they propose, the inside of the case would need to be completely redesigned to maintain the structural integrity during firing. Since there is no provision for a military exemption, it would add millions of needless dollars to the cost of maintaining our military. If the decision is reached to exempt military ammunition from serialization, then it would require tracking of ALL military ammunition, something that is not required now. Once again, adding significant cost to the military.
Following the military line of thought: Three of the major calibers used by the military (9mm, 5.56 and 7.62x51) also have significant use by civilians for target practice. Do you really think the manufacturer would place the cost of serialization on the civilian populace? Please think again. Even with very significant purchases by the military, the civilian population purchases far and away the majority of ammunition. As such, the military would incur a significant charge, once again, increasing our military budget.
Current information tells us that there are about 200,000,000 guns, legally owned, within the United States (I have read numbers from 150,000,000 to 250,000,000, so let's use the "average" just for discussion). From the people that I know, the "average" gun owner has one box of ammunition for each gun he/she owns. I personally think that figure is low, but let's use it, just for a starting point. That means that there are 10 TRILLION (200 million times fifty) rounds of ammunition located in American households. 10 TRILLION rounds that this proposal would outlaw in 2011. That means that you would automatically produce either millions of felons, retroactively, or produce thousands of TONS of hazardous waste, all with ONE piece of legislation. Are you really sure you want to answer to that question?
To accomplish what they propose, they would be REQUIRING that there be NO reloading. This would produce significantly more metals in need of recycling. Why would anyone in their right mind require that more money be spent collecting and melting down of brass, when the majority of the empty brass is currently reused? How many millions will that cost?
Also in the line of reloading, estimates run from 25% to 50% of shooters reload ammunition. Most of those maintain enough components to handle about one year's shooting (they buy it on sale to save a large percentage of the shooting cost). The proposed legislation would either produce millions of felons, once again retroactively, or produce thousands of TONS of hazardous waste. You sure you want to answer to that question?
- - - End "logic" against the proposal - - -
The above paragraphs are an example of what could easily be said in E-mails to [email protected] - the author of the proposed legislation template. i.e. BURY that clown in paperwork!
If each person were to post any suggestions for additional logic to bury the proposals, we could all copy the ones we like, make a few modifications and add it to the E-mails we send to the legislators involved. Remember, when legislators receive "form" letters, they pay far less attention to them - when they receive letters that say mostly the same thing but are unique, they realize that there are a LOT of really annoyed and well organized people watching.
Department of redundancy department, let's BURY these clowns in electronic paperwork. Remember, legislators are convinced that for EVERY comment they receive, there are at least ten others with the same opinion that have not written. Let's let them know just how likely they are to be voted OUT, the next election (I STRONGLY recommend that you NOT threaten them with that. It will be significantly more effective if they come to that conclusion by themselves).
