Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Beethoven, Jun 19, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Beethoven

    Beethoven member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    404
    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

     
  2. Beethoven

    Beethoven member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    404
  3. rick_reno

    rick_reno member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    3,027
    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.
     
  4. R.H. Lee

    R.H. Lee Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    7,377
    Location:
    CA
    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.
     
  5. rick_reno

    rick_reno member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    3,027
    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.
     
  6. R.H. Lee

    R.H. Lee Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    7,377
    Location:
    CA
    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.
     
  7. rick_reno

    rick_reno member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    3,027
    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.
     
  8. R.H. Lee

    R.H. Lee Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    7,377
    Location:
    CA
    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.
     
  9. Beethoven

    Beethoven member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    404

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

    The ammo manufacturers themselves have stated such.
     
  10. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,385
    It will still ban ammo plain and simple.

    The ammo companies do not have the $$$$ to retool their equipment.
     
  11. Colt46

    Colt46 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    862
    If it bans legally manufactured

    ammunition that may not have a serial number on it then I'd call it a ban. Banning handloading outright is a ban.
     
  12. Gung-Ho

    Gung-Ho member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    185
    Location:
    Undisclosed. Somewhere West Of The Rockies
    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.
     
  13. railroader

    railroader Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,674
    Location:
    az
    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
     
  14. yucaipa

    yucaipa Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    Messages:
    176
    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
     
  15. athlon64

    athlon64 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Messages:
    44
    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.
     
  16. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    23,908
    Location:
    Arizona
    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:
     
  17. Don of Kalifornia

    Don of Kalifornia Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2003
    Messages:
    115
    Location:
    AZ
    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.
     
  18. Carnitas

    Carnitas Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    336
    Location:
    Northern California
    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.
     
  19. mics357

    mics357 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    Messages:
    52
    Location:
    las vegas, nv usa
    letters are on their way hope for the best
     
  20. Jim Diver

    Jim Diver Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    376
    Location:
    San Jose, PRK
    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.
     
  21. toivo

    toivo Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,468
    Location:
    New York State
    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.
     
  22. Doctor Suarez

    Doctor Suarez Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Messages:
    100
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    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.
     
  23. cpileri

    cpileri Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,422
    Forget that one!

    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-
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2005
  24. Beethoven

    Beethoven member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    404


    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:
     
  25. Doctor Suarez

    Doctor Suarez Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Messages:
    100
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page