Kalifornia: Bullet-coding scheme clears first political hurdle

You've probably heard by now that California is preparing to implement a scheme which requires bullet manufacturers to stamp a serial number on EACH INDIVIDUAL BULLET.

(Hat Tip to John H. of The Unofficial IPSC List)

By James P. Sweeney
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE

3:11 p.m. April 26, 2005

SACRAMENTO – A major new gun-control scheme – a numerical coding and tracking system for bullets – began moving through the Legislature Tuesday with heavyweight political support.

Sponsored by Democratic Attorney General Bill Lockyer, the measure passed the Senate Public Safety Committee on a 4-2 vote after a brief hearing. In addition to Lockyer, the bill is co-authored by Senate Leader Don Perata, D-Oakland, and another prominent Democrat, Sen. Joe Dunn of Garden Grove.

The prominent backing should carry the measure – SB 357 – through the Democrat-dominated Senate, leaving any legislative fight to the less-predictable Assembly.

Senate Bill 357 ?!?!?!? (The irony is exquisite; the bill is unworkable.)

Well, if it saves 'just one child' ... but of course, it won't.

Among other reasons for rejecting it, this bill doesn't provide any preventative measures. It DOES (presumably) provide the ability for the police to remove a bullet from the corpse of a murder victim and track it to the killer

Actually, were it to be enacted, it would allow the police, at best, to track it to the purchaser of the ammunition.

This isn't necessarily the same thing as finding the murderer; we know already that criminals use stolen guns for crime more often than not. This only requires potential murderers to either (a) steal the ammunition as well as the gun, or (b) remove the bullet from the body of their victim. Chances are, they will choose option (a).

No other state or country has ever attempted to set up a system to tag and track ammunition. Under Lockyer's proposal, the bullet or slug in each cartridge would be microstamped with a serial number during the manufacturing process. Ammunition would be packaged in boxes carrying the same code and the purchaser's identify would be recorded with the swipe of a driver's license.

Randy Rossi, the attorney general's firearms specialist, said the system would not be much different than the coded tracking system in place for most consumer products, from cans of soda to Tic Tac breath mints.

When the manufacturers of Tic Tac Breath Mints are required to stamp a serial number on each Tic Tac, I will accept this as a reasonable analogy.

And Lockyer (Lockyear?) is perhaps best remembered as the man who took advantage of a 1989 firearms registration scheme imposed by his predecesor (Attorney General Dan Lundgren) upon Californians, and when he was elected California Attorney General ten years, later used the registration lists to confiscate the firearms trustingly documented by their naive owners. We won't soon see THAT scenario played out in Kalifornia!

Initial testing has found the microscopic serial numbers still legible more than 90 percent of the time after a bullet is fired, Rossi said. Only handgun ammunition would be covered, and the legislation would not take effect until mid-2007.

The California Police Chiefs Association and several law enforcement leaders embraced the measure Tuesday.

"We have more than 1,000 murders every year in Los Angeles County, many of which go unsolved," said Los Angeles Assistant Sheriff Doyle Campbell.

I don't know whether the 'microscopic serial numbers' would remain legible after having been fired, and impacting a solid target; but I'm pretty sure that the inability of the LA County Sheriff's Department to solve murders is as easily attributable to the culture of the county and the ineffeciency of the department as to any other cause. I have criticized the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) in previous posts, and I see no reason to expect superior performance from the county if the mindset of Assistant Sheriff Campbell is a valid reflection of their mindset.

Opponents already are focused on (California governer Arnold) Schwarzenegger. They distributed an April 25 letter to the governor from U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, an El Cajon Republican and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, warning that the legislation raises national security concerns.

...

But representatives of the firearms industry said the measure would force financially prohibitive changes to the high-volume, low-margin production of most ammunition.

"Any manufacturer that attempts to comply with this would simply go bankrupt in the process," said Lawrence Keane of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute.

Keane called the attorney general's estimate that coding would add less than a penny to the cost of each cartridge, "pure fantasy."

In his letter, Hunter expressed "strong opposition" to the bill "because of the harmful impact it will have on the manufacturers of ammunition used by our nation's armed forces and law enforcement agencies."

Probably the primary objection to this measure is the procedural expectation which has already been mentioned in this article:

... the bullet or slug in each cartridge would be microstamped with a serial number during the manufacturing process. Ammunition would be packaged in boxes carrying the same code and the purchaser's identify would be recorded with the swipe of a driver's license.

This demonstrates a gross failure to understand the manufacturing process.
First, the manufacturer of the bullet is often NOT the manufacturer of the complete cartridge. This would require the bullet maker to create batches of 50 bullets with the same serial number, and then 'someone' (either the bullet maker or the ammunition maker) would have to insure that all 50 bullets are of an acceptable quality to be included in a single box.

Also, the ammuition maker would have to insure ... infallibly ... that all of these bullets, and ONLY these bullets with the same serial number, were used to assemble the complete cartridge. If one bullet was found to be unacceptable in quality, the entire box of loaded ammunition would have to be discarded. *(Actually, they would have to be destroyed.) Without a doubt, this would require the manufacturer to fill out a governmental form which attests and affirms that the ammunition had been destroyed.

Remember, it only takes one imprefect bullet, or one imperfectly formed cartridge, to reject the entire batch ... of fifty cartridges.

The ammunition manufacturer would have to initiate some kind of inspection process to insure that only those bullets with the same (microscopic) serial number were used to construct this box of ammunition. (Note that the actual language of the bill refers to "assembled ammunition" and 'bullets" interchangeably. This implies that each cartridge would be required to display a serial number corresponding with the serial number of the bullet.)


Mass Production vs hand crafting: who loses?
Usually, bullet makers run a continuous process, in accordance with the much-vaunted American invention of Mass Production, to create their product.

Ammunition manufacturers follow the same technique; thousands or millions of rounds of ammunition are constructed every working day. Each round of ammunition (or 'cartidge') is assumed to be the same as any other round in that batch. They are constructed in 'batches' containing a large number of cartridges, and are dumped into a hopper or assembly line. The cartridges are packaged in a non-serial process, and the BATCH NUMBER will probably be stamped on the package.

Assuming that each package (of 50 or less) of ammunition must be stamped with the unique serial number of every cartridge in the package, there are quality control measures which would make it impossible to economically control the serialization sub-process. If a single serial-stamped cartridge were to be inadvertantly ruined during the process, it would no longer be legally sufficent to dispose of the 'blemished' cartridge and continue the production process. Instead, the manufacturer would have to pull all of the cartridges in the blemished batch, and dispose of them as unmarketable. This would only be feasible if the serial number was stamped in a manner which would allow the inspectors to read the serial numbers of the individual bullets without disassembling the cartridge.
The added cost to the manufacturing process would be astronomical. No manufacturer would be willing to sell ammunition assembled under these onerous requirements, because the cost would have to be passed on to the consumer and it would not be possible to absolutely GUARANTEE that the serial number of the bullet matched the serial number stamped on the package.



Consequences of passage:
Not only is this unacceptable to the purchaser of the ammunition, but it raises certain moral and legal questions.

There is no guarantee that the process of stamping (engraving?) the serial number on the bullet would not unbalance the projectile to the degree that acceptable accuracy would be preserved.
If someone were to use this inaccurate bullet in a self-defense situation, missed his attacker and instead struck an innocent bystander with the bullet, the 'someone' (perhaps a Law Enforcement Officer?) would perhaps fail to defend his/her self, and the result could conceivably be that the defender would be killed. Also, the bystander might be killed. And a murderer would be free to kill again.

Who would be liable in this situation? Why, it would be the bullet maker, and the ammunition maker, because they knowingly created a defective product.

UPDATE:
I hadn't intended to present this as a realistic scenario. It's not likely that a 'blem' on the surface of a pistol bullet would cause such a wide variance in accuracy at self-defense distances. But it's fodder for the lawyers, and they wouldn't pass up any excuse, no matter how unreasonable, as grounds for a lawsuit.
Also, the serial number isn't likely to be engraved on the side of the bullet, if only because the chances that the rifling would obscure it. And we have no idea how to carve an unique serial number (given the number of digits required to insure uniqueness) on the base of a soft-lead .22 caliber bullet.

It's all about politics:
Ignoring the practical usage of handguns, and the legal and moral considerations of their use, and also ignoring the economic considerations, this bill makes perfect sense. If you're a politician, and your only purpose is to make life difficult for your constituents, there's no reason why ammunition shouldn't cost 1000% more than it does today. There is no reason why lives shouldn't be lost because of the mandated inherent accuracy of ammunition which might be used for self defense. After all, if someone is (inevitibly) killed ... you know where to point the finger. That looks really good in the tabloids!

Innocent Bystander Killed: Self-Defense Gun-Nut Deemed Responsible!

Yeah, I'm liking that ... as long as I'm not the bystander, or the 'gun-nut' trying to protect himself or his family.

History/Daniel Patrick Moynihan and the 1000% tax on Ammunition:
This entire proposal is reminiscent of the bill (among others) presented by Daniel Patrick Moynihan to tax ammunition at 1000% of the original purchase price.

Moynihan probably had no expectation that this bill would pass, but he proposed it anyway?

Why?

Because, brilliant man that he was (and an emminently quotable man), he had a blind spot where firearms were concerned. He was an agenda-driven way-far leftist who only had two colors in his spectrum: Black, and White. There were only Black guns in his world, and he wanted to impose his views on the whole world.

Here is a partial list of anti-gun bills introduced into both the House and the Senate.

These bills were introduced by Moynihan, were read twice, and were moved 'to committee' where they languished (rightly so) and were never voted on by the senate.
Note that the bills all died in commitee, and the list is out of date since Moynihan has been dead for two years.
(These bills were presented during the 106th Congress, in 1999. You can search for them here. Be sure that you specify that the search be conducted for the 106th Congress.)

S. 152 Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (NY-D)- would increase the tax on handgun ammunition and impose special occupational tax and registration requirements on importers and manufactures of handgun ammunition. To the Committee on Finance.
Real Cost of Destructive Ammunition Act - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to increase the excise tax on handgun ammunition. Provides for such additional taxes to be added to the general fund.Imposes a special (occupational) tax on importers and manufacturers of certain handgun ammunition for each place of business.

S. 153 Sen. Moynihan- would prohibit the use of certain ammunition. To the Committee on the Judiciary.

Destructive Ammunition Prohibition Act of 1999 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit the use of destructive ammunition, defined as any jacketed, hollow point projectile that may be used in a handgun and the jacket of which is designed to produce, upon impact, sharp-tipped, barb-like projections that extend beyond the diameter of the unfired projectile.

S. 154 Sen. Moynihan- A bill to amend title 18, US Code, with respect to the licensing of ammunition manufacturers, and for other purposes; To the Committee on the Judiciary.

Handgun Ammunition Control Act of 1999 - Amends the Federal criminal code to: (1) require each licensed importer and manufacturer of ammunition to maintain records of, and submit an annual report on, the importation, production, shipment, sale, or other disposition of ammunition, including the amount, caliber, and type of ammunition, as prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury; and (2) increase licensing fees for manufacturers of ammunition.

Directs the Secretary to request the National Academy of Sciences to: (1) prepare a study of the criminal use and regulation of ammunition; and (2) report to the Congress, not later than July 31, 1998(sic), on the potential for preventing crime by regulating or restricting the availability of ammunition

S. 155 Sen. Moynihan- would require the collection and dissemination of information on injuries, death and family dissolution due to bullet-related violence; require the keeping of records with respect to dispositions of ammunition, and increase taxes on certain bullets. To the Committee on Finance.

Title II: Increase in Excise Tax on Certain Bullets - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to set the excise tax rate on .25 and .32 caliber and nine millimeter ammunition at 1,000 percent, with an exemption for law enforcement agencies.

S. 156 Sen. Moynihan- would prohibit the manufacture, transfer or importation of .25 cal., .32 cal. and 9 mm ammunition. To the Committee on the Judiciary.

Violent Crime Reduction Act of 1999 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit the manufacture, transfer, importation, sale, or delivery of .25 or .32 caliber or nine millimeter ammunition, except for: (1) the use of the Federal Government or any State or local government; and (2) testing or experimenting authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury. Imposes a licensing fee of $1,000 per year upon manufacturers and importers of .25 or .32 caliber or nine millimeter ammunition. Requires licensed importers and manufacturers to mark all .25 and .32 caliber and nine millimeter ammunition and packages containing such ammunition for distribution.

Includes .25 and .32 caliber and nine millimeter ammunition as restricted ammunition, the use of which during the commission of a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime carries a mandatory five-year prison term.


S. 157 Sen. Moynihan- would tax 9 mm, .25 cal. and .32 cal. bullets at 1,000%. To the Committee on Finance.
Real Cost of Handgun Ammunition Act of 1999 - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to increase the excise tax on the sale of certain ammunition, except sales for law enforcement purposes.

S. 158 Sen. Moynihan (D-NY)- would regulate the manufacture, importation and sale of ammunition capable of piercing police body armor. To the Committee on the Judiciary.
Law Enforcement Officers Protection Amendment Act of 1999 - Amends the Federal criminal code to expand the definition of "armor piercing ammunition" to include a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that the Secretary of the Treasury determines to be capable of penetrating body armor.

Directs the Secretary to promulgate regulations based on standards to be developed for the uniform testing of projectiles to determine whether such projectiles are capable of penetrating National Institute of Justice Level II-A body armor.

Authorizes appropriations for the Secretary and the Attorney General to develop and implement, and promulgate regulations for, performance standards for armor piercing ammunition.

(See NOTES at the bottom of this article)


Even though Moynihan had no expectations that these bills would pass committee, let alone be enacted, he had no compunctions about spending your tax dollars just to make his own private point.

That's what we're seeing today in California. A bunch of monochrome maniacs want to spend their expensive time (paid for by their constituents) just to divert the attention of their opposing party from the real issues confronting their state.

It's about Gray Davis, and their anger that he was deposed. It's about the 2nd Amendment, and the power it gives to the citizenry. It's about fear, and the special vulnerability which politicians feel when they consider that their constituents just won't LIKE the laws which are imposed upon them.

The polilticians will say it's about crime control, and violence, but not everyone believes them.

Basically, it's about controlling the people. The politicians could address the issue of VIOLENCE by dealing with social issues. But that's too difficult, and too expensive. Silly, when you think of it, that they're reluctant to spend your tax dollars to resolve the root causes of violence in this country. They're ready to spend money on socialist causes, but not on social causes of violence. Could it be that they don't want to stop the violance? Could it be that they just want to stop the private ownership of firearms? (Not because they are the instrument of violence, but because they are the instruments of civil insurrection.)

NOTE:
The references to the Moynihan bills cited above are sometimes contradictory. This may be because the original source for the list confused the text of the bills with the senate bill numbers. My advice is, when an apparent contradiction is found ... go with the Thomas citations which are distinguished by the italics typeface or the links in the "Latest Major Action".

UPDATE:
I've just read the text of the bill, and it's even worse than the newspapers described it:

(UPDATE:
the preceding sentence includes a link to the actual text of the bill, amended as of April 18, 2005.)

(1) It doesn't apply to just 'bullets'; it applies to "handgun ammunition". This implies that the bullet and the 'ammunition' be 'serialized', and the serial numbers must match.

(2) if you own ammuntion which is not 'serialized', you must dispose of it by July 1, 2007. You will NOT be reimbursed for the cost, if you are found to be in posession of ammunition which is not 'serialized' after that time, you are subject to confiscation, fine, and imprisonment.

(3) Vendors of ammunition (and, we suppose, bullets) must be licensed, registered, and are subject to fine and imprisonment for each 50-round or less quantity of non-serialized ammunition they possess. That is to say, if you have 253 rounds of ammunition which is not serialized, you are liable to penalties for five 50-round quantities, plus another penalty for the extra 3 rounds.

(4) The AG office will keep copies of, among other documents, "dealers' records of sales of firearms" (handguns)

(5) The AG (and "peace officers", etc.) may keep records of sales of firearms which are not handguns under certain circumstances.

(6) Even a person who is "loaned" a handgun must be registered with the AG. (The term "Loaned" is not defined.) Waiting periods apply to "loaned" handguns.

(7) The Department of Justice (DOJ) may assess and collect an 'end-user-fee' not to exceed "one-half cent per round of ammunition or per bullet."

(8) The DOJ may also apply an annual licensing fee of $50 (adjustable annually for inflation) per retail location against retailers of ammunition.

(9) If YOU bring non-serialized ammunition into the state of California, you are liable to be sentenced to a period 'not exceeding' one year in prison, and a fine not exceeding $500.

(10) .22 caliber rimfire ammunition IS included in the requirement to be 'serialized'

(11) Bullets provided for reloading or handloading ARE included in the requirement to be 'serialized'.

(12) The possession of non-serialized bullets or ammunition by the executor or administrator of any estate IS subject to to penalty, except under certain circumstances.

(13) The serial number of the contained ammunition or bullets must be "uniquely identified" on the exterior of any container; ammunition or bullets of differing serial numbers must not be mixed with any container. No package or container shall be identified by the same unique manufacturer's serial number as any other package or continer. The term "container" is not defined. No exception is mentioned for auto-loader magazine, revolver cylinder, range-bag, or box containing reloaded ammunition. No exemption is mentioned for per-duration or actual usage of the ammuntion. No exemption is mentioned for reloaded ammunition.

(14) Ammunition manufacturers must keep strict records of all serialized ammunition sold, lent or transferred in California for not less than 7 years. Failure to abide by state restrictions may result in a fine of not more than $10,000 for the third and subsequent violations.

(15) The National Guard is specifically exempted from this bill. Law Enforcement Officers are NOT exempted, except:

Possession by peace officers from other states during the discharge of their official duties in California.

(16) Note again that the following phrase is frequently repeated in this bill:

... every 50 pieces or fewer of
assembled ammunition or bullets used for reloading or handloading
shall constitute a separate and distinct offense.