Kalilfornia Bullet-Coding Scheme II: Senate approves!

Senate approves bullet-coding measure

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

You may recall that last April, Cogito Ergo Geek fisked this bill and described several of the provisions which would make it impossible for any ammunition manufacturer to offer for sale any except custom-loaded pistol ammunition at great expense to the consumer.

Essentially, this is nothing more than a transparent attempt to impose gun control by making the purchase of ammunition economically infeasible to 99.9% of the population. The production controls would be so stringent, and the fines for failure of petty quality-control measures so unacceptable, no manufacturer would willingly accept the limitations.

The California State Senate approved this bill last week, with few modifications, and passed it on to the State Assembly for consideration. If passed by the State Assembly, California private citizens might as well throw their handguns into the San Francisco Bay because only Criminals will have ammunition after mid-2007.

Here is the Legislative Counsel's Digest of the bill, as modified May 18, 2005:

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 357, as amended, Dunn. Ammunition: serialized handgun ammunition.
Existing law generally regulates the sale of ammunition.
This bill would establish a program requiring serialization of handgun ammunition, as defined, to be enforced by the Department of Justice. The bill would require, commencing July 1, 2007, that handgun ammunition be serialized. The bill would specify the nature of the serialization and provide various exceptions to certain prohibitions in the bill. Manufacture, transfer, and possession, as specified, of nonserialized handgun ammunition after that date would be an offense, as specified. The bill would require ammunition vendors and manufacturers to register with the Department of Justice, as specified. The bill would require specified information in connection with handgun ammunition transactions be recorded and maintained by the vendor and manufacturer. Willful failure to comply with certain record requirements by a vendor would be an offense.
Provision of false information to a vendor by a prospective ammunition purchaser would be an offense.

The bill would impose a fee of $.005 per bullet or round of ammunition, and a $50 annual registration fee for handgun ammunition vendors. The Department of Justice would be authorized to adopt regulations relating to assessing and collecting those fees. The fees would be deposited in the Serialize Handgun Ammunition Fund, which would be established by the bill. Manufacturers who fail to comply with certain registry and recordkeeping requirements would be liable for civil penalties, as specified. Persons who obliterate the serialization on assembled ammunition or bullets would be guilty of an offense. By creating new crimes, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.

You can figure out for yourself that this would essentially make ammunition too expensive for most people, when every bullet in a box of pistol ammunition must contain an unique serial number ... and many ammunition manufacturers don't make their own bullets.

The 'digest' provided doesn't mention some of the more subtle provisions which have been cunningly slipped into the bill. (The format of the bill, as published on the Internet, makes it difficult to follow the sections and sub-sections, paragraphs and sub-paragraphs. I have modified the text of the bill into a msWord document, and can also provide a *.txt version, which shows the true organization of the bill. I will be glad to provide these files to anyone who is willing and able to host them.)

First, while there are exemptions for "members of the California National Guard during the discharge of their official duties ...", and for "...peace officers from other states during the discharge of their official duties in California", there are no exemptions forCalifornia Law Enforcement Officers during the normal performance of their duties. However, the bill DOES require the state to reimburse local departments for expenses added because of the requirements of this bill:

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

In other words, if you are a citizen of California, your state taxes would be used to pay for the ammunition used by all Law Enforcement Officers (and perhaps Rent-A-Cops private security agencies) during performance of their duties, which includes the hundreds or thousands of cases of ammunition used every month for training across the state! No exemptions are specified for members of federal agencies in the performance of their duties, such as the FBI, DEA, or Army Reserve. We assume that the outrageous cost of ammunition used by these agencies in California would be paid by federal taxes.

Next, the California State Attorney General's Office may require registration of handguns (based on dealer sales records per Section 1[b]), with the following restrictions.

(2) A peace officer, the Attorney General, a Department of Justice employee designated by the Attorney General, or any authorized local law enforcement employee shall not retain or compile any information from a firearms transaction record, as defined in paragraph (5) of subdivision (c) of Section 12071, for firearms that are not handguns unless retention or compilation is necessary for use in a criminal prosecution or in a proceeding to revoke a license issued pursuant to Section 12071.

(All italicized emhpasis added)
The State of California is permitted to determine when registration is 'necessary'.

If a California agency decides that such registration is 'necessary', does the registration disappear after the period of necessity (eg: a criminal investigation) is completed?

No. Also included in Section 1:

(c)

(1) The Attorney General shall permanently keep and properly file and maintain all information reported to the Department of Justice pursuant to Sections 12071, 12072, 12078, 12082, and 12084 or any other law, as to handguns and maintain a registry thereof.

This applies, apparently, whether or not the original registry occurs in accordance with federally mandated guidelines.

What is included in this registry?

(2) The registry shall consist of all of the following:

(A) The name, address, identification of, place of birth (state or country), complete telephone number, occupation, sex,description, and all legal names and aliases ever used by the owner or person being loaned the particular handgun as listed on the information provided to the department on the Dealers' Record of Sale, the Law Enforcement Firearms Transfer (LEFT), as defined in Section 12084, or reports made to the department pursuant to Section 12078 or any other law.

(B) The name and address of, and other information about, any person (whether a dealer or a private party) from whom the owner acquired or the person being loaned the particular handgun and when the firearm was acquired or loaned as listed on the information provided to the department on the Dealers' Record of Sale, the LEFT, or reports made to the department pursuant to Section 12078 or any other law.

(C) Any waiting period exemption applicable to the transaction which resulted in the owner of or the person being loaned the particular handgun acquiring or being loaned that firearm.

(D) The manufacturer's name if stamped on the firearm, model name or number if stamped on the firearm, and, if applicable, the serial number, other number (if more than one serial number is stamped on the firearm), caliber, type of firearm, if the firearm is new or used, barrel length, and color of the firearm.

This is registration, pure and simple, and it will NEVER go away. If you (whether or not you are a California citizen) loan a firearm to anyone who is a California citizen, both you and the person to whom you loaned the firearm, and the firearm itself, WILL be registered.

And what if an appelate court should decide that the state erred in determination of such necessity?

(3) A violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor.

This implies a fine on the order of $500 or less, imposed upn the state ... not upon an individual, even if he or she is acting within his or her assigned duties as a state employee.

On the other hand, what are the penalties for a private citizen who is found to possess non-serialized ammunition after June 1, 2007?

SEC. 3. Section 12314 is added to the Penal Code, to read: 12314.

(a) Commencing July 1, 2007, and except as provided in subdivision (g), any person who manufactures, causes to be manufactured, imports into the state for sale or personal use, keeps for sale, offers or exposes for sale, or who gives or lends any handgun ammunition that is not serialized pursuant to this section is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year or in the state prison.

Here are some of the implications of this law:

I, for example, a California citizen offers (or "exposes for sale", as in a display when the item is not specifically identified as "NOT FOR SALE!") ammunition from the Civil War (not from a muzzle-loader) in a yard-sale, he or she may be incarcerated in a county jail or state prison for one year.

If YOU are at a shooting match, and a friend runs out of ammunition, if you loan your friend a handful of ammunition which is is NOT in a package marked with the serial number of the ammunition involved, you are arguably subject to similar punishment. In fact, even if you provide the ammunition in an appropriately marked package, you may be subject to punishment ... the law is not clear on that point because you are not a registered retailer of ammunition and you may have not have registered as, nor paid the $50 registration fee required of, an 'ammunition retailer'. This may or may not apply even though you do not receive recompensation in ANY form as a result of 'loaning' ammunition.

If you are NOT a California resident, and are attending at match in California; if you use ammunition which you brought with you (and which is therefore not 'serialized' according to California law), you are also subject to punishment consistent with a 'misdemeanor' infraction of the law. This applies whether or not you make this ammunition available to any other person, whether or not that person is a California resident.

On the other hand, if the California State Attorney General keeps your firearms purchase information ("Dealer Sales") whether or not it is related to an 'ongoing investigation', then the STATE (not the individual) is subject to fines appropriate to a 'misdemeanor' (about $500). The individual is not necessarily responsible for this fine; it may be payed by the State, which means it comes out of YOUR taxes.

Please, go to the link which describes the details of the bill. Decide for yourself whether it is economically possible to possess pistol ammunition in California and avoid incarceration, or whether it is possible to understand what is 'right' and 'wrong' under this law.

I'll say it again: this is nothing less than an attempt to impose gun control by making ammunition impossible to attain.

This is a transparent copy of Daniel Patrick Moynihan's attempt in 1999 to impose a 1000% tax on amunition, for similar and obvious reasons.

It has, surprisingly, been improved by the California State Senate. It will pass in the California State Assembly unless every California resident opposes the bill at the State Assembly level.

As nearly as I can tell (too soon after the June 2, 2005, Senate vote which moved the bill to the State Assembly for a State Assembly Bill to have been assigned?) this may have been designated as AB352. You can track the bill using this link.

Here are some links to discussions of this egregious bill:

1911 Forum
Free Republic
S&W Forum
officer.com
packing.com
AR15.com
NRA: CA Legislative Councl (AB352)l
Gun Owners of California
North County (California) Times
KCAL Channel 9 in Los Angeles

(Here are some interesting quotes from KCAL9)

``With a simple magnifying glass (police) can read that identifying number ... and determine who purchased that ammunition,'' said Sen. Joseph Dunn, D-Garden Grove, who is carrying the Senate version. ``This is a tremendous benefit for law enforcement.''

The Senate sent the measure to the Assembly on a 21-14 vote, while the Assembly proposal by Assemblyman Paul Koretz, D-West Hollywood, passed 41-37 despite heavy opposition from gun groups. Both passed by one vote.

Ammunition manufacturers said that Dunn's bill will either force them to abandon the lucrative California market or force them to install unaffordable technology to mark the 8 billion bullets they make each year.

The bill would punish anyone possessing unmarked ammunition outside their home after July 2007, though Dunn said he is working with law enforcement to amend the bill so owners could use older bullets at firing ranges.

"A law abiding citizen has nothing to fear,'' said Sen. Jack Scott, D-Pasadena, comparing the markings to the use of fingerprints or DNA in crime solving.

Dunn's bill would require purchasers to pay up to a halfpenny per bullet to fund record-keeping by the state Department of Justice on every handgun-caliber bullet made or sold in California. Vendors would pay up to $50 a year to register. Rifle ammunition would be exempted, though some calibers are used in both handguns and long guns.

Opponents of Koretz's bill said criminals could file down the guns to remove the microstamping or use revolvers, which don't eject shell casings.

Assemblyman Todd Spitzer, R-Orange, said Koretz' bill would make it easier to frame someone by spreading cartridges around a crime scene that hadn't come from the shooter's gun.

Just so you remember, you Californians: Jack Scott, Joe Dunn, and Assembly sponsor Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood). Also, remember the opponent Todd Spitzer ... well, he's a Republican named Spitzer; he should be expected to have a more rational perspective, because of his political affiliation and also because of his last name.