Sunday, April 06, 2008

Encoded Ammunition: South Carolina

The NRA managed to keep its collective head barely above water (rather than it's usual position on these matters ... tucked in a dark, stinky place) by announcing that another Southern state, South Carolina, has introduce an Encoded Ammunition bill (SB1259). (You need to read all the way to the bottom of this NRA alert to find mention of the bill.)

The bill, introduced April 2, 2008, requires that "... certain handgun and assault weapon ammunition ...", by January 1, 2010, "... must be encoded by "... a [sic] unique identifier that has been applied by etching onto the base of the bullet projectile ..." by the manufacturer.

("... No later than January 1, 2012, all noncoded ammunition owned by private citizens and retail outlets must be disposed ...).

It also requires the registration of "ammunition vendor(s)"; the usual identification of buyer on special forms at the time of purchase; the usual monetary and penal penalties for purchaser, vendor and manufacturer for non-compliance; and financial support of the project by 'end-user fees' not to exceed one-half-cent per bullet.

As is also usual with state-based 'Encoded Ammunition' bills, there is no exemption to enactment of the bill if reliable technology is not found to be available within the given time-frame, nor mention that existing technology is both single-user and unproven.

Also, no justification for this legislation is provided, nor is the term "handgun and assault weapon ammunition" defined.

This is the same old "Bulltwaddle" (thanks to Rivrdog for providing useful terminology) which we have seen proposed by the Legislatures of a baker's dozen states previously, but given that the states which first proposed these bills are slowly rejecting the (obviously unworkable) legislation, we can only hope that other states will learn from the lesson and desist in their despicable and detestable efforts to contravene the Second Amendment by other means.

Incidentally, the single-vendor involved, represented by Ammunition Accountability, still lists fifteen states on its roll of political supporters. Among these states is Tennessee, which we have seen today has rejected the bill ... as have some other states.

I don't know about you, but I am shocked, SHOCKED, to discover that gambling is permitted at Rick's American Cafe. Er, sorry; I mean that I am shocked, SHOCKED, to discover that politicians continue to introduce these bills when they have proved to be so problematic.

One is tempted to believe that the politicians involved have agenda which admittedly does not support the Second Amendment rights of the people they expect to vote for them, yet still leads them to propose such bills for the sole purpose of publically helping them to 'look good' to the minority population of their home states who continue, against all reason, to oppose private ownership and usage of firearms.

Could it be that their priority is political, rather than conserving the rights of their constituency?


No comments: