Microstamping: Rhode Island Measure Off Agenda

NRA-ILA :: Legislation

According to a recent NRA-ILA release, H7834, the Rhode Island House "Microstamping Ammunition" bill (which would have required that all new pistols sold in the state of Rhode Island be equipped to "Microstamp Ammunition" with every shot fired, has been "... pulled from the agenda of the House Finance Committee."

This essentially sounds the death knell of the legislative bell for this intrusive, expensive and unproven technology in the state of Rhode Island.

We originally reported on this bill on April 20, 2008. As we said then:

This bill came before the House Committee on Judiciary this week, where it will either be passed back to the House for a vote and then advance to the Senate for consideration, or it will 'die in committee'.

This latter result is much preferred by honest gun owners; criminals, of course, don't care. They won't be using firearms which they purchased under their own name from retailers, so microstamped ammunition left at the scene of a crime will never be traced back to them.

Apparently Rhode Island voted for Door Number Two: "Die In Committee".

You may recall that we engaged the "Inventor of Microstamping Technology", Mr. Todd Lizotte, in a dialogue about Microstamping earlier this year. We have yet to hear from Mr. Lizotte in response to our May 5, 2008, concerns about Replacement Parts and other consequences of Microstamping Technology.


Rhode Island also introduced bills requiring "Encoded Ammunition" (encoding by the ammunition manufacturer, not by the firearm) as reported here in March 3 and March 4 of 2008. We have no current information about the status of these bills.

The "Encoded Ammunition" technology is completely different from "Microstamping Ammunition" technology.

However, the consequences of passage of either bill would be / would have been the same: an economically unbearable burden on the ownership of firearms; a dramatic increase on either the cost of ammunition or firarms/firearms replacement parts; and legal accountability imposed on the firearm owner with no demonstrable improvement in the notational areas of crime prevention or delivery of tools to the Law Enforcement Community to resolve crimes.

With all due respect to the contributions of Mr. Lizotte, we cannot help rejoicing in the rejection of either of these measures. Lacking any proof of realistic benefits to society of their passage, and deeply appreciative of the Unspoken Consequences to firearms owners, we must conclude that both technology proposals constitute nothing less than a back-door attack on the Second Amendment by economically targeting the purchase or accountability of ammunition in support of results which are dubious, at best.

Stumble It!

Encoded Ammunition: Scant Faith

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: m hoiriis
>
> Jerry,
>
> Please God tell me that I am just not following the posts on your blog properly... You cannot seriously be in favor of ammo encoding.....please assure me that I am mistaken....
>
> Mike

--------------- Geek Response ---------------

Hi Mike!


I have no idea what I ever said which could possibly have given you the impression that I was supportive of the Encoded Ammunitions bills which lately have been (egregiously) promulgated by Political Hoors in this great nation, but I want to assure you that I am not ... that is not Not NOT NOT! encouraged by these perfidious politickings!

!!!!!!!

The "Encoded Ammunition" bills would, if enacted, be the ruination of the Second Amendment protection which allows us, Citizens of these United States, to own and carry and use firearms for their many benign purposes: hunting, plinking, competition, self-defense, and protection against a tyrannical government are only the beginning.

One of my personal concerns is that those of us who choose to use firearms for ANY purpose must necessarily practice to maintain our gun-handling skills. The Encoded Ammunition bills would cause the financial burden of practicing with our firearms to become unbearable, resulting in a decrease in practice, and the atrophy of gun-handling and accuracy skills.

This is obviously not a benefit to us, and not a benefit to society. "Society" reasonably expects that if we choose to own, store or carry defensive firearms, we should at least maintain a minimum level of expertise, and these bills would obviate the practice necessary to that purpose.

In point of fact, given that Law Enforcement Units are or may be subject to these same restrictions, departmental budgets for LEO's may preclude even the minimal annual qualification of Law Enforcement Officers, with a resultant degradation of the already marginal skill levels of cops ... perhaps even the Military.

What's the "up-side" of this? There is none. There is, in fact, no benefit to society in these bills.

Indeed, despite protestations to the contrary, there is no benefit to "Crime Prevention", or even "Crime Solving", in these bills.

The Encoded Ammunition bills are (ipso facto) nothing more or less than a patent attempt to obviate the Second Amendment by imposing an unbearable financial burden on anyone who would use a firearm for any legal purpose.

Those who would use firearms for non-legal purposes, of course, are not handicapped by these bills. They are already, by definition, criminals; they are currently acquiring firearms by extra-legal means; they will only be required to spend another couple of minutes in their Home Burglaries to pick up ammunition as well as firearms, with the minimal consequence of ... nothing. The criminals have the guns, they have the ammunition, and neither acquisition imposes a financial burden, nor a legal risk above that which they have already accepted when they decide to steal a gun.

So: What have I written which suggests to you that I support the "Encoded Ammunition" bills which have been sponsored by immoral, perfidious (but I repeat myself) politicians?

I would really like to know. IF I have so poorly expressed myself to suggest such a bizarre impression of support, I need to know where I have failed to make myself clear, so I can go back and rewrite.

Thank you for bringing this unfortunate miss-statement (what ever it is) to my attention.

I obviously need to be more aware of the way in which I express myself.

Jerry the Geek

PS: Have I made myself more clear?

Stumble It!

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?

Shocking.

Stumble It!

Dead in Tennesee: Encoded Ammunition Bill

According to a recent NRA announcement, the Encoded Ammunition is D.O.A. in Tennessee.

The bill, which was recently (February 3, 2008) Geek-Announced here, was introduced in both the State Senate (SB3395, which is summarized here) and House (HB3245).

On April 2, 2008, the House took action on HB3245; specifically, as interpreted by the NRA:

House Bill 3245, sponsored by State Representative Larry Miller (D-88), was defeated when it was withdrawn from the House Judiciary Criminal Practice and Procedure Sub-Committee on Wednesday, April 2. HB3245 would have require all handgun ammunition manufactured or sold in Tennessee to be coded with a serial number, and entered into a statewide database at the time of sale. Encoded ammunition would be registered to the purchaser and would include the date of transaction, the purchaser’s name, date of birth, driver’s license number, and the serial number of the ammunition. Its companion bill, Senate Bill 3395, sponsored by State Senator Reginald Tate (D-33) has seen no action in the Senate Judiciary Committee since January 23.

I'm assuming that the Senate Bill is toothless, without a vote for financing from the House.

Personally, I find this heartening ... if not surprising. It's difficult to imagine that the fine residents of Tennessee would allow this kind of repressive end-run on the Second Amendment to be considered without significant negative feed-back from an irate citizenry.

Still, it's worth paying close attention to other state legislatures which have proposed Encoded Ammunition bills. These bills have not received, in the most part, significant publicity from the Main-Stream Media or, for that matter, from the NRA. While the MSM is generally not inclined to serve their readers by announcing this kind of legislation, and the NRA has so many other gun-rights issues which it (apparently) considers 'more important', we would best serve our own interests by being aware of these bills and actively opposing them at the grassroots level ... a level to which the NRA gives lip-service, but not always timely and active support.

Stumble It!

California AB2062: Permit to buy ammunition

HT: NRA
On February 19, 2008, California Assemblyman de Leon introduced a new bill (AB2062) which would require ammunition purchasers to obtain a permit to buy ammunition, at a one-time cost of $35, before any ammunition purchases could be made from retailers. There is a 30-day waiting period before the permit would be issued.

The bill would authorize the Department of Justice to incorporate the permit information into a permittee's California driver's license, as specified.

It would ("... commencing July 1, 2009 ...") prohibit anyone from transferring more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month to another person without buying an Ammunition Vendor License. (Special provisions include " ... a background clearance for any employees who would handle ammunition ...").

Ammunition vendors would be prohibited from displaying ammunition where a customer could access it.

This is, of course, entirely apart from Ammunition Serialization, Ammunition Encoding, and Microcoding of Ammunition bills and/or laws which are already either extant in law or proposed.


You can contact Assemblyman de Leon at:
Capitol Office:
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0045
Tel: (916) 319-2045
Fax: (916) 319-2145

District Office:
360 West Avenue 26, Suite 121
Los Angeles, CA 90031
Tel: (323) 225-4545
Fax: (323)225-4500


Let's review:

Current law requires that firearms 'microstamp' identification on the cartridge. Proposed laws would, if enacted, require that ammunition be encoded (serial numbers on the base of the bullet or projectile, and a matching serial number on the interior of the cartridge case). And of course, the purchaser of any ammunition must, by current law, be identified by name, Driver's License Number, Date of Birth etc.

Now the purchaser must be registered ("buy a license") and observe a waiting period before purchasing said encoded ammunition to shoot in a microstamping firearm, and would be prohibited from providing said registered ammunition in quantities exceeding fifty (50) rounds per month to anyone ... including immediate family members.

There are no definitions of what ammunition is covered by this bill, so we can safely assume that all ammunition is subject to these restrictions. Read: one box of .22 rimfire, or two boxes of shotgun shells, are the most you could provide for your child or spouse.

If there was ever any doubt that the State of California is determined to put as many obstacles as possible in the path of an honest citizen who chooses to own and use a legal firearm, let this put an end to this delusion.

It's obvious that this and similar bills serve no legitimate purpose (legitimate in the context of "use of firearms for nefarious purposes" ... as far as the California State Assembly is concerned, any use of a firearm is 'nefarious'.) The only purpose of this kind of legislation is to inconvenience legitimate owners of legal firearms owners, with the intention of rendering their firearms economically infeasible and administratively cumbersome.

Lip Service reference is made in the text of the bill to "... persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms ..." as well as a new concept: "... persons prohibited from possessing ammunition." I submit that the latter encumbrance is superfluous, gratuitous and insulting.

What about the Registration of Ammunition Purchasers?

Strangely, the 'registration' portion of this bill refers directly to Section 11106 of the Penal Code, Paragraph d, sub-paragraph a in the phrase: "...or information reported to the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 12062 as to the brand, type, and amount of ammunition transferred
...".

This would seem to imply that much more stringent identification requirements must be met, to the degree cited for Firearms Registration.

The assumption is that the update to existing laws are borrowing from a section already restricting firearms ownership, but inappropriately. You will have to reference Section 1106, Paragraph C, in order to put it in context. But who cares to do this, as this bill is not only ill-advised, but poorly constructed, and is (hopefully) destined for oblivion if only because the new Californian Assemblyman Kevin DeLeon is so incompetent that he and his staff cannot write a consistent change to existing law.

If it's any consolation, here's the current status of the bill as of the 2/19/07 reading:\
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no.


I only hope that I have correctly interpreted this bill as having roundly been Stuck In Committee for all eternity.
_________________________________________________


Purely for your convenience, here is the introductory text and official summary of the bill:

AB 2062, as introduced, De Leon. Ammunition.
Existing law requires the Department of Justice to maintain records pertaining to firearms transactions.

This bill would require the department to maintain additional information relating to ammunition transfers, handgun ammunition permittees, and licensed handgun ammunition vendors, as specified.

Existing law establishes the Prohibited Armed Persons File, which lists persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms, as specified.

This bill would expand those provisions to include persons prohibited from possessing ammunition.

Existing law generally regulates the sale of ammunition.

This bill would establish a program administered by the Department of Justice for licensing handgun ammunition vendors, as specified. The bill would also authorize the issuance of a handgun ammunition permit, to be used by purchasers of handgun ammunition, as specified.

The bill would authorize the Department of Justice to incorporate the permit information into a permittee's California driver's license, as specified.

The bill would establish a database maintained by the department to serve as a registry of handgun ammunition vendors. The bill would also establish a database of handgun ammunition permittees.

This bill would require that commencing July 1, 2009, unless specifically excluded, no person shall sell or transfer more than 50 rounds of handgun ammunition in any month unless they are registered as a handgun ammunition vendor, as defined. The bill would also require these vendors to obtain a background clearance for those employees who would handle ammunition in the course and scope of their employment. The bill would require the Department of Justice to maintain a registry of registered handgun ammunition vendors, as specified. Violation of these provisions, as specified, would be subject to civil fines, as specified.

The bill would also provide that no retail seller of ammunition shall sell, offer for sale, or display for sale, any handgun ammunition in a manner that allows that ammunition to be accessible to a purchaser without the assistance of the retailer or employee thereof. Violation of these provisions would be subject to civil fines, as specified.

The bill would further provide that handgun ammunition may only be purchased in a face-to-face transaction and only if certain conditions exist.
Existing law generally regulates what information is required to be obtained in connection with the transfer of ammunition.

This bill would, subject to exceptions, require certain ammunition vendors to obtain a thumbprint and other information from ammunition purchasers, and would require submission of that information to the Department of Justice, as specified. A violation of these provisions would be subject to civil fines, as specified.

Stumble It!

Encoded Ammunition: Alabama SB541

SB541

SYNOPSIS:
Under existing law, there is no requirement that ammunition manufactured or sold in this state be coded.
This bill would require, commencing January 1, 2009, that handgun ammunition be coded. This bill would require by January 1, 2011, the disposal of all non-coded ammunition owned by private citizens or retail outlets.
This bill would require the Department of Public Safety to establish and maintain an ammunition coding database. This bill would require ammunition vendors and manufacturers to register with the Department of Public Safety.
This bill would require certain information in connection with handgun ammunition transactions be recorded, transmitted to the Department of Public Safety, and maintained by the vendor and manufacturer.
This bill would provide for a fee not to exceed 0.005 cent per bullet or round of ammunition to establish and maintain the ammunition code database.
This bill would provide penalties for violations.
Amendment 621 of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, now appearing as Section 111.05 of the Official Recompilation of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended, prohibits a general law whose purpose or effect would be to require a new or increased expenditure of local funds from becoming effective with regard to a local governmental entity without enactment by a 2/3 vote unless: it comes within one of a number of specified exceptions; it is approved by the affected entity; or the Legislature appropriates funds, or provides a local source of revenue, to the entity for the purpose.
The purpose or effect of this bill would be to require a new or increased expenditure of local funds within the meaning of the amendment. However, the bill does not require approval of a local governmental entity or enactment by a 2/3 vote to become effective because it comes within one of the specified exceptions contained in the amendment.

Yadda yadda yadda ... this is SO like all the other bills we've seen here recently.

Go there read the whole thing, you know the drill.

This makes ... what ... 13 states whose whores senators-for-hire statesmen have introduced the non-starter gun control bill?

Why don't y'all Alabama folks just lynch this idiot NOW, and save yourselves a whole lot of write your senator and express to him your displeasure at the advent of another unworkable Gun Control bill.

Stumble It!

Encoded Ammunition: ACS vs NRA Part I

While researching this subject, I've found that I'm not the only blogger searching for more information.

Call Me Ahab has found a series of YouTube which (as far as I can tell) document the NRA's online logger interviews with Russ Ford, from Ammunition Coding Systems, discussing their 'sole source' technology.

This appears to be a five-part interview, and I admit that I haven't viewed any except the first part at this time. However, it occurred to me that there exist no transcripts to this interview.

Therefore, I present links to the Call Me Ahab original links to the five part interview, the You Tube link to the first (9:49 minute) segment of the interview, and the transcript of that segment which I have compiled.

ACS Transcript 1 of 5. (A 40KB DOWNLOAD)

If you experience problems downloading this file, or if you require a different format other than MS-WORD v-2003, Please let me know so that I can provide the information in a different formatn.

Also, please note that my transcription skills are admittedly less than perfect, and the sound on the original video is imperfect. Thus, there are some short segments which I found to be unintelligible; these are noted in the transcript as some variation of "(******)", and you can interpret them as you will.

These unintelligible passages are not common, but they do occur. You will have to translate them as seems most likely to your own ear.

Considering that it has required about two hours to transcribe the first 10-minute video, you can expect that it will take me five working days to transcribe the entire5-part interview.

Also, make no assumptions about the accuracy of the quotes provided; this is the best effort I can honestly make, but it's possible that there are errors. If you care to send corrections, I will note them in a future update but also note that your interpretation is "dubious". No reflection on you, but if I can't understand the verbiage I can't warrant that your interpretation of a flawed source is accurate.

We're all just trying to understand the situation, which is confusing at best.

(Note also that I don't guarantee that I'll manage to transcribe all 5 videos. I'm not getting paid for this stuff, and it's too much like work for me to willingly accept it as a duty.)

Stumble It!

Five Myths of Ammunition Encoding

A couple of days ago (March 25, 2008), Kim DuToit wrote about the "Encoded Ammunition" phenomena which has been the 'Media Darling' of various State Legislatures for the past two months (and more).

(See here for a summary of "Encoded Ammunition" articles on this blog.)

Note: The Ammunition Accountability website currently (as of 3.28.08) lists 16 states in which Encoded Ammunition bills have been introduced. By the time you read this, the number may have increased ... but so far more than 20% of the United States of America have elected legislators who are ready and willing to sell out their constituents in the interest of appearing to be "Strong on the Gun Violence Issue". Do not, ever, vote for any state legislature who sponsors these bills. They are Not Your Friend.

As I read the Kim article, I was impressed by the unjustifiable confidence of both Kim and the people who commented on the article. They seemed to assume that if these bills were enacted into law, it would be 'easy' to undermine its enforcement.

This leads me to present the "Five Myths of Ammunition Encoding":

1: These laws only apply to factory produced ammunition; if I'm reloading, I don't have to abide by these laws.

Wrong.

The role of "Ammunition Manufacturer" is not defined in these bills.

If you reload your own ammunition, there is nothing in these bills to exempt you from being classified as an "Ammunition Manufacturer". The implication (easily interpreted by the Legislator or Executive who has no love for firearms) is that you must abide by the same rules as, say, Federal, Winchester, Remington, etc. You must encode every bullet, and if you don't manufacture the bullet you must buy encoded bullets from bullet manufacturers.

And if you do cast your own bullets, they must still be encoded.

2. If I do reload, I can buy encoded bullets and, by using only these bullets, I am in compliance with the laws.

Wrong.

In the majority of bills presented in the (so far) 16 infected states, the bills require that not only the bullet, but the cartridge case as well must be encoded with the same identifying number. Do you have any idea how expensive this is? Not only for Federal, Remington, Winchester et al but for you?

If you reload, assume that the cases you reload already have encoding numbers. If you have two numbers in the case (assuming you have the manufacturing facilities to meet the law) are you in compliance? Probably not, which implies that you can NOT re-use cases which have already been encoded.

3. These laws will not be enforced, because it's too costly and too time-consuming of LEO's (who have better things to do) to be contemplated.

Wrong.

Any state Legislature which would be so mis-guided as to enact these bills into Law would be willing to require the existant police forces to enforce them.

The administrators of the police have no compunctions when it comes to mis-use of their officers. At the highest levels, it is easy to conclude that politics assume a higher priority over the solving of crimes. Do not persuade yourself that the police will embrace a higher moral value than do the law-makers; they are of the same family, and are willing to subsume civil responsibilities to political realities (in their political perspective). The people who reach administrative levels of Police Politics are those who embrace personal advancement rather than the support of the Common Good. When you assume moral priorities of governmental administrators you fool only yourself

4. The legislators who vote these bills into law are determined to use them for the purpose of solving crimes.

Wrong.

These are political issues, not civil. Not Crime Prevention, not Crime Solving, not Defense of the Common Good. If you assume the high moral values of Legislators, remember:
They're all Lawyers, and Politicians.

There is no lower common denominator to be defined within the definition of Civil Service.


5. These bills will never be passed into laws, because they are so obviously unworkable.

Wrong.

"Obviously unworkable bills" are the epitome of targets for Politician.

That a bill is infeasible means only that the legislators who enact them, and the administrators who service them, are held to no higher moral standard.

That the enacted law is infeasible means only that the Legislature is absolved of responsibility, because it is obvious that their moral stance has been undermined by trifling practical matters. They have assumed the moral high ground; that Technology is unable to meet the standards which they have promised is NOT the fault of Legislature. The Senate/Assembly/Whatever has done their part, and if the (single-vendor) business which the legislature believed proves to be unable to meet their bloated promises, the Legislature had Done Its Part.

From this point on, the failure to meet objectives is a Business Decision, not a Moral Imperative.

Because the Legislature doesn't do Moral Imperatives.

Stumble It!

Encoded Ammunition: Making Criminals of Honest Folks

I know that I've been writing about the recent rash of "Encoded Ammunition" bills being introduced to state legislature for over a month, but I still haven't grasped the full effect if these bills are passed into law.

Witness this comment from Buckmasters.com forum.

Pizzaman17 sez:

Like willy said earlier I am not giving up any ammo that i have right now. If this passes and it is made illegal to have unmarked rounds and/or load your own rounds then there will be allot of new criminals out there starting with me.

Well ... yes.

I've got ammunition I reloaded years ago, and most of it meets the requirements of at least one state's proposed bill.

For example, I have a slew of .30-30 ammunition that I inherited when my father died ... in 1994! (It was intended to accompany the Winchester Model 94 , a definitively 'hunting only' rifle that I inherited at the same time.) That's 13 years for those who aren't willing to do the math. You may say "Geek, that's bogus. The bills apply only to 'handgun' ammunition."

Yeah, well, some states have proposed bills that specify "handguns and assault weapons", and what is to keep the states from identifying the Model 94 ... or the .30-06 Garand ... as an "Assault Weapon"?

Besides, Thompson Center from building a Contender pistol in .30-30 caliber? In fact, they have already done so ... twice: The model 3560 and the model 3223. In calibers which are generally accepted to be "rifles", they also currently offer Model 3556 (.223 Remington, very close to 5.56mm AR15 and variants); Model 3568 (.17 HMR); Model 3409 (204 Ruger); Model 3564 (45/70 Gov't); Model 3511 (6.8 Remington); and several other models of notionally 'pistols' which shoot 'rifle-caliber' ammunition.

How much disposable income are YOU willing to bet that these 'handguns' would not become sufficient justification for these 'rifle' cartridges to become controlled by the same bills which currently PURPORT to apply only to 'handgun ammunition'?

Point In Fact:
These bills are so loosely (read: "shoddily") written that any rifle-caliber ammunition which is commercially usable in a 'handgun' by any definition may be subject to these restrictions. How about a derringer which is variously able to load .45 and .410 (shotgun) ammunition?


And how about that .30-06 Garand you've bought and stashed in your gun safe? Sure, it's designed for a 165 grain bullet, but suppose you have a supply of ought-six loaded in the extra long Hornady 190 grain BTSP, the 208 grain E-Max, or the 220 grain Round Nose? Sure, these bullets are so long-nosed, they probably wouldn't even cycle through a Garand. Doesn't matter. If the Garand is classified as an "Assault Weapon", all connections to reason are no longer in service, please hold for the next available operator.

Don't waste my time, and yours, protesting that "they would never do that!" You may think you know your local politicos but if you charge them with integrity they will deny it to their dying death, and present sufficient proof that they have none.

They're all "Snakes in a Drain", and you know that.
How do you tell a Politician or an Irishman (but I repeat myself) is lying? You watch his lips.
If they're moving ... he's lying.

We can't trust a politician in general, and we certainly can't trust a politician who would present such a flawed bill. If one or more of them should pass into law, that's a pretty strong signal that they are Not Your Friend.

And because these bills are so definitively couched in generalities (eg: definition of a handgun; definition of an 'assault rifle'; definition of ammunition) which they can change at will with very little risk of challenge -- you know that any ammunition you own is probably subject to inclusion under the terms of these bills.[


Including your .410 shotgun. After all, aren't there derringer pistols available which can load and shoot .410 shotgun ammunition?

Encode those pellets ... they're man-killers!


So don't allow yourself to feel too complacent. Avoid the temptation to tell yourself that "... these guys aren't out to take MY ammunition ... it's only good for shooting at birds and snakes anyway. Surely they will never be so distanced from reality that they target my (shotshells, hunting ammunition, plinking ammunition, name your personal "protected" class of ammunition.)

That's right. If you are so deluded that you think these bills are intended to 'stop crime', you're fooling nobody but yourself.

These are not "anti-crime" bills; these are "anti-gun" bills. They have no purpose other than to prevent you, personally (and I'm talking to you, complacent-gun-owner-man) from being able to stand tall with a loaded gun in your hand in furtherance of whatever purpose you may have originally purchased said gun.

Resistance to Tyrants? Dead!
Defense of your Nation? Dead!
Personal defense? Dead!
Competition? Dead!
Target shooting? Dead!
Hunting? Dead?
Rodent Elimination? Dead!
Plinking? Dead!

For any purpose you can envision to justify owning a firearm, if these bills pass into law ... somewhere there is a politician who can envision a reason why you should not be allowed to have either a firearm or the ammunition to accomplish the activity.

The laws may not exist now, but with just a few casual tweakings of some existing statutes, they can redefine your guns, or the ammunition needed to make your guns work, effectively ... Dead!

They don't even have to breath hard, these politicians, to slip it to you once you've allowed them the power ennobled by these cheesy do-nothing laws.

Yesterday you were a law-abiding citizen. Today, you are a criminal.

And you don't even have to do anything.
In fact, they very much prefer that you don't.

Stumble It!

Encoded Ammunition: Kentucky

Reader "Ed" writes to inform us that an "'Encoded Ammunition" bill has been introduced in the Kentucky State House:

2008 House Bill 715
Introduced by Rep. Kathy W Stein on March 3, 2008, to require serial numbers on every bullet sold on or after January 1, 2009."

Representative Kathy W. Stein (D)

House District 75

Talk about ironic, on her bio:
Board of Trustees. Appalachian School of Law as in the Appalachian School of Law shooting of January 16, 2002.

Keep up the good work,

Ed

We're convinced that this bill was actually introduced, but the Kentucky State Legislature web page is curiously reticent. If my (admittedly amateurish) google attempt is to be believed, the bill has been trashed. Specifically, the website announces that the bill has been "Withdrawn".

If so, that is good news. Still, we're curious as to what it was all about. Hasn't someone taken the initiative to document the provisions of this hypothetical bill?

Someone has, in the person of blogger improbably self-named the "Argumentative Snuggle Monkey", in the "Something Awful" forums:

Essentially, this is a prototypical 'Encoded Ammunition' bill, featuring the Usual Suspects of clauses including:

• applicability to "all handguns and listed assault rifles";
• unfeasibly deadlined for all ammunition to be 'encoded' "Real Soon Now" (January 1, 2009)
• impossible-to-meet requirement that "... require all ammunition for handguns and listed assault rifles to have a serial number on the base of the bullet and on the inside of the cartridge case"
• equally infeasible exhortation "... to require owners of unencoded ammunition for handguns and listed assault rifles to dispose of the ammunition by January 1, 2011"
• Unreasonable fines and penalties such as this one "... to provide penalties for persons who sell unencoded ammunition or damage the encoding on ammunition as a Class A misdemeanor, provide fines for ammunition manufacturers violating the chapter"
• and the gratuitous clause "...specifying that police forces and government agencies do not have to pay the encoded ammunition tax and establish burden of proof for sales"

This last is probably among the most egregious clauses, as it supposes that the tax on 'encoded ammunition' is the greatest of economic burdens imposed upon the purchaser by this kind of bill. As we have seen before, the most likely consequence of enaction of this and similar bills is that manufacturers of ammunition will simple determine that they are unable to meet the requirements, and will discontinue sales of affected ammunition to the states which enact these laws.

Bottom line: under the requirements of this bill, you can't get ammo, whether you are LEO or National Guard or Private Citizen.

So much for the Second Amendment.

Again, it's not possible (because of the way the website for the Kentucky Legislature posts bill status on the Internet) to determine the true current legislative situation in Kentucky. We can only presume (and hope) that this oh-so-egregious bill has indeed been withdrawn as of March 5, 2008, and is no longer a factor in the never-ending-story of the defense of the Second Amendment in Kentucky.

That would be good.

However, we're not entirely convinced that the most recent information available is factual. That is, that the bill has been "withdrawn", and will not reappear in a form which is more acceptable to the Kentucky State House of Representatives.

Whatever the current status, this makes the 11th state which has been definitively found to have presented this specific bill in at least a variation of its most common form;

1. Arizona
2. Hawaii
3. Illinois
4. Indiana
5. Maryland
6. Mississippi
7. Pennsylvania
8. Rhode Island
9. Tennessee
10. Washington
11. Kentucky
    

Again, look for the "2008_Encoded_Ammunition.xls" spreadsheet where I am continually attempting to keep track of verified attempts by individual state legislatures to introduce these 'boilerplate' bills.


And if you can tell me definitively where encouragement for these bills originate, I will give you a genuine Geek Quarter for your trouble.


"Ed", and any (other) residents of Kentucky who are sufficiently concerned to track this and similar bills are encouraged to do so, and to report new activity to this blog. My email address is protectively provided at the bottom of this and every page in this website, but just to be sure you find it easy to email me, you can write to me at:

jerrydgeekblog at (@) comcast dot (.) net

We'll keep a light on for you.

Stumble It!

Encoded Ammunition: 2008 March Summary

I have updated the research of states which have introduced "Encoded Ammunition" bills in 2008, and find that the following states are entertaining this proposal:

1. Arizona
2. Hawaii
3. Illinois
4. Indiana
5. Maryland
6. Mississippi
7. Pennsylvania
8. Rhode Island
9. Tennessee
10. Washington

I also have notes that California and New York have proposed such bills, but a recent search of their state legislatures has failed to find the details ... or, indeed, that any such bills have been introduced.

I note that California passed a Microstamping last year, and that New York introduced a similar bill in 2008. These are not included here because the subject is States which have Introduced "Encoded Ammunition Bills in 2008".

On February 4, 2008, I presented a 2008 summary of encoded ammunition bills, and on March 4, 2008, it seems timely to update this file.

The original summary referenced 12 states, based upon external (meaning, I didn't bother to research and verify the claims) references. This month I have added new information taken from state legislature websites.

Some of the newer information (eg: Arizona, Rhode Island) may be incomplete because I didn't notice details; however, no details are provided without verification: you may take these data points for fact. Most interesting is that Arizona's proposed bill is especially sparse in the details. Also, Rhode Island does not specify the type of 'encoding' which is required of the manufacturer. We can only imagine that it would be extremely difficult for an ammunition manufacturer to confidently construct 'encoded' ammunition which would definitively be acceptible to the Rhode Island Legislature.

Well, why not. They (Rhode Island Legislators, as well as all the other state legislature members which have entertained this legislation) have no intention to make this bill feasible; they only want to get their name in the newspapers as politicians who are 'trying to do something about crime and violence', and incidentally impose unbearable legal burdens on legitimate gun owners.

Actually, that last part is an incidental side-effect. The pols don't care whether you can afford to buy the ammunition, of if the proposed bill would accomplish any benefit to society. They just want to look good to their Liberal Democrat friends.

Has anyone payed any attention to the party affiliations of the sponsors of these bills?

Never mind looking it up; you already know who ther\y are.

Stumble It!

Encoded Ammunition: Fun Turns to Tragedy

Fun Turns to Tragedy -- is a blogspot, and Kirk (the blogger) from Maryland performs a great service not only in reporting a public hearing on bill HB-517, but in attending the hearing to register his disapproval.

His blog name is perhaps whimsical, but in at least this situation it is entirely appropriate.

Because the shooting sports are a great part of private ownership of firearms; hunting, competition, casual Sunday afternoon plinking, collecting (both firearms and ammunition!) are all part of the many ways we use firearms as a hobby, an avocation -- fun!

This last statement seemingly ignores the more serious aspects of firearms ownership. Self-defense, and acting as part of an unofficial militia both in defense of our homeland and to potentially overthrow a tyrant are probably more important, in the original sense of the Second Amendment. But these are not activities in which most people engage on a day-to-day basis.

We own guns, and we shoot them, for fun (and to hone our skills for the more serious activities.)

While our paramount reasons for private firearms ownership are often of the 'more serious' variety, it is arguable that these bills would not necessarily impede those activities. When it comes down to the point of dire necessity, most of us would be able to invest as much as a dollar, or two, or five per each round if our only purpose was to possess one gun and, say, five or ten or twenty rounds to defend ourself or our nation.

Even this extreme interpretation of the Second Amendment ignores the need for constant practice to maintain or improve our skills, and so these "Encoded Ammunition" bills would erode even the most serious and stringent requirements of private firearms ownership.
_______________________________________

Beyond that, the ready and economical access to ammunition is potentially threatened by these bills, introduced into state legislatures presumably for the purpose of undermining the Second Amendment by means which are both nefarious and disingenuous.

Politicians, in composing these bills, often attempt to reassure us by suggesting that the cost to the ammunition purchaser would only be a few cents. Do not allow yourself to be fooled by the smooth assurances of poltroons and scoundrels. The cost would be astronomical, and probably prohibitive.

RELOADING:
Obviously it would be legally and economically impossible for the private citizen who reloads his own ammunition to accommodate these propose laws. Many of us who shoot regularly, especially those who shoot for competitive or 'plinking' purposes, would immediately discover that reloading is no longer an option ... especially in light of variations which require that the serial number encoded on the bullet also be encoded on the INTERIOR of the cartridge case.

(Even if the technology was economically available to the private reloader, what happens when the case is re-used so many times that the surface of the case, having been reloaded many times, has no more room for another serial number? And are there penalties for having more than one serial number encoded on a single case? The proposed bills make no allowance.)

Ammunition manufacturers, in testimony at the Maryland hearing, have disabused the Maryland legislatures of their illusions. That the technology has not been demonstrated to be reliable; is 'single-vendor' applicable; has not been proven effective; and requires changes in ammunition manufacturing practices which are prohibitively costly -- are discussed in Kirk's article:

Justifications and supportive comments by Legislators:

The legislator that sponsored HB-517 is up : 2ish [sic]
He starts by trying to push this as a last chance for law enforcement. Which drew more than its fair share of chuckles as ballistic fingerprinting database has solve oh so many crimes so far.
The lawmaker amended the bill to only cover pistols. Once again trying to make it a law enforcement tool.

Some loser from Washington State is now testifying. He claims to be a gun owner, and a Concealed Carry permit holder. I think the last name was Ford. Ammunition Coding Technology is his company. [emphasis added] States that cops can track bullets at the crime scene. Yep I can just see the cops now prying the bullet out of the victim in order to get out there jewelers loop to get the serial number off of the bullet.

Seems the loser from Washington is not faring well he just got shredded by a lawmaker. then [sic] the lawmaker just drilled him as the patent holder about how much money he stands to make. Also seems he is the sole owner of said patent [sic, emphasis added]
A different lawmaker also want to see a fired round. Not just the pristine round that they were given for their examination. He seems to have a fired round that is completely shredded.

Statements from bill sponsors and supporters:

The bill sponsor wants to put a use by date on existing ammo. That had me about ready to fall on the floor laughing. He seems to be troubled that he is loosing the battle.

Another lawmaker is going after the tax and the fact that there are no ammo manufacturers in MD. That lawmaker is also going after interstate commerce as an issue citing Hawaii’s battle with the same bill

Now the bill sponsor is trying to tell us that Maryland should be a leader for other states in fighting crime. His last statement was that he feels that Concealed Cary [sic] would lead to bedlam.

One other lawmaker tried to defend the guy, says that there is other technology out there to make this not seem like a sole source.

Only one person testified in favor of this and she was from Baltimore…

Testimony from ammunition manufacturers:

First guy up from Remington, states that there are 8-10 billion rounds a year. 1800 rounds a minute of the assembly line and there is no way to encode at that rate. Very well spoken. He slams encoding very hard. Points out the hazard of lasers around powder and primers. I had not thought of that yet.

Next guy is from Federal. Also dissing encoding due to automated equipment. Also very well spoken. Says the costs would be passed on to the consumer and police. States that there is no technology capable of keeping up with rim fire ammunition manufacture rates

The manufactures [sic] also would have liability issues due to the tracking of the rounds from point of manufacture through the distribution to the end user. They would not be happy with the system as envisioned.

Finally, dialogue between the Legislators and the Manufacturers:

The manufactures [sic] also would have liability issues due to the tracking of the rounds from point of manufacture through the distribution to the end user. They would not be happy with the system as envisioned.

A lawmaker asked them what the chances of them making ammo for just MD were. He stated that they were not good.
The lawmaker then asked if there were just a few states.
The ammo manufactures [sic] then went in on how it would have to be a business case but even then they cost of setting up the facilities would be fairly prohibitive.

All and all I think this thing is dead just based on the Manufactures [sic] testimony.

At this time, it's impossible to determine how telling the testimony might be in the final consideration by the legislatures. I think it's important to note that this is the first manufacturer testimony that _I_ have seen on this issue, and that this testimony, as predicted, is entirely glum.

What these businessmen are saying is that, if these bills are enacted into law, the manufacturers will be unwilling ... unable! ... to accommodate the requirements. It would not be worth their time and expense to make ammunition which meets the statutory requirements, and essentially they would cease doing business within this (Maryland) states.

(By extension, they would cease doing business in ALL states which enacted this and similar laws. Note that this would undermine their customer base, which would logically increase their per-round manufacturing costs and consequently increase the cost of ammunition even in states which have not enacted similar laws.)

NOTE:
I apologize to Kirk for my extensive use of the [sic] "Such Is Cited" annotation of his quoted text. I understand that he was blogging 'in real time', and in the rush to publish it is impossible to edit text. I intended no criticism of his writing; I only included such annotations to emphasize that I was quoting actual text verbatim, rather than editing it. No changes in spelling, typing, punctuation ... and certainly in content ... has been imposed on Kirk's article.

Again, at the risk of providing redundant links to the article, I wholeheartedly encourage you to go 'read the whole thing'.
You'll be glad you did.

PS: One More Thing
I refer you to Kirk's final quoted comment, and I hope it's true and will be true in all of the states whose irresponsible legislators have proposed such bills:

All and all I think this thing is dead just based on the Manufacture[r]s testimony.

Stumble It!

Encoded Ammunition: Rhode Island

NRA-ILA was a help in identifying the nation's smallest state, Rhode Island, as the latest to introduce another Encoded Ammunition Bill.

Senate Bill S2742 includes "The Usual Suspects" of impositions upon the Second Amendment: however, this bill is (so far) unique in that it specifies the affected calibers:

The calibers covered by the coding requirement shall include: .22, .25, .357, .380, .40, .45, 9 mm and 10 mm.

Going out on a limb here, I'll assume that this clause is high-level specific. That is, when it includes ".22", it does not include (for example) .223, .222, .22-250 etc. calibers. However, nothing in the text of the bill specifically excludes these notionally rifle calibers. I also note in passing that the 50 million+ rounds of .22 rimfire ammunition manufactured annually is not generally considered a threat to public safety, suggesting that the bill is intended only as an imposition of unrealistic and unjustified regulation on the ability of firearms owners to purchase ammunition for their legal firearms at an economical price range. Well, that goes without saying.

The activation date of this bill is January 1, 2009; by January 1, 2011, all 'non-encoded' ammunition must be 'disposed of'.

The only other significant characteristic worthy of note is that the bill does not also require that the cartridge case be 'engraved' with the same unique serial number as the bullet.

This bill was introduced on February 26, 2008, by Senator William A. Walaska.

If you live in Rhode Island, write your state legislators.

Come to think of it, write to Bill Walaska and suggest he immigrate to Alaska.

Sorry ... that last was a disservice to the law-abiding residents of Alaska.

Oh, by the way, Rhode Island isn't content with introducing Encoded Ammunition legislation.

S2720 and H7834 are companion bills which require Microstamping of ammunition, based on engraving of the firing pin AND breach face of semi-automatic weapons. This is a copy of the law recently enacted in California, similarly ineffective, and as you have probably already decided is both overkill and 'under-possible'.

Rhode Island residents are hereby given permission for being embarrassed by the perfidy of their state legislators. Well, they are politicians, they have been bought and they will do anything ... anything at all ... to get their names in the newspapers.

The legislators in my state are generally no more endowed with ethical constraints than those in your state. If this goes on (as Robert Heinlein was fond of saying) there is no reason to expect that similar egregious and tyrannical bills will not be introduced 'here'.

Sorry. "The Tree of Liberty", and all tha.

Stumble It!

Encoded Ammunition: on a roll

Welcome LWR Rifles;

Welcome Maryland 'Shall Issue';

Welcome Tennessee Turkey Hunting:

Welcome Something Awful;

Welcome BuckMasters;

Welcome Open Congress;

Welcome Fun Turns to Tragedy;

Welcome AT&T Web Search - tn ammo bill;

...

Welcome ... all of the blogs and websites who have acknowledged that "Encoded Ammunition" bills constitute an attack on the Second Amendment.

Many RKBA weblogs / websites are becoming increasinglty aware that the "encoded ammunition" issue has become a cause celebre'.

Stumble It!

Encoded Ammunition - Federal?

In a January 17, 2008 article, Capital Weekly published an article titled "De Leon Pledges to Bring Back the Ammo Bill".

This article is significant because (among other reasons) it presages the February Attacks ... a dozen states to date having introduced into their respective legislatures an 'Encoded Ammunition' bill which has the potential of making the purchase of ammunition economically unfeasible for everyone in America except for The Very Rich.

These bills are bad enough for the individual states. However, consider the "microserialization of Ammunition: bill enacted into law in California. The Left Coast Wacko's who passed this bill have shown other gun-control states that 'it can be done'.

If enough states in the hinterlands pass these bills, it will provide significant encouragement to Congress and the Senate to introduce, and pass, similar bills at a Federal level.

When that happens, all of the concerns about "Heller v DC" will recede into insignificance. The ownership of private firearms will not be an issue, without ammunition.

The 2nd Amendment acknowledges our God Given Right to 'keep and bear arms' ... but it doesn't explicitly say anything about ammunition, or whether it should be affordable.

Here's what the article has to say:

Ammunition is widely viewed as the next big battlefield in the gun debate — that is, pending the outcome of a Second Amendment case out of Washington, D.C., that the Supreme Court is set to hear in a few weeks. In October, another freshman Democrat, Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles, was able to get a controversial microstamping bill into law. AB1471 mandates that handguns must stamp a serial number on the shell of every bullet fired.

Well, the terminology is a little mangled in translation, but nobody expects either the reporter or the politician to know what the heck they're talking about. There is no 'real' justification for this law, no practical expectation that it will reduce crime. This is an end-run around the 2nd Amendment, pure and simple, and is designed to appeal to the emotional circuit in the brain of the average American, completely avoiding the logic circuit (assuming that it exists.)

There is not only not justification for the bill(s); there is no assurance that the technology exists to accomplish the stated objective ... identify the owner of every bullet and every 'shell' (cartridge case) which may be legally owned under these bills.

And there is no consideration for the mass-production techniques which allow 'bullet' and 'ammunition' manufacturers to sell their product for 'pennies per unit', or how they would be obsoleted by the 'cottage industry' manufacturing processes which are mandated by these bills ... effectively turning the manufacturing costs to 'dollars per unit'.

And there is no mention of the fact that if the state/federal government accept or impose the regulation that the serial number of the bullet match the serial number on the case, 'reloading' the cases from expended ammunition will be effectively forbidden ... even if there is nothing in the law which expressly forbids it.

Except, of course for the criminal, who will be The Only One who is not affected by this legislation.

Heck, they steal everything they use, anyway. That's why they call them 'criminals'.

Stumble It!