Thursday, June 09, 2005

120 rounds: Part II > News > State -- 13 L.A. sheriff's deputies to be punished for wild assault on car

On May 15, 2005, we talked about the incident where a baker's dozen L.A. Sheriff's Deputies engaged in a "Blue-On-Blue" * firefight with the results of turning a SUV into a cheese grater, and an innocent man into a marginal statistic.
  • Initially, one thoroughly wasted SUV
  • Four D-zone hits
  • One potential lawsuit (watch this space)
  • One Deputy hit by 'friendly fire' .. hardcover hit, he was vested
  • The Wrong Guy arrested (the SUV driver was apparently NOT a participant in the 'drive-by' shooting)
Now we have another consequence:
  • 13 L.A. Sheriff's Deputies disciplined
  • 2 deputy suspended for 15 days
  • Other deputies off duty for lesser periods
  • some deputies receive written reprimands
Interesting comments from the outcome:

The sheriff also praised the deputies, saying they "are dedicated and have great passion and concern for the people of Compton."

The announcement drew a mixed reaction.

Activist Morris Griffin hugged Baca after the news conference. "We never expected the police to police themselves," Griffin said.

Swell. The Sheriff praises the deputies for their 'dedication', 'activists' hug the Sheriff, and NOBODY talks about the Tactical Officer.

It's not all negative:

(L.A. County Sheriff) Baca on Thursday announced changes in the department's shooting policy. The changes toughen language designed to restrict deputies from shooting at moving vehicles except under "extraordinary" circumstances, Baca said.

The old policy warned deputies to get out of the path of a moving vehicle and allowed them to fire at it if they believed the driver could kill or seriously injure someone.

The new language instructs deputies to take cover from a safe distance, train a weapon on the suspect and give specific commands to surrender before considering shooting.

Deputies can still fire when they feel the vehicle is an immediate threat of death or serious injury to deputies or bystanders.

However, each deputy must now use his or her own "independent reasoning for using deadly force," according to the policy.

That was an effort to prevent "contagious fire," in which deputies shoot because other deputies are doing so.

"We want and will have increased public confidence," Baca said. "The Sheriff's Department can do better and it will do better."

"Contagious Fire" seems to be, well, "contagious" in Los Angeles County. Probably no different in most other counties in America. The thing is, I experiences two "Blue-on-Blue" situations in Vietnam, and while I was getting the platoon to shut it DOWN, I saw that only a few excitable individuals were emotionally overwhelmed to the point where they were shooting regardless of the fact that they didn't have a clearly enemy target.

My personal opinion is that the involved deputies were under-trained, and over-reacted to the real situation.

As I stated in my original May 15 article:
Their deputies should be flagellated by their tactical officers because nobody can accept that this is the way they have been trained; their tactical officers should be flagellated by the Sheriff because nobody can accept that these tactics have been trained 'out of them'; and the Sheriff should be flagellated by the people who elected him, because he obviously hasn't insisted on proper training for his deputies.
Sheriff Baca skated out of harm's way on this one. If he is re-elected based on his performance, I will not only be surprised, but disappointed. This is one incident which deserves NOT to be swept under the carpet.

Any leader who survives such a miserable boondoggle as this ... represents the "electors get the politician they deserve" judgement.

I'm glad that I don't live in L.A. County. But if I did, I would do everything within my power to see that he never held public office again ... especially one which involved the supervision of Law Enforcement Officers.

* "Blue-on-Blue":
"Friendly forces" are typically designated on color-coded military maps as "Blue Forces". (Enemy forces are designated as "Red Forces", which perhaps explains why Republicans objects to political maps depicting "predominantly Republican" states in the color Red.)

When, usually due to the 'fog of war', American troops begin shooting at another unit which turns out to be 'friendly forces', the situation is subsequently referred to as a "Blue-On-Blue" firefight.

Jeff Cooper's Commentaries

Jeff Cooper's Commentaries

Volume 13, #4 (April, 2005)

I'm sorry to report that Col. Cooper is two months 'behind' in his Commentaries. I hope this is due to his being too busy to pay appropriate attention to maintaining the contributions, rather than that ill-health precludes the effort.

Nevertheless, Jeff Cooper continues to provide us with thought-provoking commentary.

Here is one such contribution; consider it a 'teaser' and go read the whole article:

This letter comes from a distinguished Gunsite graduate now serving as an assistant division commander in Iraq. It may clear up our national position now somewhat obscured by our news media. It is not an official communication, but rather a private letter.
"Dear Friends,

"It isn't over yet, but today there was a resounding victory for freedom and democracy here in Baghdad. Having been here for a while now, many of us have grown weary of the hand-wringers, worriers, pessimists, whiners, and host of others who have been telling us for so long that all is lost in Iraq. Today we witnessed just how courageous the Iraqi people can be and how much they love their new-found freedom.

"After listening to the pundits tell us how terrible the Iraqi Security Forces are, today I watched the Iraqi Security Forces stand tall. They protected, 1,188 polling sites in Baghdad. Although there were a number of suicide bombers who attacked today, not a single one penetrated the perimeter of a polling site. There were several Iraqi policemen, and several Iraqi soldiers who lost their lives today. But they did not lose their honor or their courage; none of the 30,000 plus Iraqi Security Forces on duty in Baghdad ran away from danger today.

"At the site of our first suicide bombing of the day, voters did not lose their courage either. They quickly lined back up at the same site, spitting on the body of the suicide bomber as they passed by in line to vote. A woman came out of line and took the shoe of the bomber and put it on his face - a great insult to an Arab. The same was true at any polling site that had violence. Voters immediately lined up again to cast their vote. How many Americans value their privilege to vote enough to show that kind of courage?

"We have listened to many experts talk about how the Sunnis would not participate in the election. Polling sites in Abu Guyreb were moved to Gasaliya because the Iraqi Election Commission was concerned about security in Abu Guyreb. We watched thousands walk down the highway - Sunni Moslems - on the 7 mile round trip to the polling sites so they could vote. All under the threat that terrorists had been making that they would kill anyone who voted. How many Americans would do that?

"All over Baghdad the story was the same and I could tell a dozen stories of great courage and determination. Despite the enemy's campaign of terror, despite danger, threats, intimidation, and the sporadic incidents of violence and terror today, Iraqis turned out in determined, large numbers to vote. The excitement was moving. Even though the terrorists have said they will kill anyone with a "marked finger" (when you voted your finger was dipped in ink to keep people from voting a second time), voters paraded down the street holding their fingers up in joy and overwhelming pride.

"When I told one Iraqi I was sorry that people had died or been wounded today, he just said `freedom has a price, and this is the price that we must pay.' And every Iraqi I talked to said thank you to the United States for this opportunity, for this freedom, and how grateful they were for our help.

"I am sure it will only be hours until you start hearing all the `experts,' most of which have never been to Iraq, start trying to convince us that today was flawed, failed, or somehow less than a wonderful day and a blow for freedom. They are the same people who say we are failing here, that you couldn't do an election on the 30th of January, and on and on. It is true we haven't `won' here yet. It is not predetermined that we will win, and it will take continued sacrifice and determination on our part. Those who hate freedom and democracy will still fight, many to the death, to try to stop this march to freedom and prosperity by the Iraqis with our help. They are terrified of the thought of a free and democratic Iraq that leads this whole region to a democratic future.

"But despite this, I encourage you from here in Baghdad, for at least one day, to ignore the pundits and experts, to enjoy a day where a blow for freedom was struck. Know that somewhere in the world, because of the sacrifice of your friends, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, and countrymen; good won over evil, freedom over terror, and democracy over despotism.

"Last June 30, Iraq was given its sovereignty. Today, they earned their freedom. And we should all be joyful for that."

Not all of his comments are so politically (or patriotically) oriented. He continues to offer more 'practical' observations:

I have as yet no valid opinion about the 45 short cartridge. This should take about a year's worth of field evaluation.

Let us hope that he is able to complete this evaluation.

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

Kalifornia Bullet-Coding Scheme III: AG Approves!

Lockyer, Dunn and Perata Introduce New Legislation to Solve Gun Crimes

It may not come as a big surprise to you that California Attorney General Bill Lockyer approves of the recent "Serialization" of bullets scheme.

We've talked about how this proposition would not only make it fiscally impossible for ammunition manufacturers to provide affordable ammunition to citizens of California, but also that the bill has 'hidden' clauses which include fees, penalties (including jail terms) and registration not once, but twice.

AG Locklyer, that egrigious politician, goes along with the leftist fantasy that this bill is intended to help solve shootings; he never mentions that it essentially circumvents the Second Amendment by making it impractical for most citizens to possess ammunition which makes the defensive handgun WORK!

Locklyer has nothing new to say. His website makes typical comments such as this:

Lockyer, Dunn and Perata Introduce New Legislation to Solve Gun Crimes
Measure Would Put Unique Identifiers on Each Bullet Made and Sold in California

April 26, 2005

(916) 324-5500

(SACRAMENTO) - Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Sen. Joe Dunn and Senate President pro Tem Don Perata today unveiled legislation to help law enforcement personnel solve firearms-related homicide investigations.

SB 357, authored by Dunn, co-authored by Perata and sponsored by the Attorney General would create a new "bullet serialization" system that will allow investigating officers to trace bullets recovered from crime scenes to the person who purchased the ammunition.

"Gang-related gun violence is one of the fastest growing concerns for communities throughout California," Lockyer said. "We are losing too many of our young people to seemingly random shootings and anonymous killers. SB 357 will strip criminals of their anonymity and give law enforcement evidence it can use to quickly and effectively solve more gun crimes."

The new system would require every bullet sold or manufactured in California to be affixed with an identifier. When an ammunition vendor sells handgun bullets to a purchaser, the vendor would match the identifier on the ammunition with the purchaser, and then log the match into an electronic database run by the Attorney General's Office. When a bullet is recovered from a crime scene where a firearm is used, law enforcement investigators will be able to check the bullet for the identifier and match it with a purchaser.

"With the passage of SB 357, California will bring law enforcement investigative tools into the modern age," Dunn said. "This system will be an important new tool to help law enforcement personnel identify and convict violent felons and murderers."

In 2003, over 72 percent (1,733) of California homicides were committed with a firearm. Almost 45 percent of these homicides were unsolved. Additionally, 63,597 robberies were reported in 2003, with armed robbery accounting for 53.9 percent (34,252) of these crimes. A firearm was used in 64.7 percent (22,161) of all armed robberies. Only 27.1 percent of robberies were solved in 2003.

"SB 357 offers crime scene investigators a valuable new tool to help solve and deter crimes," Perata said. "Numbers on bullets mean criminals off streets."

Specifically, SB 357 does the following:

  • Requires all handgun ammunition manufactured or sold in California to be marked with a unique identifier.
  • The identifier would then be associated with the purchaser of the handgun ammunition at the point of sale and maintained in an electronic database run by the Attorney General's Office.
  • Requires all vendors and manufacturers who conduct handgun ammunition sales in the state to register with the Attorney General's Office.
  • Assesses vendor and end-user fees to pay for the costs of the program.
  • Creates criminal and civil penalties for individuals and corporations who circumvent the requirements of SB 357.
A graphic representation of how bullet serialization works and photos of serialized bullets fired into car doors can be found here.

The one NEW thing is the link provided in the quote, which takes you to a PDF (which loads VERY slowly!) and shows us his view of a "serialized" bullet. I've included the essential view here.

Free Image Hosting at

Perhaps the most interesting thing we see here is that the demonstration bullet has purportedly been fired against a hard surface, deformed by the impact, yet the serial number is still readily readable.

The information he does NOT provide includes:
  • the caliber of the bullet (hence, the surface area shown)
  • any management of he number of digits in the serial, which would need to be much longer in order to be practical considering the large number of ammunition manufacturers in this country ... assuming that more than, say TWO of them still try to market ammunition in this state!
  • the technology, and the production process changes, which ammunition manufacturers would have to adopt in order to effect the "serialization".
  • the REAL cost of serialized bullets
  • the 'hidden' clauses in the law which allow the AG office to retain firearms sales records
It's redundant to continue this list. Most of the objections have already been listed in excruciating detail on this forum, and you can go back to earlier comments to read them. (Note that this announcement by the AG is dated April 26, 2005.)

The REAL danger in this state law is that if California can fool their voters into thinking that it's reasonable, there's no reason to expect that otherGunGrabber states won't adopt the same or similar law.

It's not a California problem. It's a National problem.
If YOU live in California, I urge you to tell your State Assemblyman that this is a BAD law, and it will not accomplish the goals it purports to address.

They won't listen to a Geek from Oregon.

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Kipling: Macdonough's Song

I spent so much time dealing with unimportant technical stuff (such as software upgrades and blog errors) that I almost forgot Kipling Night!

Thankfully, I have on tap a timely poem, because I'm hoping to get to bed before midnight tonite. The data entry is easy, because I found this already transcribed on an Australian website called (click on the article title above to go directly to the original).

I found this poem in the forepage of a Tom Clancy novel: The Teeth of the Tiger. The book is about terrorism, the poem is about terrorism, and unfortunately our current era is all too much about terrorism. This poem was written sometime between 1899 and his death in 1936. Kipling is writing about 'coersive collectivism', but here he demonstrates Cassandra's gift, fortelling issues which we now face in our daily lives and fears.

Interestingly, this can be interpreted in more than one way. Who are the Holy People? Are they the Radical Islaamists, or are they the Evangelistic Christians in America? Your answer to this question fairly defines who YOU are.

Macdonough’s Song

WHETHER the State can loose and bind
In Heaven as well as on Earth:
If it be wiser to kill mankind
Before or after the birth—
These are matters of high concern
Where State-kept schoolmen are;
But Holy State (we have lived to learn)
Endeth in Holy War.

Whether The People be led by The Lord,
Or lured by the loudest throat:
If it be quicker to die by the sword
Or cheaper to die by vote—
These are things we have dealt with once,
(And they will not rise from their grave)
For Holy People, however it runs,
Endeth in wholly Slave.

Whatsoever, for any cause,
Seeketh to take or give,
Power above or beyond the Laws,
Suffer it not to live!
Holy State or Holy King—
Or Holy People’s Will—
Have no truck with the senseless thing.
Order the guns and kill!

Once there was The People—Terror gave it birth;
Once there was The People and it made a Hell of Earth.
Earth arose and crushed it. Listen, O ye slain!
Once there was The People—it shall never be again!

The Smallest Minority

Sunday, as I was reading my email, I noticed that Kevin Baker had commented on my article about internet browsers (This Blog Condemned)

Later, while surfing through my links, I hit on kevin's website and saw that he had included a link to Cogito Ergo Geek.

I can do no less than to elevate his link to "Links To Me" from "Visit Frequently".
It's a courtesy thing, of course: you link to me, I link to you.

But I'm happy to provide him the highest accolade possible in Blogdom, because of the inherent quality of his contributions.

Go look at Kevin's blog; The Smallest Minority. Everything he writes about is meticulously researched, and supportive links abound.

This is truly a "Geek-Length" blog. I hope you visit him often and enjoy his contributions to general knowledge as much as do I.

Monday, June 06, 2005

AGS - One Hand Clapping

On April 14, 2005, Americans for Gun Safety applauded the efforts of the notorious anti-RKBA Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to undermine the constitutional rights of gun owners. Of course, they don't express their agenda in such clear terms:

AGS - Press Release Detail:

Illinois Governor Announces Groundbreaking Gun Trafficking Program

Americans for Gun Safety Praises Governor Blagojevich’s Efforts to Stem the Tide of Crime Guns

WASHINGTON – Today, Governor Rod Blagojevich announced the formation of a groundbreaking effort designed to stop the flow of illegal weapons into the hands of criminals in his state, of Illinois. This program addresses the central, yet ignored, aspect of the gun debate, the methods by which criminals arm themselves.

“Americans for Gun Safety has worked very closely with Governor Blagojevich on this program, and we are very pleased to see him take these crucial steps,” said John Lacey, Communications Director for Americans for Gun Safety, a centrist gun policy group. “The Governor has studied Illinois’ gun problem and formulated a response which we are confident will keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals. We urge all communities affected by gun violence to follow the Governor’s lead.”

This program is designed to go after the sources of guns used in Illinois crime before criminals have a chance to use them. The majority of crime guns in Illinois come from states with weaker gun laws. More crime guns flow into Illinois from Indiana and Mississippi than from any other state. According to recent data, 777 crime guns from Indiana and 532 crime guns from Mississippi were located in Illinois. Crime guns from these two states alone nearly equal the total number of crime guns from the next 10 states combined.

Nationwide, close to 90 percent of guns used in crimes are trafficked.

That sounds fairly 'centrist' (previous quote's emphasis is mine) , doesn't it? All they want to do is to get prevent guns, which are 'trafficked' from 'states with weaker gun laws', from falling into the hands of criminals. To do that, Blagovijevich has announced a 'program' ... but I don't see a reference to a law. I'll have to look that up ... more later. (Without legislation, this is nothing but smoke and mirrors.)

So far, this is a disengenuous attempt to restrict 'trafficked' guns from being imported into the state.
(Note that there are already federal laws which prohibit the purchase of guns out-of-state. )

Then, on May 18, AGS addressed the question of 'criminals with guns' in the state of Pennsylvania:

AGS: PA Gun Commission Moves Beyond Divisive Gun Politics to Address Problem

Report Includes Key Recommends Made by Americans for Gun Safety

WASHINGTON – Americans for Gun Safety applauds the Pennsylvania Commission on Gun Violence’s report outlining a comprehensive approach to the problem of gun violence. The Commission’s report, released yesterday, represents an honest look at the problem of gun violence and gun policy, and includes solutions that can taken at the local level.

“With this report, the Commission was able to accomplish something rarely seen when it comes to guns” said John Lacey, Communications Director for Americans for Gun Safety, a centrist gun policy group. “They moved beyond the traditional divisive politics of guns to focus on the real problem: criminals and the ease with which they can access firearms.”

The report highlights law enforcement, legislative, and public education recommendations submitted to commission by Americans for Gun Safety. These recommendations include: increased use of gun tracing by all levels of law enforcement; legislative steps designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children; and, the Felon Warning Project, a public education initiative designed by Americans for Gun Safety Foundation in partnership with the American Probation and Parole Association to warn felons they are prohibited from possessing a firearm.

The report also recognizes the local nature of Pennsylvania’s gun problem, and proposes local solutions.

“The vast majority of guns used in Pennsylvania crime come from Pennsylvania,” said Lacey. “Gun violence solutions need to address the local aspect of this problem, otherwise criminals will continue arming themselves unabated.”

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives data show that the majority of firearms in Pennsylvania are first purchased at retail within 10 miles of where they are used in a crime. While the firearm may changes hands several times between retail sale and crime, the close proximity of the two events clearly indicates the local nature of Pennsylvania’s crime gun problem and the key role local Pennsylvania officials should play.

Apparently, in Pennsylvania, the problem isn't with gun 'trafficking' from other states. The problem is that guns are purchased in-state.
So the problem is either that guns are available from other states, or that guns are available locally.

Ultimately, according to that great 'centrist' organization Americans for Gun Safety', the problem isn't where the guns come from. The problem is that guns exist.

There's nothing 'centrist' about that, folks. This may come as a surprise, but AGS puts up a front about being 'centrist' (or 'moderate') but the truth is that they are 100% totally anti-gun. They adopt the camoflauge of a group of people who just want to get along, but their agenda isn't very cleverly hidden.

They want to remove firearms from American Society. It doesn't matter whether they take guns from criminals, or from immigrants, or from you. They want them OUT.

The truth is, of course, that Criminals will ALWAYS have guns. Ultimately, they aren't campaigning to remove firearms from the hands of criminals. They're campaigning to deprive you of your right to defend yourself, or to hunt, or to engage in shooting competition, or just to have guns because it's no damn business of the AGS whether you have firearms and they don't LIKE that!


In another unrelated incident, Pittsburgh (Pa) police were recently involved in a shooting in which nobody was injured. One hundred three rounds were expended, but nobody was hit.

Sounds like a reasonable argument for Gun Control. As in: the police need to learn how to control their guns.


On the other hand, here's an anecdotal report from a member of the Unofficial IPSC List:

Well.....after all the reports of Law Enforcement having itchy trigger fingers and expelling a few more than req'd amounts of ammo, our local sheriff came into the gun shop the other day and said " before I tell you anything else....I only took 2 shots!!" (smiling)

Then he proceeded to tell us how he was called out to dispatch 2 cows that were unning thru and raising hell in a near by town and the owner refused to do anything about it. He shot them both with his .308, dropped them on the spot and the meat went to the local food shelf. He wanted to make sure that we knew this irst, before it made the newspaper ... of course ... it never did.
The Americans for Gun Safety would be proud of him. Of course, PETA thinks he exercised undue force.

This is the one time when I may be inclined to side with PETA.

What do YOU think?

This Blog UN-condemned!

A few days ago I wrote an article describing how Internet Explorer (IE)was a 'bad browser', and simultaneously extolled the virtues of NetScape.

Today I received my NetScape Version 8.0 Update Disk, and loaded it.

NetScape displayed my weblog in the same demented way as did IE.

I was outraged. NetScape has Let The Side Down!
Then I calmed down a little, and started checking out the webpage. I found a banner in my AirAmerica article which extended across the page. The old version of NetScape (7.2) overlayed the sidebar, which was sloppy but I didn't care.

The new version of NetScape (8.0) apparently allowed this to force the width of the text area to conform to the banner settings, and resulted in an 'ugly webpage'.

It's my fault. I was sloppy, the old NetScape version let me get away with it. Now the new version of NetScape will NOT let me get away with sloppy page design.

I suppose this is an improvement, and I'm sure that it will result in more careful construction on my part.

But I have to admit, I kinda miss the old NetScape. I only switched to the new version to ensure that the software vendor would continue to support it.

The good news here is that IE will now display the Cogito Ergo Geek website a neatly as does NetScape.

The bad news (if you're an IE afficianado) is that IE still loads slower, and MS still announces an average of one security breach every month.

I won't switch to IE as my primary browser ... ever! ... but you should be aware of some problems which I have encountered tonight after upgrading NetScape from version 7.2 to version 8.0.

The worst of them (I expect to find more) is that the upgrade process does NOT bring your password files to the new version. Therefore, if you plan to upgrade NetScape, be sure that you have ALL of your passwords (and user IDs) for EVERY website you commonly visit logged in a hardcopy file somewhere. I'm genetically paranoid, so I have all of my passwords logged on paper and I can build a new 'DataCard' (NetScape's new password file device) for each website as I visit it. It's a slow, laborious process and I can't imagine why NetScape wouldn't choose to transfer the password manager data to the new version ... but I can live with it.

Still, I can continue to use my new browser, and I'm sure I will become more comfortable with it as I go along. There ARE some very good features in the new NetScape browser version, but I'll let you discover them the same way I do.

This isn't easy for a guy who resists change as vehemently as I. Just ask anyone who suffered through my invective when USPSA issued a new competition Rule Book last year!

UPDATE: June 7, 2005

Life's too short to spend weeks trying to work around obvious new-release software bugs. Version 8.0 of NetScape has many more problems than I had originally perceived. One of them is that, when several windows are open, it activates windows I'm not currently trying to work in. Another is that it's difficult to access the Windows toolbar from NetScape 8.0.

Instead of reporting problems to NetScape (which doesn't have an obvious error-dialogue path) and waiting for them to release a patch, I restored my system to a previous date. This doesn't say much good about NetScape 8.0, but it speaks volumes for Windows XP.

Sunday, June 05, 2005

BROADBAND:IDF Releases video of missle hitting HAMAS terrorists

No comment, except that I've viewed the video several times, and I can't think of a more approriate response.

Although I'm inclined to wish that the IDF gunner had moved his cursur just a little to the left, to insure that he included in his blast-area the folks who had already dumped their mortar load on Israeli civilians.

Note: this is VERY broadband-friendly, not modem-friendly. The Bad Guys look like ants in either version, but at least you can keep track of the ant-ish movement in broadband.

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:

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:


(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
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.