Sunday, February 17, 2008

"Called on the Carpet"

The day before Valentine's Day, I posted an article titled "Encoded Ammunition - Pro and Con". There I attempted to find (besides the source of the recent attacks on the 2nd Amendment via 'Encoded Ammunition ban") an internet website ... any website! ... which represented "organized efforts at a national level to counter these bills".

I went through National NGO (Non-Governmental Organizations", such as the NRA) and finally reduced my search to bloggers.

In the process I listed the most (to my mind) prominent bloggers and described their efforts to (a) oppose the recent bills introduced to state legislatures, and (b) identify the anti-gun organizations which might be behind such anti-RKBA attacks.

I went through the links on my blog sidebar, visited the posts on each website for the month of February (during which period the majority of the Encoded Ammunition bills had been introduced in 2008), and reported on the attention that this issue had enjoyed.

The results of this survey appeared on February 13, 2008, at 11:35pm.

I was surprised that the very next day, February 14, 2008, at 3:40pm, Dr. John Lott posted an article responding to my comments.

My Comment:

John Lott - Nothing.

His response:


Encoded ammunition

Here is some discussion on encoded ammunition. I am called on the carpet for not dealing with this issue, though I have written on this type of question in the past and I had thought that I had put up one post on this. The problem is that in California they already have so many gun laws this law will not actually have any effect. There will be no newly designed guns because of other gun laws even if this new rule hadn't been passed.


posted by John Lott at 3:40 PM


Well, he has a point. Several points, in fact.

First, I don't know whether or not he has addressed this issue. My guess is that he has discussed the California Microstamping Law, recently passed and signed by Governor Schwarzenegger, which requires firearms to 'microstamp' a serial number on the primer of each round fired through a gun. (This would be by virtue of an encoding on the firing pin of every 'legal' firearm.)

This clearly has no direct correlation to the recent proposition of bills which requires that bullets (and sometimes the interior of cartridge cases) be 'encoded' with an unique serial number which is in turn related to the serial number of a 'lot' (box) of ammunition purchased by a retailer.

Perhaps Dr. Lott is not aware of the TWELVE states which have introduced this and similar bills during the 2007 - 2008 legislative period. (Note that six of these bills have been introduced in 2008.)

Second, I'm distressed that he considers my inclusion of his blog in the list of those which have 'nothing' to say about this disturbing trend.

Third, I'm disconcerted that he seems to take a defensive attitude toward my assertion that he has done 'nothing' to address this recent, pervasive issue which has appeared in twelve states (six of them since the current 2008 legislative session).

Finally, and ultimately, I'm concerned that he appears more willing to defend his own personal position in re the "you have nothing to say" issue than the "someone is working to attack the second amendment via unsupportable bills restricting ammunition accessibility" issue.

I am confident that Dr. Lott has yet to examine, and appreciate, the issue; and when he has time to examine it, he will perform his own examination (or take advantage of that research which we have done here), and will eventually provide his own unique and reasoned perspective discourse on the issue.

Until then, we are left to consider only the reactive, defensive position initially described by Dr. Lott and we are bereft of his usually scholarly evaluation.

I do hope that Dr. Lott can get past his original dismissive evaluation of these laws, and recognize them as an organized 'back door' attack on the Second Amendment.

It's easy to dismiss these bills as something which the sponsors recognize as infeasible nuisance suits. But it doesn't take a lot of imagination to perceive that these bills, proliferated among so many states, might conceivably be passed in at least one state ... which would bode ill in other states in which similar bills might be proposed. After all, if one state passed such a bill into law, it would set a burdensome precedent.

With Dr. Lott's active support, we have a chance to successfully oppose such bills. Without Dr. Lott's active support the counter-arguments have a much lower chance of success.

I wonder if Dr. Lott realizes how important his input may be in the effort to oppose these bills.

And NO, Dr. Lott, I have NOT 'called you on the carpet'.

I only encourage you to evaluate the recent bills, and to take a stance consistent with your earlier avocation of Gun Rights.

Without the support

No comments: