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.