You aren't alone.
A recent bill proposed by "The Giffords" would ... require every gun part to have a serial number ..."
This single 'bill' illustrates the insanity of people attempting to make regulatory laws when they do not have ANY appreciation of the complexity and REPORTAGE of what they are asking ... because if you must register every part of a gun, then when you replace a part you must report the change.
It's the first bill I've ever heard which approaches the inanity of "Serialized Ammunition"; or the even more inane plot to require a firearm to butt-stamp an unique identifying firearm serial number on every round which is fired, so the gun can be identified by examining expended brass found by crime scene investigators. .. I think we have a name for that INSANE proposal, and I've even written about it extensively .. I think I called it "Encoded" ammunition, but I'm not sure because I tried very hard to to not think too hard about it before it warps my mind. (That part is not working well!)Somebody has to register that part number change ... and most of the parts of the umpteen million firearms currently in private (or public) possession are not designed for identifying individual parts.
If this all sounds stupid to you .. it gets worse when you think about it! The Feds are almost swamped trying to keep track of the transfer of individual firearms.
There are 52 parts in a common 1911-style pistol, including various springs. Would this bill require them ALL to have serial numbers? Some of them are 'consumables" (such as springs), and it would be impossible to impose serial numbers on them without weakening the federal support structure beyond the point where they would serve their purpose.
(See the diagram and parts list for a common 1911-style pistol here.)
Other parts are commonly 'lost' during dis-assembly for cleaning and maintenance
.(SEE: Recoil Spring; Recoil Spring Plug)
Still more wear out and must be replaced simply because they are no longer serviceable. The simple process of reporting them as "lost or discarded during maintenance" would suggest a huge administrative process before a (serialized) replacement can be ordered, let alone received.
Would federal authorization be required? That goes beyond the pale!
And a request for replacement would require the supplier to report the shipping of a "serialized" part, and the recipient to report receipt of the part. Tracking parts would be a HUGE problem!
Other firearms parts are replaced by "higher quality" merchandise. Some are rotated from one firearm to another for various reasons. Some are disposed of because of wear, or unsuitability replacement; or freely moved from one firearm to another for various reasons which perhaps make sense only to the owner.
But the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence suggests that "every thing that can be used to build a rifle" implies that "every thing that can be used to build a pistol", and that suggests the everyone from the manufacturer, to the retailer, to the new owner, and to subsequent owners .. should be somehow tracked through a magic database system that nobody in this century is capable of maintaining.
The physical impossibility to do so .. and keep track of and report every change in every firearms, is a bizarre and unmanageable imposition on private owners of firearms.
(Oh, and are the police going to require their department to register changes to every firearm during their regular maintenance schedule? I don't think so!)
Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2017/11/giffords-law-center-prevent-gun-violence-call-gun-laws/#ixzz4zLGfEJCW
The regulating of anything that can be used to build a rifle is very vague. The ultra-liberal governor of California, Jerry Brown, vetoed a similar bill on these grounds. Gov. Brown said that AB1673 had “far-reaching and unintended consequences.” He also vetoed a bill supported by the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence that would require every gun part to have a serial number and would require background checks for ammunition purchases.Bad people make bad choices. And you can't make laws which are going to change that.
Some people are just bad. Deal with the people, not with the guns.
7 comments:
Mr. Gifford is a former astronaut and retired naval officer. Ms. Gifford is the tragic victim of handgun violence and a former congress person. They are both highly intelligent. They mean well and just want to lessen gun violence, reduce the number of firearms in private hands and save lives. Their proposed law would effectively make most firearms almost impossible to own and/or produce. Undoubtedly that is their goal.
It is obvious that her getting shot in the head did not hit any vital organs!
"It is obvious that her getting shot in the head did not hit any vital organs! "
Obviously it didn't fix STUPID, only made it worse.
If they wanted to make a difference and actually do any good at all, why then wouldn't they propose a bill that actually had a snowball's chance of passing? All this accomplishes is to make them even bigger laughingstocks than they already are.
OK...can we put serial numbers on the mentally ill and felons as well?
There was actually a gun that had serial or a partial no on each major part. Georg Luger's model 1898. More commonly known as the P08 Parabellum. Or Luger. Collectors know to check for these nos on a piece that they want to buy. A large number of P08s were assembled after WWII and imported made up with mis matched parts. Normally they would function just fine. Just wouldn;t be as valuable as a "complete" pistol.
Personally, I understand why The Giffords would change their life to focus on Gun Control. The madman with a gun changed their lives, and almost took a beloved wife from a loving husband.
My objection is that their experience caused them to conflate firearms ownership with madness, which relegated every firearms owner with a potential assassin.
This is an emotional response, and not entirely irrational; any madman may possess a firearm, with foul intent to do harm to others.
The dichotomy is that not all people who possess a firearm are madmen; although it's easy to understand why the Giffords have learned to be dubious about firearms and their owners.
We will never convince them to be less .. protective. The best we can do is to continue our usual practice of being responsible firearms owners. The Giffords, while they are 100% anti-gun, are not "anti-us".
They are not our opponents in the never-ending "2nd Amendment" controversy. Our opponents are the madmen who threaten innocents, and use a firearm to advance their vile agenda.
Post a Comment