Want to stop gun violence now? Regulate bullets

As if we don't have enough idiotic ignorant liberals in America, now the LA TIMES is importing them from foreign countries on their Opinion Pages?

Want to stop gun violence now? Regulate bullets: Robert Muggah is a co-founder of the Igarap Institute, headquartered in Rio de Janeiro, and a co-director of the SecDev Group in Ottawa.

Here's a quick recap of his unworkable "solutions" (all of which we've seen before"):

Because bullets are so widely available, people often wonder whether ammunition can be regulated at all. The answer is yes.

"AT ALL"?   Sure.   Realistically, considering the volume?  No way!

A good place to start is the factories where bullets are manufactured. Strict control on the production and sale of unusually dangerous ammunition would be straightforward, since such sales can now be monitored digitally.

(Would you please define "unusually dangerous ammunition"?   All ammunition is dangerous ... but then, you know that.  Don't you?)

It's also cheaper than ever to mark and trace bullets with microscopic codes or serial numbers, which help law enforcement solve gun-related crimes. This data can be registered with the buyer's personal information at the time of purchase.

(Can you cite a single instance where 'serialized ammunition' has ever been used by law enforcement to solve a 'gun-related crime'?   I didn't think so)

What's more, there are far fewer producers of ammunition than there are producers of firearms, according to Small Arms Analytics, a research firm. This makes the ammunition industry easier to regulate.

Give me strength ... and a strong stomach!

(1)  The author seems to conveniently ignore the fact that ammunition ("Bullets"!) are manufactured in Bulk.  They are usually inspected by hand, for Quality Control; but they are packed automatically.   Which strongly implies that any effort to "serialize" ammunition will not result in a reliable method of tying the individual "bullet" with the  package by which they are sold.

(2)  "Serialized Ammunition" is packed in quantities of (usually) no more than 50 rounds per package.  Some are SOLD in bulk ... by the bucket-load.  So if you're going to "easily mark ... bullets with microscopic codes or serial numbers" you must ensure that the buyers' personal information is related to an unique group of "bullets".   What happens when a serialized "bullet" is packed in the wrong package ... and purchased by a person with criminal intent?  And the (cartridge case) retrieved at the scene of a crime has the 'serial number' which belongs to a 50-round package purchased by an innocent person?   In that case, your "easier to regulate" scheme has served two purposes; a criminal escapes, and an innocent is prosecuted.   Sometimes "easier" is not the same as "better".

(3) Making the "ammunition industry easier to regulate" is an effort which is not commonly considered a requirement.  Every round is marked with the manufacturers' headstamp, so if a cartridge ("bullet", in your parlance) causes an injury which leads to adjudication, it's obvious who the manufacturer may be.    Common headstamps include "WIN" (Winchester), for example, plus the caliber of the cartridge on the base of the cartridge.

 (Note that the "BULLET" is a component of the cartridge ... which a knowledgeable person would have known and would not have used the two terms interchangeably!!!)

(4) Speaking of which, I am assuming that you truly intend to "serialize ammunition" by placing an unique (or semi-unique) serial number on the base of the CARTRIDGE, not on the BULLET.

Because if you are truly not so ignorant that you don't know the difference between the Cartridge and the Bullet, then you are raising the expense of ammunition manufacture to a quantum-level of complexity.   

Mr. Muggah, I'll cut you some slack and assume ignorance on your part; but if you deliberately said that BULLETS can be serialized and administratively .... somehow .... be linked to the serial number on the package of CARTRIDGES purchased by a gun owner, then you are not only ignorant of the manufacturing process but abysmally, fatally, incomprehensibly STUPID!!!!!

Want to stop gun violence now?

Here's a plan:  Register every person who reads your L.A. Times article and nods their head as if to say: "Yep; sounds reasonable to me!"

Y'all have serious Mental Health Issues ... or else you're all just IDIOTS.

Microstamping Means Universal Registration of Firearms

In a simple, apparently neutral administrative motion to link a firearm to a crime, America has made a bold move to establish Registration of every firearm ... and firearms owners are bound to voluntarily ensure that a transfered firearm is registered to the new owner.


Microstamping case headed for California Supreme court argument: California’s high court is set to hear arguments in a long running case brought by firearms industry groups who say the state’s microstamping requirement is unattainable. 

NOTE: "Microstamping" is defined as the process where unique identification codes are stamped on the breech of a firearm, which will be embossed on the base of each cartridge case when the gun is fired.

That the expense and inconvenience of embossing unique identifiers on the breech of each new firearm is prohibitively expensive for manufactures ... is a relatively minor issue.  The REAL issue is that if a gun is used in a crime, the last "registered" owner of the firearm will be prosecuted for the crime, unless the sale of the firearms is registered to the new owner.

Otherwise, the last owner is liable to prosecution for any crime committed by the new owner.

This is a sneaky, underhanded trick played upon legal firearm owners to accomplish two goals which law-enforcement has long desired:

(1) track the ownership of every firearm
(2) identify the new owner of every firearm immediately after the transfer

This allows governmental agencies to identify every current owner of every gun, and the government doesn't even have to pass any other laws to enforce universal registration; gun owners will be eager to inform the government about every transaction (so the 'old' owner is not prosecuted for any crime committed by another possessor of the gun) ... establishing a Universal Registration scheme which is supported by every private seller.

Why?

Because if you sell a firearm, and it is not registered to the new owner, you will be held liable for any crime committed with that gun.

It also enforces a law (not now universally enacted) to inform the Government when you transfer ownership of a firearm to anyone else ... including a family member!

It also enforces laws  (not now universally enacted)  requiring gun owners to "promptly" inform the Government when your gun is stolen.   And if you are not aware of the theft of your gun, you are still, presumably, liable to legal action for not reporting the theft.

It doesn't matter how difficult it is to establish microstamping during manufacture of a firearm, or how burdensome it is for a state to track legal transfers.   The important thing is that, if this bill passes in California, it will soon be copied by every state whose political leadership is uncomfortable with private ownership of firearms.

It's the perfect law for anti-gun legislatures; it not only stuffs registration down the throat of every firearm owner in America, it makes us say "Thank you, Sir; May I Have Another!"

They say this as if it was "A Bad Thing"

Aren't you glad you live in America?


Man charged after police allegedly find 109 unregistered guns:

Don't you wish everyone did?

The Ultimate Most stupid question Gun Law to Ever have Been Proposed!!

Here's just one more reason why you should feel okay about yourself for thinking that "The Giffords" are their own private Insane Clown Posse.
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.

I'll Huffpost and Huffpost until I blow your house down! (Ex Post Facto? Never heard of it!)

The Huffingtons are at it again, working political double-speak rather than facing the facts.

The problem with "Universal Backgrounds Checks" isn't so much the issue with distrust of firearms owners as it is with the way the checks are conducted. Heck, legitimate firearms owners are no more eager for criminals that the "mentally adjudicated unstable" to own firearms than anyone else is.

The problem is with the supposedly secure record keeping; there was an agreement back in the '90s that the proposed Background Check system would validate, but not permanently record, firearms transfers.  In fact, as soon as a transaction was not denied because neither party was disqualified from firearms ownership, the record of the traction was suppose to disappear within a very narrow period.

Why did firearms owners oppose that facet?  Because they didn't want to agree to a "Firearms Registry", which would track firearms transfers in great detail with the subsequent consequence that a database of transfers would be tantamount to registry of firearms.

But it it isn't permanently recorded, why do Universal Background Checks require that the firearm description ... including Make, Model, Caliber and Serial Number ... recorded on the background check form?  If it isn't permanently recorded, why is it considered as important as the personal identification of both the buyer and the seller?

And no, that's not paranoia ... that's "learning from Experience" as Californians learned when their state Attorney General back in 1990 agreed that a certain rifle  (the "SKS") would not be 'tracked' because it was a legal rifle:

The situation became more complicated for the writers of the
Roberti-Roos law in 1992 when then California Attorney General, Dan
Lungren, approved the sale of Chinese-designed SKS, which use detachable
magazines.
Even though Lungren said the SKS “Sporter” was legal to sell, some
district attorneys throughout the state threatened to arrest anyone who
sold the gun claiming it violated the Roberti-Roos law.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/1999/07/3745/#ac4ggB4C1wdafWLi.99

 ... and then later that same Democratic Politician changed his tune and hundreds of up-to-then legal rifles which had been transferred between individuals and the detail entered into a state data-base were (arbitrarily) "reclassified".  Then the State decided that the specific firearm was an "assault weapon", retroactively downloaded transfer information from their database (which they swore would never be used for that purpose), and CONFISCATED EVERY RIFLE WHICH HAD BEEN SOLD UNDER THE ASSURANCES THAT IT WAS LEGAL!

And they were able to do so because every firearm transfer was part of their state database.

And now Huffington accuses the NRA of doublespeak?

Despicable!

Ex Poste facto laws are the way that politicians ... and politically biased pseudo "information sources", prey upon the naive and trusting citizens who put them in office and pay their salaries to protect their civil rights.

Just because they come right out in public and say "Oh, that's okay, we're not going to take THAT gun away from you", that doesn't mean they won't come back next week and declare it illegal.

Americans who rely on the Constitution to protect their rights, and their elected representatives (and their appointees) to respect those rights, have been getting a raw deal from both their representatives and the henchmen who do their dirty work for them.

And the Huffington Post is just one of their minions .. who don't get paid for lying to Citizens; they just do it for practice ... until  they  can get elected to lie to citizens who pay their wages.

The NRA's Background-Check Doublespeak | HuffPost:

... And if NICS is fixed to everyone’s satisfaction in a way that really prevents the criminals, the drug abusers and the mentally ill from walking into a gun shop and buying a gun, the idea that private gun transfers requiring background checks is a violation of the 2nd Amendment wouldn’t pass muster in any court. When all is said and done, the NRA’s opposition to background checks boils down to one, simple thing; namely, that government regulation of the gun industry is a bad and unnecessary thing. In that respect, the gun industry’s opposition to regulation is no different from every other industry.

 Nobody wants to take your guns away.

Except hollywood celebrities, comedians, talk-show hosts, Liberals, your State Government, your Federal government ... oh, since Al Franken was elected a U.S. Senator  these categories seem to overlap quite a bit, don't they?  I always thought it was inevitable that a "Franken" was elected to the Senate.  He fit right in with the rest of the Clowns; his recent legal problems only prove the appropriateness.

Welcome to "The System"; you are a prospective felon

(I have a hard time responding directly to posts on this "... The Porch ..." blog, but it's a serious gunblogger site and deserves serious discussion: this is the best way I could find to initiate a dialogue.)

View From The Porch: Cooldown Period.:

As far as Universal Background Checks, here's the correct and constitutional way to implement those: Since the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right, the default setting is that everyone has it. If someone becomes a felon or is otherwise debarred from arms, then make a NO GUNS ALLOWED black mark on their DL/ID/passport/whatever. Show me an ID without that disclaimer, and you'd be good to go, no background check necessary. And you'd be good to go in all 50 states, at that. I'd trade that for moving suppressors to Title I, repealing the Hughes Amendment, and interstate handgun sales. Hell, I might throw in a 3-day wait on sales from FFL dealers for that package deal.But that's not what the other side means by "compromise".

I may not go quite so far in an attempt to establish a quid pro quo ... but most of the issues you cited are already haunting us, so it's not as if you're being so obdurate that Brady will be able to say:
"The Right Is Not Willing To Negotiate!"

But this negotiation needs to include one single, and essential, change:

Background Checks are supposedly established to determine that the purchaser of a firearm is not a "forbidden person".  (Felon, convicted felon, drug user, madman, alien, etc.)  The intent is all about the purchaser, right?   The manner in which this "PERMISSION" is established, is important, but not critical.

But I do have one question:

 ... why does the form to vet the purchaser require the details of the firearm in question?  Including the make, model, caliber and SERIAL NUMBER?  

The ATF does not NEED this information to confirm the validity of the exchange.    The firearm is blameless; it has no past, no future, and it has never (intentionally) brought harm to any living creature.

The only reason for requiring the (unique) serial number, and the rest of the details about the firearm, is to establish a tracking mechanism as that firearm is exchanged, from one owner to the next.

 And that AFT has a record of every single transaction; firearm, seller, buyer and date.

In a word: REGISTRATION!

I've often said: "Love your Country; Fear your Government".

This is exactly the reason I say that.

Using the thin cover of vetting the buyer of a "used" gun, the Feds have established a method by which every honest firearms owner (past and present) has self-established a trail of ownership.

The only people who aren't in "The System" are criminals, who acquire their firearms by theft or 'black market' transactions (often supplied by theft).

The thing is, eventually every firearm which has been legally sold will be in "The System", and if a couple of steps are missing ... that only serves to provide evidence to a prosecutor that the 'last seller' is probably  may perhaps be a thief.

Not ... necessarily; he may be a person who has held onto the firearm since before this egregious new set of laws were enacted.  Even so, he's still in Deep Doo-Doo because he may not be able to provide a 'chain of ownership to prove that he is the legal owner,.

(Do NOT make the mistake of assuming that just because he's innocent of any wrong-doing, he doesn't need to find a lawyer who asks more for one day of litigation than an entire month of house payments ... and probably car payments, too!)

Love your Country; fear your government.

"Will Not Comply!" Eh!

The funny thing about our "kinder, gentler" Northern Friends is that when it comes to taking their guns away, they're every bit as resistant to The Gov'ment as are we rowdier "southern neighbors".

This Week:
More than a million restricted, prohibited guns in Canada - Politics - CBC News:

A year and a half after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government came to office promising to tighten Canada's gun laws, there are now more than a million restricted and prohibited firearms across the country. The number of restricted firearms in Canada rose 5.5 per cent last year, reaching its highest point in more than a decade, according to the annual report from the RCMP's commissioner of firearms. There are now 839,295 restricted firearms, many of them handguns. The number of prohibited firearms in Canada, such as fully automatic guns, edged up 0.5 per cent to 183,333

Considering that these firearms are being described as "prohibited" and "restricted", it's difficult to understand how they get an exact count of the 'restricted' guns    Let alone the 'prohibited'!

In the meantime, the article missed an interesting point when they neglected to mention whether unregistered "restricted' guns were confiscated if/when found, or were the owners merely obliged to register them.

Seeing as how a government which would restrict guns would prefer to say "Mister and Missus Canada, Turn 'em All In!" it's probably safe to say that the guns were confiscated without compensation.
Eh?

"Quite frankly, the Trudeau government really hasn't done very much in regards to attacks on firearms owners in Canada since they got elected. About the only thing they have done is let the RCMP run wild and make up laws as they go."

And that does not endear the Trudeau government (or any government) to citizens who would be legal firearms owners without these bizarre restrictions.

(H/T: "The Gun Feed")

... AND YOU CAN BELIEVE AS MUCH OF THIS AS YOU WISH

Anyone falsely portraying this gun control debate is 'trying to sell you something':

“There is a very specific type of gun that we want banned – none of them,” said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign. “All we are trying to do is keep guns out of the hands of people we all agree that shouldn’t have them. Whether you love or hate guns, you agree that a convicted violent criminal, domestic abuser, someone who is dangerously mentally ill, or a would-be terrorist should not be able to get their hands on guns.”

Hillary Clinton at DNC 2016 on 2nd Amendment: I'm not here to take away your guns | AL.com:

 Hillary Clinton told delegates at the 2016 Democratic National Convention she had no interest in taking away anyone's guns but didn't want others to be a victim of firearm violence. Speaking in Philadelphia, Clinton said: "I'm not here to repeal the 2nd Amendment. I'm not here to take away your guns.

ATF HEAD: Our Job Is Not To Take Away People's Guns

In his first television interview, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Deputy Director, Head Thomas Brandon tells CBS' "Sunday Morning" that the agency's job is not to take away firearms from people, but to regulate weapons that can be misused.

"We're a small agency with a big job," Brandon tells correspondent Richard Schlesinger, in an interview to be broadcast Sunday, July 31.

Brandon also says his agency is hampered by not having the necessary technology. Congress has imposed constraints on ATF, such as prohibiting the agency from creating a computerized database of gun purchases.

Comment on this last:

Tommy, Sweetie ...  We believe you, really.

Actually, we don't.

We don't want you to database our purchases.  Can you guess why?

Because that is the backbone of registration, and registration leads to confiscation

I have a very specific instance to illustrate exactly WHY American Riflemen (gun owners) don't believe the lies of politicians.

I call it ....

The Locklear Subjugation:

I've written about this many times before.

In the late 1990's California Attorney General Bill Locklear published a 'finding' that the SKS rifle was a legal firearm, but required only that they be registered.

After honest, law-abiding citizens owning an SKS rifle registered their guns, Locklear performed an about-face and declared (arbitrarily, and without justification) that SKS rifles were NOT a legal rifle, and required that all SKS rifles be confiscated.

It's not so much  that the guns were confiscated; it's that a 'trusted public servant' took advantage of our trust, and then betrayed us

Those of us who are legal gun owners have since been reluctant to accept the assurance of politicians that we have nothing to fear from registration.   Locklear may have done more harm than good by his underhanded, pusillanimous, arbitrary mismanagement of office.  He had, in a single stroke of the pen, done more to undermine the American Rifleman's faith in his government than any other single official.

And his legacy lives on.

No American will ever again trust any politician who suggests that 'registration' is nothing more than a technicality.

Registration has been proven to be the first step toward confiscation, and nothing that any mere politician -spit- may ever say again in favor of registration will be believed.

And as for Locklear:  may the fleas of a thousand camels infest his scrotum.

(h/t: gunfeed,com)

Just Another Gun-Grabber

Gov. Brown Announces Plan To Curb Gun Violence . News | OPB:

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown announced an executive order Friday, ordering Oregon State Police to maintain a database of firearms transactions for five years after the sale. She also ordered state police to notify local law enforcement agencies if a person who is prohibited from buying a gun tries to do so.

When Kate Brown was appointed in February of 2015 to replace former governor Kitzenhaber, I commented here that I was relieved:  "She can't be worse than Kitzenhaber!" I proclaimed.

My friends warned me that she was a Democrat, and an appointee, and she was worse.
I should have listened to them, but it took this announcement today for the warnings to finally sink in.

It was bad enough last year when new laws in Oregon required that all firearms transactions, even private sales, be transacted through the firearms database (a clear violation of the Second Amendment), but I planned to either ignore the trash-law or avoid it.  I have no need for another firearm, I thought.

I was wrong.  It's not about me, it's about Oregon.

Background Check on Private Firearms Sales:

I was not happy when new Oregon laws required a background check on private transfers/sales of firearms.  I was especially disappointed to learn that it included the description (including make, model and serial number) of the firearm.  But I was (naively) reassured that the information was not permanently recorded.

As we all know, a registry of firearms transfers is the first step towards confiscation.  California learned that hard lesson several years ago.  (And it was reinforced last year!)

Bernie Speaks ... and shoots himself in the foot

ENDO (Everyday No Days Off) posted a video of Bernie Sanders talking about gun control.

I won't deprive the original poster the traffic, but I'm pretty sure that many readers will find the comments of Mr. Sanders .... interesting.

I recently posted a comment on Ms. Clinton's efforts to "out-Bernie Bernie" on the gun control issue.
My point there was that Hillarious was being absurdly obvious about the extremes to which she will willing to go to garner the Presidential nomination.

Apparently, Bernie's staff people have been talking to Hill's staff people, and the have agreed to present the same (or similar) political plank:

Guns are bad. Really bad. Awful, in fact.  And we should be, like, thinking they are bad.

Somebody should do something about the gun-badness in America today.  I'm The One!

Go, watch, it's better theater than M*A*S*H!

NOBODY Obeys!

Going Underground | Firearm Non-Registration Rates | Gun Facts: If registration doesn’t impede gun ownership nor affect crime, what is its purpose? Apparently none.

Just saying .. and it's a very interesting commentary (with fewer words than you will find here) describing the relationship between firearms registration and crime rates.

STOLEN from GUN FACTS

Country	Registered	Est. low unreg­istered	Est. high unreg­istered	Percent Unreg­istered (average low/high)	Homicide rate
Greece	100,000	1,500,000	1,500,000	1500%	1.7
France	2,802,057	15,000,000	17,000,000	571%	1.0
New Zealand	335,000	850,000	1,000,000	276%	0.9
Germany	7,200,000	13,000,000	23,000,000	250%	0.8
Brazil	5,240,000	14,840,000	9,600,000	233%	25.2
Mexico	4,490,000	10,000,000	10,000,000	223%	18.9
Turkey	3,000,000	4,000,000	8,000,000	200%	2.6
Belgium	870,000	600,000	1,200,000	103%	1.6
England & Wales	1,742,300	300,000	3,000,000	95%	1.0
Montenegro	86,000	40,000	89,000	75%	2.7
Poland	314,641	200,000	200,000	64%	0.8
South Africa	3,737,676	500,000	4,000,000	60%	31.0
Spain	3,051,588	1,500,000	1,500,000	49%	0.8
Finland	1,600,000	50,000	1,500,000	48%	1.6
Canada	7,000,000	900,000	5,000,000	42%	1.4
Netherlands	330,000	125,000	125,000	38%	0.9
Sweden	2,096,798	50,000	1,500,000	37%	0.7
Australia	2,500,000	400,000	700,000	22%	1.1
Norway	1,320,000	125,000	125,000	9%	2.2

Apparently, Americans aren't the Only Ones who are reluctant to register their guns .. regardless of what their National Leaders think they SHOULD do!