NRA on Ballistic Fingerprinting

A couple of years ago (March 14, 2007), the National Rifle Association posted a video on YouTube which purported to legitimately point out the fallacies they found in a "60 Minute" segment discussing "Ballistic Fingerprinting".

There are several problems with the NRA production, perhaps as problematic as the 60 Minute segment. (Which I have not seen.)

In the first place, the NRA production failed to define the term "Ballistic Fingerprinting". Perhaps their point was that all "Ballistic Fingerprinting" techniques were fatally flawed. But my instinctive willingness to forgive the NRA is as insupportable as their nine minute video.

During discussions, the NRA seems to be talking about one aspect while demonstrating another. Most notably, during one sequence the seem to be talking about comparing the rifling marks on a bullet. But much of their footage demonstrates not bullet striations, but comparisons of the base of the cartridge.

Strangely, while they are in the middle of demonstrating how easy it is to change the striations on a bullet (they seem to be suggesting that simply cleaning the barrel, or perhaps using buffing compound to clean the barrel ... they are not clear here), they cut away to a shot of a lab technician filing the firing pin.

It's intuitively obvious that filing a firing pin will change the configuration of primer indentation, but they never mention that.

I have some doubts about the efficacy of a "fifteen second" application of (again, presumably) an abrasive grease on a bore cleaner rag at a cost of "no more than 20 dollars" will definitively change the striations on a bullet.

Not only do I suspect that this light-weight effort will significantly change the striation marks on a bullet ... regardless of their assertions ... but I even question the price they quote; I'm not sure where one can purchase a buffing compound which is so abrasive that it costs $20 for what appears to be a six-ounce portion.

I have no way of knowing how much time, effort and money the NRA has expended to produce this video, but I am disappointed. I have no doubt that any reader here could have been a better, more fact-based Producer or editor.

I have never been an enthusiastic supporter of the National Rifle Association. It's not that their espoused goal is not worthy of my support, but they all-too-often produce arguments in support of the Second Amendment which are so lame that I am embarrassed to admit my association with them.

While I appreciate the effort the NRA put into producing this video, I'm disappointed that they couldn't find competent editors who would make sure that the result was consistent, illustrative of the point they were attempting to make, and comprehensive.

My NRA membership has recently expired. I have no intention of renewing it. I realize that many readers will suggest that "They may be flawed, but they are the only organization which lobbies for your Second Amendment Rights".

Please.
If this is the best that Free America has to offer, I would just as soon save my $20/year (or whatever) and produce my own videos.

So if you will all please send me twenty dollars, I will replace the NRA. I may not be able to make such 'glossy' videos, but they will be at least better produced with the meager funds available.

Isn't that better than the CRAP that the NRA produces?

California AB2062: Permit to buy ammunition

HT: NRA
On February 19, 2008, California Assemblyman de Leon introduced a new bill (AB2062) which would require ammunition purchasers to obtain a permit to buy ammunition, at a one-time cost of $35, before any ammunition purchases could be made from retailers. There is a 30-day waiting period before the permit would be issued.

The bill would authorize the Department of Justice to incorporate the permit information into a permittee's California driver's license, as specified.

It would ("... commencing July 1, 2009 ...") prohibit anyone from transferring more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month to another person without buying an Ammunition Vendor License. (Special provisions include " ... a background clearance for any employees who would handle ammunition ...").

Ammunition vendors would be prohibited from displaying ammunition where a customer could access it.

This is, of course, entirely apart from Ammunition Serialization, Ammunition Encoding, and Microcoding of Ammunition bills and/or laws which are already either extant in law or proposed.


You can contact Assemblyman de Leon at:
Capitol Office:
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0045
Tel: (916) 319-2045
Fax: (916) 319-2145

District Office:
360 West Avenue 26, Suite 121
Los Angeles, CA 90031
Tel: (323) 225-4545
Fax: (323)225-4500


Let's review:

Current law requires that firearms 'microstamp' identification on the cartridge. Proposed laws would, if enacted, require that ammunition be encoded (serial numbers on the base of the bullet or projectile, and a matching serial number on the interior of the cartridge case). And of course, the purchaser of any ammunition must, by current law, be identified by name, Driver's License Number, Date of Birth etc.

Now the purchaser must be registered ("buy a license") and observe a waiting period before purchasing said encoded ammunition to shoot in a microstamping firearm, and would be prohibited from providing said registered ammunition in quantities exceeding fifty (50) rounds per month to anyone ... including immediate family members.

There are no definitions of what ammunition is covered by this bill, so we can safely assume that all ammunition is subject to these restrictions. Read: one box of .22 rimfire, or two boxes of shotgun shells, are the most you could provide for your child or spouse.

If there was ever any doubt that the State of California is determined to put as many obstacles as possible in the path of an honest citizen who chooses to own and use a legal firearm, let this put an end to this delusion.

It's obvious that this and similar bills serve no legitimate purpose (legitimate in the context of "use of firearms for nefarious purposes" ... as far as the California State Assembly is concerned, any use of a firearm is 'nefarious'.) The only purpose of this kind of legislation is to inconvenience legitimate owners of legal firearms owners, with the intention of rendering their firearms economically infeasible and administratively cumbersome.

Lip Service reference is made in the text of the bill to "... persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms ..." as well as a new concept: "... persons prohibited from possessing ammunition." I submit that the latter encumbrance is superfluous, gratuitous and insulting.

What about the Registration of Ammunition Purchasers?

Strangely, the 'registration' portion of this bill refers directly to Section 11106 of the Penal Code, Paragraph d, sub-paragraph a in the phrase: "...or information reported to the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 12062 as to the brand, type, and amount of ammunition transferred
...".

This would seem to imply that much more stringent identification requirements must be met, to the degree cited for Firearms Registration.

The assumption is that the update to existing laws are borrowing from a section already restricting firearms ownership, but inappropriately. You will have to reference Section 1106, Paragraph C, in order to put it in context. But who cares to do this, as this bill is not only ill-advised, but poorly constructed, and is (hopefully) destined for oblivion if only because the new Californian Assemblyman Kevin DeLeon is so incompetent that he and his staff cannot write a consistent change to existing law.

If it's any consolation, here's the current status of the bill as of the 2/19/07 reading:\
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no.


I only hope that I have correctly interpreted this bill as having roundly been Stuck In Committee for all eternity.
_________________________________________________


Purely for your convenience, here is the introductory text and official summary of the bill:

AB 2062, as introduced, De Leon. Ammunition.
Existing law requires the Department of Justice to maintain records pertaining to firearms transactions.

This bill would require the department to maintain additional information relating to ammunition transfers, handgun ammunition permittees, and licensed handgun ammunition vendors, as specified.

Existing law establishes the Prohibited Armed Persons File, which lists persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms, as specified.

This bill would expand those provisions to include persons prohibited from possessing ammunition.

Existing law generally regulates the sale of ammunition.

This bill would establish a program administered by the Department of Justice for licensing handgun ammunition vendors, as specified. The bill would also authorize the issuance of a handgun ammunition permit, to be used by purchasers of handgun ammunition, as specified.

The bill would authorize the Department of Justice to incorporate the permit information into a permittee's California driver's license, as specified.

The bill would establish a database maintained by the department to serve as a registry of handgun ammunition vendors. The bill would also establish a database of handgun ammunition permittees.

This bill would require that commencing July 1, 2009, unless specifically excluded, no person shall sell or transfer more than 50 rounds of handgun ammunition in any month unless they are registered as a handgun ammunition vendor, as defined. The bill would also require these vendors to obtain a background clearance for those employees who would handle ammunition in the course and scope of their employment. The bill would require the Department of Justice to maintain a registry of registered handgun ammunition vendors, as specified. Violation of these provisions, as specified, would be subject to civil fines, as specified.

The bill would also provide that no retail seller of ammunition shall sell, offer for sale, or display for sale, any handgun ammunition in a manner that allows that ammunition to be accessible to a purchaser without the assistance of the retailer or employee thereof. Violation of these provisions would be subject to civil fines, as specified.

The bill would further provide that handgun ammunition may only be purchased in a face-to-face transaction and only if certain conditions exist.
Existing law generally regulates what information is required to be obtained in connection with the transfer of ammunition.

This bill would, subject to exceptions, require certain ammunition vendors to obtain a thumbprint and other information from ammunition purchasers, and would require submission of that information to the Department of Justice, as specified. A violation of these provisions would be subject to civil fines, as specified.

Encoded Ammunition: on a roll

Welcome LWR Rifles;

Welcome Maryland 'Shall Issue';

Welcome Tennessee Turkey Hunting:

Welcome Something Awful;

Welcome BuckMasters;

Welcome Open Congress;

Welcome Fun Turns to Tragedy;

Welcome AT&T Web Search - tn ammo bill;

...

Welcome ... all of the blogs and websites who have acknowledged that "Encoded Ammunition" bills constitute an attack on the Second Amendment.

Many RKBA weblogs / websites are becoming increasinglty aware that the "encoded ammunition" issue has become a cause celebre'.

Encoded Ammunition - Federal?

In a January 17, 2008 article, Capital Weekly published an article titled "De Leon Pledges to Bring Back the Ammo Bill".

This article is significant because (among other reasons) it presages the February Attacks ... a dozen states to date having introduced into their respective legislatures an 'Encoded Ammunition' bill which has the potential of making the purchase of ammunition economically unfeasible for everyone in America except for The Very Rich.

These bills are bad enough for the individual states. However, consider the "microserialization of Ammunition: bill enacted into law in California. The Left Coast Wacko's who passed this bill have shown other gun-control states that 'it can be done'.

If enough states in the hinterlands pass these bills, it will provide significant encouragement to Congress and the Senate to introduce, and pass, similar bills at a Federal level.

When that happens, all of the concerns about "Heller v DC" will recede into insignificance. The ownership of private firearms will not be an issue, without ammunition.

The 2nd Amendment acknowledges our God Given Right to 'keep and bear arms' ... but it doesn't explicitly say anything about ammunition, or whether it should be affordable.

Here's what the article has to say:

Ammunition is widely viewed as the next big battlefield in the gun debate — that is, pending the outcome of a Second Amendment case out of Washington, D.C., that the Supreme Court is set to hear in a few weeks. In October, another freshman Democrat, Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles, was able to get a controversial microstamping bill into law. AB1471 mandates that handguns must stamp a serial number on the shell of every bullet fired.

Well, the terminology is a little mangled in translation, but nobody expects either the reporter or the politician to know what the heck they're talking about. There is no 'real' justification for this law, no practical expectation that it will reduce crime. This is an end-run around the 2nd Amendment, pure and simple, and is designed to appeal to the emotional circuit in the brain of the average American, completely avoiding the logic circuit (assuming that it exists.)

There is not only not justification for the bill(s); there is no assurance that the technology exists to accomplish the stated objective ... identify the owner of every bullet and every 'shell' (cartridge case) which may be legally owned under these bills.

And there is no consideration for the mass-production techniques which allow 'bullet' and 'ammunition' manufacturers to sell their product for 'pennies per unit', or how they would be obsoleted by the 'cottage industry' manufacturing processes which are mandated by these bills ... effectively turning the manufacturing costs to 'dollars per unit'.

And there is no mention of the fact that if the state/federal government accept or impose the regulation that the serial number of the bullet match the serial number on the case, 'reloading' the cases from expended ammunition will be effectively forbidden ... even if there is nothing in the law which expressly forbids it.

Except, of course for the criminal, who will be The Only One who is not affected by this legislation.

Heck, they steal everything they use, anyway. That's why they call them 'criminals'.

Encoded Ammunition: The Shooting Wire

In today's edition of The Shooting Wire, Jim Shepherd provides his usual excellent comments on the 'encoded ammunition' issue. (Some people, including Senator Obama, think this is a good thing.)

In the middle of an 'editorial' about the HELLER issue, soon to be decided in the Supreme court, Shepherd interrupts himself to talk about Arizona's Ammunition Bill:

One bit of legislation moving through the Arizona legislative process, however, decidedly is unfriendly to gun owners. Arizona House Bill 2833 would require – as early as 2009 – bullet serialization. That’s the process where each round of ammunition is identified and marked with a laser-engraved serial number.

This whole idea is laughable, but the measures keep being introduced around the country to call for individual identifiers on each round of ammo. As Lawrence G. Keane of the NSSF has written, it’s neither practical nor prudent.

"If manufacturers had to comply with bullet serialization, NSSF estimates that it would take almost three weeks to manufacture what is currently made in a single day," says Keane. "This massive reduction in ammunition would translate into substantially lower sales and profitability, and ultimately force major ammunition manufacturers to abandon the market. In turn, there would be a severe shortage of serialized ammunition and all consumers, including federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, would be faced with substantial price increases. Ammunition will go from costing pennies to several dollars per cartridge."

There’s a good reason to believe that anti-gun groups hope that Keane’s words are correct – nothing would stop the firearm industry quicker than exorbitantly expensive ammunition. And a gun without ammo is a poor tool for anything – including self-defense.

(I wish I could provide the link to this editorial, but The Shooting Wire doesn't permalink Shepherd's column. I hope they don't object to my quoting the significant portion here.)

As Shepherd says, this proposal is 'laughable', and 'neither practical nor prudent'. But he does recognize that it is a back-door threat to the free ownership and usage of firearms. That Arizona is not the only state to introduce these bills (there are 12 states which have, so far and to my knowledge, introduced such bills), and that they would increase the cost of ammunition from "...pennies to several dollars per cartridge", are both important considerations.

I'm most grateful that he emphasized the magnitude of the increased cost of ammunition. I have read comments from shooters who seem complacent because they seem to believe that the cost increase would be only a few cents, at most, added to the price of a single cartridge. That kind of complacency is dangerous. And even if it were true, since the best price of 'white box' 9mm (for example) is in the neighborhood of $7.50 per box of 50 (13 cents per round) a two cent increase in price is more than 15% increase in price ... with no increase in value.

What if the cost of encoding ammunition were only $0.87 per round? That would price the same box of ammunition at $50. That would clearly price ammunition out of reach for most of us for all but 'Armageddon' rounds -- which includes ammunition intended for illicit/illegal purposes. It certainly wouldn't be affordable to practice to improve gun-handling skills. USPSA would fold in a New York Minute, because nobody could afford to shoot a match if the match fees were $15 and the ammunition costs were $150.

Think about it. And if you're a resident of one of the 12 states whose legislatures have proposed such a bill ...
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Washington.
... this might be a good time to call your state legislators and register your objections to being stabbed in the back.

Encoded Ammunition: Is it greed or politics?

Nom de guerre: Rivrdog: Micro-serialization redux - UPDATED

George at Rivrdog has the first tiny lead on who's behind the Encoded Ammunition scheme.

No way to tell about the veracity of the information provided, but this is more information than has been available before.

Go read the article, follow the links, and decide for yourself.

Is it, indeed, a "follow the money" situation?

Is it not about politics, but about gold after all?

That would be just wrong. Okay so either way is wrong, but between misguided politics and greed, it's hard to determine the relative levels of venality.

UPDATE: February 25, 2008
Syd, at his Good Neighbor Law website, has this summary of the entire 'Encoded Ammunition' controversy, comparing the bills to a 'Trojan Horse'; virus or Iliad version, it's all the same -- one thing masquerading as another. You'll find there a list of other bloggers and resources with something to say about it.

Syd's implied conclusion: Politics!

Also:

Someone ("tangent4ronpaul) on a Ron Paul website posted an excellent analysis of the "Ammunition Accountability" chain of responsibility. I have no idea who 'tangent' is, but one thing is sure ... he's an excellent researcher.

I've only skimmed this post, but the links and the wealth of detail make this one of the premier starting points for anyone who really wants to follow the possible probable links in the chain of responsibility.

(This comment may also be found on my February 15, 2008, "Ammunition Accountability" post as an UPDATE.)

The author's implied conclusion: Greed!

(Possibly the original source for most, if not all of the 'tangent' post may be found here on the AR15 forum.)

Encoded Ammunition: Questions

A comment on my last post (Encoded Ammunition: Mississippi) presented some very good questions about the actual effect and enforcement of the laws, if and when they are enacted. Because the implications are so complex I chose to respond as a separate article; there is too much material here to fit within the format of a comment.

All of the bills which have been reviewed here were proposed in the month of January, 2008. They are very short and simplistic. In my personal opinion, none of the bills proposed for Illinois, Indiana and especially Mississippi are fit to become law because they are flawed. The questions in this comment illustrate the unaddressed problems.

Note also that the process of providing an 'unique' serial number to identify the owner of the bullet (or loaded ammunition) has also been called "microstamping" and "serialization". We'll use the term "encoded" or "encoding" consistently in this discussion.

Here's the comment:
_______________________________________________________

One question about this law. What about people who reload their own ammo? Will this law make reloading totally illegal?

Second question is enforcement. If the neighboring state does not require microstamping, what is to prevent a person from going there to buy the ammo they use for target practice? I can't believe the range is going to have to inspect each box or each cartridge to insure its a state legal round.

On constitutional grounds, I think the banning of ammo not microstamped after 2010 (for MS) would be thrown out by the courts because the government is taking property without compensation.

I hope MS citizens will convince their legislature to cancel the bill or the governor will veto the bill.
andrewp1040 | | Email | Homepage | 01.31.08 - 5:18 pm | #

__________________________________________________

Question #1 - Reloading:
Andrew, all of the bills seem to have many clauses in common, almost as if they are cut and pasted from a template. One of these (and I'll use the Mississippi version as an exemplar, where appropriate), is that after a certain date it will be unlawful to possess ammunition which has not been 'encoded'.

Section I (2) (b) No later than January 1, 2010, all noncoded [sic] ammunition, whether owned by private citizens or retail outlets, must be disposed.

Before residents in states where this bill may be enacted are required to NOT possess 'noncoded' ammunition, it logically follows that only 'encoded' bullets can be used when reloading ammunition.

There are no provision for the manufacture and retail sale of encoded bullets.

If a bullet manufacturer would be willing to sell bulk bullets which have been encoded, it's not clear whether this will be permitted by the state. Certainly, the bullets would be significantly more expensive than those which are not encoded.

At this time, only one company has stated that they are able to micro-engrave ('encode') serial numbers on bullets. That process has not yet been proven to be reliable in practice. Whether or not it is possible ... it is (or may be) law. Manufacturers would be required to either license the process through this company and encode the bullets themselves, or ship completed bullets to that company to perform the process. Since there is unlikely to be a plethora of vendors who can/will undertake this process, it's obvious that the cost will be all the market will bear. It's problematic whether the ammunition reloaded using much-more-expensive bullets will be competitive with manufactured ammunition. Certainly it will be difficult to justify hand-loading your own ammunition, when this cost is added to whatever financial value you place on your own time at the loading bench.

But even if it turns out to be cheaper to buy manufactured ammunition than to reload your own, it may be that the ammunition you BUY is not suitable to the application for which you now reload your ammunition.

Bench-rest shooters often reload because they have better control over the manufacturing process. In USPSA, we often reload because the manufactures are unable or unwilling to reload for the niche market we represent. For example, the 9mm Major ammunition will (I predict) NEVER be produced commercially, because of the liability issues incumbent in case 'competition 9mm Major' ammunition is used in a pistol which is not designed to handle this much more powerful load. Consider also .40 S&W and .38 super, which may be available but not in the powerful load which is needed to meet USPSA 'Power' requirements.

In short, it MAY be possible that you can reload legally in these states. The cost of reloading, however, is more likely to cause you to shed a tear or two as you relegate your Open or Limited pistol, or your bench-rest rifle (remember, the term 'Assault Rifle' has not been defined), or your 3-gun rifle, to the gun safe where it can only rust into obscurity.



Question #2 - Enforcement:
How are these laws to be enforced? I can't think of any way in which a state may systematically check ammunition, unless the state is willing to bankrupt itself by either creating a Bureau of Bullet Enforcement or taking police away from their mission of preventing Real Crime.

On the other hand, if The State is so inclined there is nothing in the laws which prevent any such measures, even if the effort result in an de facto Police State. It's possible that, for the first few years, The State may run occasional 'inspections' at shooting ranges. The agents of The State can run unannounced, impromptu inspection which require shooters found there to submit their ammunition to inspection. They can pull bullets from loaded ammunition to confirm that they have been encoded. It wouldn't take a lot of public prosecutions to convince shooters that it's just too expensive to be caught with 'noncoded' bullets.

How expensive?

Looking again at the Mississippi laws, it's possible that it will result in a $1,000 fine. However, it's not beyond the realm of possibility to suppose that the state will define you as a 'manufacturer'. First offense: $1,000; Second offense: $5,000; Third offense: $10,000.

Remember, if you have EVER bought ammunition in these states -- they have your name, they have your driver's license number, they have your date of birth, they (MS) have "... All other information prescribed by the Department of Public Safety."

The "Department of Public Safety" (or whatever agency) can ask you to identify yourself. If your name is not associated with entries in their database as someone who bought ammunition in 'that' caliber from 'that' manufacturer, or if your ammunition shows signs of wear (scuffed headstamp, full finish to the brass, etc.) you can be sure that they will single YOU out for an inspection.

Again ... is it worth a $10,000 fine to risk being busted for 'noncoded ammunition'?


Question #3 - "Taking Property Without Compensation":
The State: "Who, me? I didn't take your property. I just said it's not legal for you to have 'noncoded ammunition'. What you do with it is your business. For all I know, you never had any. Or, you sold it to your cousin in Texas (which state is unlikely to every pass such a warped law) at a fat profit. No? Well, that's not my business. Next question?"

I agree with you, of course, that this is de facto confiscation. However, this is de jure a statement of legality. Any state which would pass this law would have no problem defeating any civil suit. Can you say: "My lawyer is better than your lawyer"?

I thought so.


This is a piece of exquisite legislation ... if you are a legislator who is more interested in imposing a "Brave New World" society using "Catch-22" legislation.

Think it can't happen to you?

One word:

California

Think it can't happen to you because ... Hey! ... you live in a strong Republican state?

Three words: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Three more words: Barack Hussein Obama.

Not to mention John McCain (Arnie, who signed the Microstamping bill in California, endorsed McCain) and Mitt Romney.

That's right. If these bills pass the sniff-test in Indiana, Illinois and Mississippi, there's no reason to expect that similar laws won't be enacted by the Federal Government.

At this time, it doesn't matter WHO is elected president. There are no electable presidential candidates with a strong 2nd Amendment position.

The answer to all of your questions, Andrew, is that we need to establish clear communications with our state and federal legislators.

We can only hope that our brothers in these states step HARD on these very very bad bills, before they set a precedent. Don't expect the NRA to drive the protests; this isn't even on their horizon.
UPDATE: February 3, 2008:
In case I neglected to mention it (as I am certain), Maryland introduced a similar bill.

UPDATE: February 5, 2008:

Rivrdog presents a supporting view, although I don't completely agree with all of his statements.

I think that the majority of these bills will dwindle into obscurity, because they are so obviously ill-conceived and badly phrased. The text is full of logical fallacies and potential for uncontrolled governmental abuse, no responsible legislature would allow them to advance 'out of committee'.

Yet I recognize that the politicians who would sponsor such obviously fraudulent legislation have friends who are equally disprespecting of the rights of their constituents, and there is no logical reason to expect that men of ill-faith will not prevail.

Still, I do not expect that the result will be tantamount to war ... evil, demeaning, en turbulent civil war as Rivrdog suggests. On the other hand, I can see no reason why reasonable men who love their country and the freedoms it represents might not conceivably react dramatically against shameless politicians who introduce legislation, obviously designed (if not intended) to undermine the security and freedoms of our country.
_______________________________________

In another context, I have rethought the idea that reloading may become fiscally unthinkable. The basis of this is that the idea of reloading ammunition is based upon quantity, and the amelioration of responsibility for encoding bullets in 20- or 50-round lots.

Obviously, it becomes much more profitable for the manufacturer to sell bullets in 1,000 or 4,000 round lots of 'reloading components' than to sell bullets in 50-round lots, which must become a component of small-quantity loaded ammunition. Any unit (of 20-round or 50-round lots) of loaded ammunition is subject to inspection for quality control purposes. If a single round of ammunition fails to pass the quality control inspection, the entire lot must be disposed of. Not only are material and manufacturing costs lost but the paperwork required to prove that a 'lost lot' was indeed disposed of according to (yet to be announced) must necessarily be as burdensome to the manufacturer as are incidental expenses.

However, in large quantities, if individual components of a large lot of bullets are discarded during the manufacturing process, there is little overhead involved to undermine the profit motive which necessarily drives the manufacturing process. A rebate might be required if a significant number of bullets are rejected, but that is well within the acceptable margin for error. After all, bullets in bulk are sold by the pound, and in an order of 4,000 rounds of 115 grain bullets (for example), a few missing units are not an impediment to commerce.

I suspect that, rather than completely undermining the "Hand-Loading Community", this kind of law might rather support it. It would keep the incidental cost of dross to a minimum, and thus reward the individual reloader.

Reloading your own ammunition may still, in retrospect, turn out to be more cost-effective than buying completed ammunition. Just as it is today, except that the overall cost of adhering to these egregious rules will certainly raise the cost of professionally loaded ammunition above the budgetary horizon of the casual plinker.

Of course, even if you 'roll your own', the cost of ammunition under these laws will be greater than today. We're not saying that this is a supportable concept; we're just saying that buying in bulk may still be an acceptable way to support you shooting predilection.