I've spent more time that I care to during this week and last, writing almost exclusively on one topic: encoded ammunition. If you're tired of reading about it I don't blame you. I'm tired of writing about it.
Also, I'm tired of being almost the only voice in the wilderness which is the Internet. I'm beginning to wonder if this can possibly be as important as I think it is, if nobody else is paying any attention to it. Some days I feel like 'the little boy who cried wolf', other days I feel like Chicken Little running around crying 'the sky is falling, the sky is falling'. What kind of animal am I here?
Still, there are a few niggling little questions that I would like answered.
First, it's obvious that there is an organized effort working in the background to get these bills presented in so many states in such a short time span. Who can it be? Obviously it's one of the more influential gun-grabber groups. If it was, wouldn't they be talking about it on their website(s)?
The Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence is a strong possibility. They have two related articles on their webpage today. One announces the efforts of Senator Kennedy and Congressman Becerra in introducing the 2008 microstamping bill in the senate and house of representatives. The other announces a study showing that 'states lack common sense gun restrictions'; this article specificially mentions "microstamping", while holding up the California law as a shining example. These certainly suggest a strong interest in such bills as an attack on private firearms ownership, but they don't openly acknowledge any activities to prompt state legislators to introduce them.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence also displays an article touting "microstamping", and offer an article which purports to prove it is viable technology. But the approach they discuss is for the hammer to stamp a code on the primer, not to require bullets and cases to be serialized or encoded. And they, too, don't mention any active campaigns at the state level.
The Violence Policy Center has nothing on their main webpage about the subject. They do have links to a lot of interesting articles in their VPC IN THE NEWS page, but nothing about activism.
And there's nobody home at Americans for Gun Safety -- I can't get their website to load, which may be a problem with their server or maybe they just don't like me.
I went to the National Center for Policy Analysis website for "Crime Issues: Self-Defense & Gun Control" in case they had any thoughts on the matter. They didn't. I'm not surprised, I didn't really expect to find anything, but I like to stop by there from time to time to read some of their excellent articles, such as "Gun Control Advocates Spread Deadly Myths".
Jurist's Gun Laws is hopelessly out of date, and Alan Korwin's Gunlaws.com website, while a great central resource to find the gun laws of any state, doesn't refer directly to any current legislation. Again, these turn out to be reference sources and not "the court of what's happening now" as Flip Wilson use to put it.
So, my "I'm Feeling Lucky" search of the gun control websites linked to on my sidebar came up a gigantic whiff-ball. Maybe someone else can perform a more diligent search, but I don't check out the gun control websites often enough to keep current on their mischief.
The second question is, as a reader commented today: are there any organized efforts at a national level to counter these bills?
Well, the Numero Uno of pro-firearms organizations is the NRA. Their gateway didn't mention ammunition encoding legislature at the state level. The NRA/ILA is all about the D.C. Gun Ban case; they don't seem interested in much below the national level, either. The "state legislation" page does include the 2/12 announcement of another "Bullet Serialization" bill having been introduced in Arizona, which (sigh!) I know I'm gonna have to go look at ... maybe tomorrow. But they don't have anything I can find on the bills introduced in Illinois or Indiana. In Mississippi, they have a short blurb that State Senator Gray Tollison, will not bring S2286 up for consideration in his Senate Judiciary B Committee, of which he is the chairman, effectively killing the bill. That's good news right there ... but we don't know how much of that decision has been influenced by the NRA.
And as far as Tennessee, they have announced (February 1) the "bullet serialization" bills introduced January 17 and provide links where readers can contact their state representatives. Well, that's handy, but it looks like a very low-key effort to stir up grass-roots opposition. It might work, although I can only hope that the Tennessee state chapter of the NRA is working a bit more industriously.
I note in passing that the NRA/IRA hasn't issued any alerts during 2008 for Oregon.
What other national organization might be involved in fighting these bills?
Alan Gottleib's Citizens' Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) has no mention of these bills, does his Second Amendment Foundation, nor does Dave Kopel's Second Amendment Project.
Gun Owners of America - Nothing.
Keep and Bear Arms cites an article on serialization in Arizona, but you have to dig for it, and I can't find the actual link to the article.
Locally, the Oregon Firearms Federation talks about D.C. and Heller, but noting about serialization. I guess if it's not Federal, and it's not yet in Oregon, they don't know about it.
Okay, so much for organized groups and lobbying. How about Bloggers?
Besides me and Phil and Rivrdog, that is.
John Lott - Nothing.
The Gun Zone - Nada.
Kirk of Fun Turns to Tragedy (in Maryland) has an article today!
Kim duToit - zilch.
Michael Bane - huh-uh.
David Codrea at The War on Guns - this isn't the issue he's the only one concerned enough about.
Kevin Baker isn't The Smallest Minority on this issue, I am.
Sam and Denise at The Ten Ring aren't talking about gun issues this month.
_____________________________________________
Here I am at 1am (looks like an anagram, doesn't it?) with unanswered questions and another geek-length article, full of sound and furry, signifying nothing.
I should be in bed. I have to be at the office early in the morning.
The only question I seem to have answered is: What kind of animal am I?
I'm a dumb bunny.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Encoded Ammunition: Pennsylvania
H/T Target Rich Environment: ... specifically, here ... and thanks to denizens of the Comments section of this blog.
(Summary Spreadsheet has been updated.)
Pennsylvania has jumped on the Ammunition Encoding Bandwagon:
House Bill 2228:
Information gathered by the vendor includes;
Penalty for Vendor Violation: Misdemeanor 3rd Degree
Penalty for Manufacturer Violation:
1st occurrence - $1,000;
2nd occurrence - $5,000;
3rd occurrence $10,000.
TAX: Five Cents Per Round
Exceptions: LEO, "...any other agency of the United States ..."
Vendor Reporting: Monthly
Effective Date: "60 days"
_________________________________________________
SUMMARY:
It would be difficult to parse a more confusing bill. Since Illinois and California have already submitted the text of their bills, my best guess would be:
Watch This Space. The count of states which have proposed similar bills ... the'Gotcha' States ... has moved up fromfive Six to six Seven.
(Summary Spreadsheet has been updated.)
Pennsylvania has jumped on the Ammunition Encoding Bandwagon:
House Bill 2228:
HOUSE BILL
No. 2228 Session of 2008
INTRODUCED BY MYERS, M. O'BRIEN, McGEEHAN, THOMAS, PARKER, JOSEPHS, FRANKEL, KENNEY, YOUNGBLOOD, W. KELLER, MELIO, WATERS, WILLIAMS, WHEATLEY, KIRKLAND, JAMES, BLACKWELL, CRUZ, ROEBUCK AND OLIVER,
FEBRUARY 5, 2008
FEBRUARY 5, 2008
REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY, FEBRUARY 5, 2008
AN ACT
Providing for encoded ammunition; imposing duties on manufacturers, sellers and owners of ammunition; providing for the powers and duties of the Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police and the Secretary of Revenue; establishing the encoded ammunition database and the Encoded Ammunition Database Fund; imposing a tax; and imposing penalties.CHAPTER 3
ENCODED AMMUNITION
Section 301. Duty of manufacturers to encode ammunition.
(a) General rule.--A manufacturer shall encode ammunition provided for retail sale for egulated firearms in a manner that the commissioner establishes, so that:(b) Labeling per box.--Ammunition contained in one ammunition box may not be labeled with the same serial number as the ammunition contained in any other ammunition box from the same manufacturer.
- The base of the bullet and the inside of the cartridge casings of each round in a box of ammunition are encoded with the same serial number.
- Each serial number is encoded in such a manner that it is highly likely to permit identification after ammunition discharge and bullet impact.
- The outside of each box of ammunition is labeled with the name of the manufacturer and the same serial number used on the cartridge casings and bases of bullets contained in the box.
Section 302. Duty of owner to dispose of ammunition.
On or before January 1, 2010, an owner of ammunition for use in a regulated firearm that is not encoded by the manufacturer in accordance with section 301 shall dispose of the ammunition.
Information gathered by the vendor includes;
- Name of buyer
- DOB of buyer
- DL# of buyer
- "... Any other information that the commissioner considers necessary"
Penalty for Vendor Violation: Misdemeanor 3rd Degree
Penalty for Manufacturer Violation:
1st occurrence - $1,000;
2nd occurrence - $5,000;
3rd occurrence $10,000.
TAX: Five Cents Per Round
Exceptions: LEO, "...any other agency of the United States ..."
Vendor Reporting: Monthly
Effective Date: "60 days"
_________________________________________________
SUMMARY:
It would be difficult to parse a more confusing bill. Since Illinois and California have already submitted the text of their bills, my best guess would be:
(1) Washington, D.C.
(2) Massachusetts.
(2) Massachusetts.
Watch This Space. The count of states which have proposed similar bills ... the'Gotcha' States ... has moved up from
Encoded Ammunition: Where We are Now
This is a summary of the 'Encoded Ammunition" situation as of this moment.
It is the text of an email I sent to The Unofficial IPSC List today.
The NRA announced today that Congress (read: Ted Kennedy and such fellow travelers as McCarthy and Rangel, et al) have introduced a bill in both the Senate and the House requiring that firearms sold in the United States be so designed that they will stamp an identifying serial number on all ammunition (read: headstamp brass) fired within semi-automatic handguns.
This is entirely reminiscent of SB357, which passed in the California Senate in 2007.
There is no technology which can reliably effect this encoding effort, although there are a number of ways by which the knowledgeable firearms owner can easily obfuscate such efforts. (A bastard file on the breach-face, for example, would suffice.)
This is just another legislative attempt to impose ruinous regulations on firearms manufacturers and drive up the price of firearms (and ammunition, see below) for the unstated but obvious purpose of imposing bureaucratic controls on the purchase of shooting supplies, including the firearms themselves. It's an end-run on the Second Amendment, a blatant attempt to circumnavigate the Constitutional protections which are an integral part of the American Culture.
This bill is a lock-step part of a recent concerted and coordinated assault on the 2nd Amendment, as evidenced by bills introduced into the legislatures of (so far) Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Mississippi, Tennessee and Washington.
These states have introduced bills which attack not firearms, but the ammunition which are available to shoot in 'handguns' and 'assault weapons'. Since the definition of these categories is fluid, they may be readily be interpreted to apply to almost any caliber of ammunition (note that the Thompson Center handguns may be chambered in such calibers as .30-30, .30-Krag, .30-06, 7mm Magnum, etc This may be interpreted to designate these and similar calibers as 'handgun ammunition' or 'pistol ammunition', since there are no protections against these calibers.)
These ammunition categories are subject to bills, perhaps to be accepted as law, referring to "Encoded Ammunition".
The bills have several characteristics in common.
By a certain date (between 4 months and one year), only 'encoded ammunition' may be sold in these states. "Encoded Ammunition" is defined as bullets with a erial number micro-engraved on the base of the bullet, which must remain legible after being fired. The serial number must be unique to the BOX of bullets (nominally, each 50 bullets or cartridges must have the same unique number.)
Ammunition vendors (retailers!) must register, must identify the retail customer who buys this ammunition (name, DOB, Drivers License number and 'such other information as the regulating authority may deem advisable'), and the vendor has an obligation to register with the state, pay an annual fee, and report on a 'regular basis (monthly, quarterly).
There is typically a 'per-round tax' on the ammunition, which ranges from 0.05 cents to five cents per round, to be remitted to the State to support a database. Penalties (usually 'misdemeanor' may be imposed on the vendor for ignoring the law. Penalties may be imposed on the purchaser for simple possession of 'noncoded' ammunition within one year after 'encoded' ammunition is mandated, and manufacturers who 'attempt to avoid this law are subject to $1,000, $5,000 or $10,00 fines ... for each occurrence.
These bills have been introduced to state legislatures between January 15 and February 8 ... so far.
Given that an equally burdensome bill has been introduced into both Federal houses, we have no reason to expect that these six states are the last to introduce such bills.will be limited to the cited states.
I have been tracking and reporting on these bills. Go to Cogito Egro Geek, and look at the article titled 'Microstamping Ammunition: It Isn't Just For States Any More!'
From there, you can follow the links on the sidebar to articles which describe 'encoded ammunition' laws in the various states.
One of the articles ("the 2008 Geek Guide to Encoded Ammunition" ) ... provides a link to an Excel spreadsheet which summarized the common characteristics of the state bills.
I'm not saying that these bills are likely to pass into law in the various states, I'm just saying that if the majority of legislators in these states are so inclined, there's no reason why they would NOT carry the bills forward unless the voters in these states are willing to become active and lobby against the bills.
Since there is currently no reliable technology upon which the bills may rely on effect such encoding, there's no reason why passage of these bills wouldn't effectively make ammunition so expensive that it is no longer possible to afford to buy ammunition. Ammunition components for reloading are not specifically protected against these measures.
Think you're safe because you live in a 'red state'? Think again. Even many ''Blue states" have a distinctive 'red' tinge.
After all, Mississippi, Tennessee and Indiana may be considered 'Red States' according to the 2004 electoral returns.
I'm being very serious here. Watch your six.
Jerry the (Red State Prisoner in a Blue State) Geek
It is the text of an email I sent to The Unofficial IPSC List today.
The NRA announced today that Congress (read: Ted Kennedy and such fellow travelers as McCarthy and Rangel, et al) have introduced a bill in both the Senate and the House requiring that firearms sold in the United States be so designed that they will stamp an identifying serial number on all ammunition (read: headstamp brass) fired within semi-automatic handguns.
This is entirely reminiscent of SB357, which passed in the California Senate in 2007.
There is no technology which can reliably effect this encoding effort, although there are a number of ways by which the knowledgeable firearms owner can easily obfuscate such efforts. (A bastard file on the breach-face, for example, would suffice.)
This is just another legislative attempt to impose ruinous regulations on firearms manufacturers and drive up the price of firearms (and ammunition, see below) for the unstated but obvious purpose of imposing bureaucratic controls on the purchase of shooting supplies, including the firearms themselves. It's an end-run on the Second Amendment, a blatant attempt to circumnavigate the Constitutional protections which are an integral part of the American Culture.
This bill is a lock-step part of a recent concerted and coordinated assault on the 2nd Amendment, as evidenced by bills introduced into the legislatures of (so far) Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Mississippi, Tennessee and Washington.
These states have introduced bills which attack not firearms, but the ammunition which are available to shoot in 'handguns' and 'assault weapons'. Since the definition of these categories is fluid, they may be readily be interpreted to apply to almost any caliber of ammunition (note that the Thompson Center handguns may be chambered in such calibers as .30-30, .30-Krag, .30-06, 7mm Magnum, etc This may be interpreted to designate these and similar calibers as 'handgun ammunition' or 'pistol ammunition', since there are no protections against these calibers.)
These ammunition categories are subject to bills, perhaps to be accepted as law, referring to "Encoded Ammunition".
The bills have several characteristics in common.
By a certain date (between 4 months and one year), only 'encoded ammunition' may be sold in these states. "Encoded Ammunition" is defined as bullets with a erial number micro-engraved on the base of the bullet, which must remain legible after being fired. The serial number must be unique to the BOX of bullets (nominally, each 50 bullets or cartridges must have the same unique number.)
Ammunition vendors (retailers!) must register, must identify the retail customer who buys this ammunition (name, DOB, Drivers License number and 'such other information as the regulating authority may deem advisable'), and the vendor has an obligation to register with the state, pay an annual fee, and report on a 'regular basis (monthly, quarterly).
There is typically a 'per-round tax' on the ammunition, which ranges from 0.05 cents to five cents per round, to be remitted to the State to support a database. Penalties (usually 'misdemeanor' may be imposed on the vendor for ignoring the law. Penalties may be imposed on the purchaser for simple possession of 'noncoded' ammunition within one year after 'encoded' ammunition is mandated, and manufacturers who 'attempt to avoid this law are subject to $1,000, $5,000 or $10,00 fines ... for each occurrence.
These bills have been introduced to state legislatures between January 15 and February 8 ... so far.
Given that an equally burdensome bill has been introduced into both Federal houses, we have no reason to expect that these six states are the last to introduce such bills.will be limited to the cited states.
I have been tracking and reporting on these bills. Go to Cogito Egro Geek, and look at the article titled 'Microstamping Ammunition: It Isn't Just For States Any More!'
From there, you can follow the links on the sidebar to articles which describe 'encoded ammunition' laws in the various states.
One of the articles ("the 2008 Geek Guide to Encoded Ammunition" ) ... provides a link to an Excel spreadsheet which summarized the common characteristics of the state bills.
I'm not saying that these bills are likely to pass into law in the various states, I'm just saying that if the majority of legislators in these states are so inclined, there's no reason why they would NOT carry the bills forward unless the voters in these states are willing to become active and lobby against the bills.
Since there is currently no reliable technology upon which the bills may rely on effect such encoding, there's no reason why passage of these bills wouldn't effectively make ammunition so expensive that it is no longer possible to afford to buy ammunition. Ammunition components for reloading are not specifically protected against these measures.
Think you're safe because you live in a 'red state'? Think again. Even many ''Blue states" have a distinctive 'red' tinge.
After all, Mississippi, Tennessee and Indiana may be considered 'Red States' according to the 2004 electoral returns.
I'm being very serious here. Watch your six.
Jerry the (Red State Prisoner in a Blue State) Geek
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Microstamping Ammunition: It Isn't Just For States Any More!
My recent series of articles regarding "Encoded Ammunition" may have been trumped by your friend and mine ... Teddy ("Screw the Bitch, Let Her Drown!") Kennedy.
Various references are available to this new House Bill (similarly proposed in the Senate), but I'll give the NRA full credit. Well, bills introduced into the Senate aren't nominatively valid because only the House can propose a bill which requires funding ... and when have we EVER seen a new bill introduced which doesn't require funding, unless it's intended to pay lip-service to a person or activity, such as "... Declare April 1 to be 'National Drown-A-Wench Day', for example?
Let's talk about H.R. 5266, titled the "National Crime Gun Identification Act".
Sponsored by Becerra, Conyers, Emanuel, McCarthy (of course!) and Rangel (also of course!) on February 7, 2008, this bill is is proposed " ... To require certain semiautomatic pistols manufactured, imported, or sold by Federal firearms licensees to be capable of microstamping ammunition."
Note that this bill does not require 'encoding' of ammunition by the manufacturer. Instead, it reverts to the 2004 proposition (rejected in 2005 by California, as SB257) of requiring that all firearms be capable of requiring " ... THAT CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOLS MANUFACTURED, IMPORTED, OR SOLD BY FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES BE CAPABLE OF MICROSTAMPING AMMUNITION."
Just remember, I told you:
...
A closer analysis of this bill reveals the following:
... when ammunition is fired from the pistol, the characters are copied from the breech face and firing pin onto the cartridge case of the ammunition.
This bill only applies to Semi-automatic pistols which:
... are manufactured, or imported into the United States, on or after the effective date of this subsection;
ENFORCEMENT: Fines for violation are:
NOTES:
"..."licens(ing)" is not defined.
... Semiautomatic pistols seem to be the extent to which this bill is limited.
SUMMARY:
This is a half-hearted attempt to mirror bills which have lately been introduced by individual states ... but it isn't. Instead of attacking the ammunition, it attacks the manufacture of specific firearms. The goal of the Federal bill is similar, to impose unrealistic restrictions (which are not supported by current technology and which are both practicably and economically unfeasible), and thus to end-run the Second Amendment by bureaucracy, technology and economics rather than directly by fiat.
Ammunition manufacturing is a high-volume, low-profit process. Any bureaucratic requirement will tip the scales so that it is impossible to financially support the manufacturing process.
Even more telling is the technological requirements, which as of this date are neither proven nor economically feasible.
This promulgation of ipso facto firearms restrictions is consciously designed not to provide any societal benefit, but to impose such impossible burdens upon the firearms and ammunition manufacturers that they are unable to comply.
It is telling that none of these laws recognize that the technology needed to support them currently exists in a manufacturing environment. The bureaucrats and legislators who impose these restrictions are not unaware of this; in fact, they are counting on it.
They typically do not base the generation of these bills upon any societal advantage, and when they do the proposition is bizarre, unrealistic and patently without foundation. The intent of this bill, and any bill so constructed is obviously designed with the intent to make it unfeasible to own firearms for any but the most extreme use.
That is to say, competitive shooters (who expend thousands of rounds each year) must necessarily discontinue their usual regimen of practice and competition. Hunters must expect that each round fired will cost not cents, not dollars, but tens of dollars. Other firearms enthusiasts (such as Bench-Rest Shooters, and they who otherwise expect to reload their own ammunition even though their expenditure of ammunition is less than"Practical Shooter") will likely find that their ability to load custom ammunition is so beset by arbitrary regulation that their sport becomes financially unsupportable if only because they cannot be certain that they are operating within the imposition of current law.
As for USPSA members, those who shoot upwards of 10,000 rounds per year in peaceful engagement of steel and cardboard targets ... the cost of non-regulated ammunition and firearms has already relegated the practice to those individuals who are able to spend as much on their hobby as is common among advocates of race horses, speed boats and wild women.
These laws would have the not-unforeseen (by these legislators) consequences of making their non-aggressive sport to become a sport which is economically unfeasible. These laws would also have the entirely expected (by these legislators) effect of stopping ALL competitive, ALL hunting-related, MOST self-defensive uses of firearms impossible.
The result, as with all regulation which is considered unreasonable by the general populace, will be that these laws will make felons of those individuals who are generally law-abiding.
Like the smokers who buy Ukrainian cigarettes because they are less expensive than domestic cigarettes, there will arise a counter-culture of ammunition buyers who find, and patronize, 'illicit' purveyors of ammunition of their components.
The United States Government will find itself at war with these individuals, giving rise to a black market not seen since Prohibition.
Cigarette boats will run the Coast Guard gauntlet carrying cigarettes, ammunition and jihadists, and the United States Government will expend so much capital funds guarding its coasts ... not its borders ... that the Whiskey Wars of the 1930's will seem insignificant by comparison.
And the Government will embark upon a War On Whatever which causes the War On Drugs to pale into insignificance, by comparison.
I do hope that Hillary is elected President.
I wouldn't hope that this problem be imposed on anyone I voted for.
Various references are available to this new House Bill (similarly proposed in the Senate), but I'll give the NRA full credit. Well, bills introduced into the Senate aren't nominatively valid because only the House can propose a bill which requires funding ... and when have we EVER seen a new bill introduced which doesn't require funding, unless it's intended to pay lip-service to a person or activity, such as "... Declare April 1 to be 'National Drown-A-Wench Day', for example?
Let's talk about H.R. 5266, titled the "National Crime Gun Identification Act".
Sponsored by Becerra, Conyers, Emanuel, McCarthy (of course!) and Rangel (also of course!) on February 7, 2008, this bill is is proposed " ... To require certain semiautomatic pistols manufactured, imported, or sold by Federal firearms licensees to be capable of microstamping ammunition."
Note that this bill does not require 'encoding' of ammunition by the manufacturer. Instead, it reverts to the 2004 proposition (rejected in 2005 by California, as SB257) of requiring that all firearms be capable of requiring " ... THAT CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOLS MANUFACTURED, IMPORTED, OR SOLD BY FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES BE CAPABLE OF MICROSTAMPING AMMUNITION."
Just remember, I told you:
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.Not the 'same laws', but 'similar laws'; a law which, as far as we know, is not supported by technology which makes it economically feasible to meet the requirements imposed by this bill.
...
A closer analysis of this bill reveals the following:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:"Microstamping" is defined as:
‘‘(m)(1)(A) A person licensed under this chapter shall not manufacture, import, or transfer a semiautomatic pistol to which this subparagraph applies that is not capable of m
icrostamping ammunition.
... when ammunition is fired from the pistol, the characters are copied from the breech face and firing pin onto the cartridge case of the ammunition.
This bill only applies to Semi-automatic pistols which:
... are manufactured, or imported into the United States, on or after the effective date of this subsection;
ENFORCEMENT: Fines for violation are:
- $1,000 for the first offence;
- $2,000 for the second offense;
- $3,000 for the third and subsequent offences;
NOTES:
"..."licens(ing)" is not defined.
... Semiautomatic pistols seem to be the extent to which this bill is limited.
SUMMARY:
This is a half-hearted attempt to mirror bills which have lately been introduced by individual states ... but it isn't. Instead of attacking the ammunition, it attacks the manufacture of specific firearms. The goal of the Federal bill is similar, to impose unrealistic restrictions (which are not supported by current technology and which are both practicably and economically unfeasible), and thus to end-run the Second Amendment by bureaucracy, technology and economics rather than directly by fiat.
Ammunition manufacturing is a high-volume, low-profit process. Any bureaucratic requirement will tip the scales so that it is impossible to financially support the manufacturing process.
Even more telling is the technological requirements, which as of this date are neither proven nor economically feasible.
This promulgation of ipso facto firearms restrictions is consciously designed not to provide any societal benefit, but to impose such impossible burdens upon the firearms and ammunition manufacturers that they are unable to comply.
It is telling that none of these laws recognize that the technology needed to support them currently exists in a manufacturing environment. The bureaucrats and legislators who impose these restrictions are not unaware of this; in fact, they are counting on it.
They typically do not base the generation of these bills upon any societal advantage, and when they do the proposition is bizarre, unrealistic and patently without foundation. The intent of this bill, and any bill so constructed is obviously designed with the intent to make it unfeasible to own firearms for any but the most extreme use.
That is to say, competitive shooters (who expend thousands of rounds each year) must necessarily discontinue their usual regimen of practice and competition. Hunters must expect that each round fired will cost not cents, not dollars, but tens of dollars. Other firearms enthusiasts (such as Bench-Rest Shooters, and they who otherwise expect to reload their own ammunition even though their expenditure of ammunition is less than"Practical Shooter") will likely find that their ability to load custom ammunition is so beset by arbitrary regulation that their sport becomes financially unsupportable if only because they cannot be certain that they are operating within the imposition of current law.
As for USPSA members, those who shoot upwards of 10,000 rounds per year in peaceful engagement of steel and cardboard targets ... the cost of non-regulated ammunition and firearms has already relegated the practice to those individuals who are able to spend as much on their hobby as is common among advocates of race horses, speed boats and wild women.
These laws would have the not-unforeseen (by these legislators) consequences of making their non-aggressive sport to become a sport which is economically unfeasible. These laws would also have the entirely expected (by these legislators) effect of stopping ALL competitive, ALL hunting-related, MOST self-defensive uses of firearms impossible.
The result, as with all regulation which is considered unreasonable by the general populace, will be that these laws will make felons of those individuals who are generally law-abiding.
Like the smokers who buy Ukrainian cigarettes because they are less expensive than domestic cigarettes, there will arise a counter-culture of ammunition buyers who find, and patronize, 'illicit' purveyors of ammunition of their components.
The United States Government will find itself at war with these individuals, giving rise to a black market not seen since Prohibition.
Cigarette boats will run the Coast Guard gauntlet carrying cigarettes, ammunition and jihadists, and the United States Government will expend so much capital funds guarding its coasts ... not its borders ... that the Whiskey Wars of the 1930's will seem insignificant by comparison.
And the Government will embark upon a War On Whatever which causes the War On Drugs to pale into insignificance, by comparison.
I do hope that Hillary is elected President.
I wouldn't hope that this problem be imposed on anyone I voted for.
Encoded Ammunition: Washington
Washington is the state most recently reported to have proposed a bill requiring "micro-serializing of ammunition".
And I missed it.
It's not a matter of unconcern as much as a personal attempt to 'have a life'. See, I went to a USPSA match this weekend, and I'm spending all my spare after-work time editing videos taken there. It's as if I went on vacation.
Fortunately, our pal Phil of Random Nuclear Strikes (aka "Soft Green Glow") is picking up the slack. Monday night he wrote about Washington House Bill HB3359, which is generally similar to bills discussed here last week.
The bill title is cleverly non-specific: "Concerning Pistol Ammunition" is not a title which is easily found during the usual GOOGLE search, or even searching the list of bills proposed in that particular legislative branch of that particular state. Phil's diligence is due to the fact that he is a Washington State Resident, is a blogger, and is very much on the look-out for surreptitious attempts to insert spurious bills gun control bills in his state's legislature.
This bill was introduced on February 7, 2008, and was sponsored by:
(pay attention to these names; they are not your friends.)
The text of the bill is available here as a pdf.
I have added the specifics in the ongoing "Geek's List" project, but here's the short list of provisions:
This is not cause for rejoicing. This is still a bill which represents an end-run on the 2nd Amendment, in that it serves no legitimate practical purpose such as ... hell, I don't know. What legitimate purpose could be served here, except to make ammunition so expensive to manufacture that it effectively prices ammunition beyond the resources of the average law-abiding citizen?
No ammunition manufacturer would be willing to meet the onerous requirements cited here. It is especially telling that this bill would not only require the (impractical) serialization of bullets, but also the (ultimately impractical) serialization of the cartridge case ... on the inside of the case! I cannot imagine any bulk-quantity manufacturing process which would meet the former requirement, but the latter requirement is impossible.
Of course, there are as usual no provisions for delay of enaction of this bill if the requirements are not possible by current technology, let alone reliable and economical mass-production processes.
In short, this is the most impossible-to-comply-with bill which has ever been introduced to any state legislature, to date.
UPDATE: Friday, February 15, 2008
In a comment posted to this article this morning, denib said:
And I missed it.
It's not a matter of unconcern as much as a personal attempt to 'have a life'. See, I went to a USPSA match this weekend, and I'm spending all my spare after-work time editing videos taken there. It's as if I went on vacation.
Fortunately, our pal Phil of Random Nuclear Strikes (aka "Soft Green Glow") is picking up the slack. Monday night he wrote about Washington House Bill HB3359, which is generally similar to bills discussed here last week.
The bill title is cleverly non-specific: "Concerning Pistol Ammunition" is not a title which is easily found during the usual GOOGLE search, or even searching the list of bills proposed in that particular legislative branch of that particular state. Phil's diligence is due to the fact that he is a Washington State Resident, is a blogger, and is very much on the look-out for surreptitious attempts to insert spurious bills gun control bills in his state's legislature.
This bill was introduced on February 7, 2008, and was sponsored by:
| Representatives O'Brien, Williams, Flannigan, Pedersen | ||
(pay attention to these names; they are not your friends.)
The text of the bill is available here as a pdf.
I have added the specifics in the ongoing "Geek's List" project, but here's the short list of provisions:
- Effective date: 1-1-2010
- Information reported: Buyer Name, DOB, DL#, "anything else we can think of"
- Ammunition Vendors must REGISTER with the state
- Vendor reporting penalty: misdemeanor
- Buyer penalties: misdemeanor
- Database information NOT available to public
- The bill requires an 'unique' serial number to be etched on each bullet, but does not define 'unique'. Each bullet must be different? I don't know. The term 'box' is used, but not defined.
- The bill also requires that the 'unique' serial number be etched onto the "inside of the cartridge casing" !!!
- The bill applies to 'pistol ammunition', which is not defined.
- Terms which ARE defined include "pistol" (essentially, barrel length less than 16 inches), "Shotgun", "Crime of Violence" (including Vehicular Homicide and a bunch of other crimes which are probably defined elsewhere);
- Also defined here: "The unique alphanumeric identifier is engraved in such a manner that it is highly likely to permit identification after ammunition discharge and bullet impact";
- No per-round or per-bullet 'tax' is defined.
- There is, curiously, no specified date upon which it is illegal to possess 'noncoded' ammunition.
This is not cause for rejoicing. This is still a bill which represents an end-run on the 2nd Amendment, in that it serves no legitimate practical purpose such as ... hell, I don't know. What legitimate purpose could be served here, except to make ammunition so expensive to manufacture that it effectively prices ammunition beyond the resources of the average law-abiding citizen?
No ammunition manufacturer would be willing to meet the onerous requirements cited here. It is especially telling that this bill would not only require the (impractical) serialization of bullets, but also the (ultimately impractical) serialization of the cartridge case ... on the inside of the case! I cannot imagine any bulk-quantity manufacturing process which would meet the former requirement, but the latter requirement is impossible.
Of course, there are as usual no provisions for delay of enaction of this bill if the requirements are not possible by current technology, let alone reliable and economical mass-production processes.
In short, this is the most impossible-to-comply-with bill which has ever been introduced to any state legislature, to date.
UPDATE: Friday, February 15, 2008
In a comment posted to this article this morning, denib said:
This bill is dead!!
My representative sent me the following on Thursday:
"I want you to know I am opposed to this measure. I am glad to report that the bill has failed to pass out of its committee before a critical deadline. Consequently, the measure is ineligible for further consideration this session."
Woohoo! (for now)
Sunday, February 10, 2008
The Bill and Steve Show
Finally! After months of not attending actual USPSA matches, SWMBO and I managed to catch the February match at Albany Rifle and Pistol Club.
A word of explanation: Between illness, vacation, family obligations, equipment malfunctions, bad weather, ammunition shortage and ennui, SWMBO shot her last match in September, 2007, and I shot my last match in October.
While I've managed to fill the blog-hours over the last 5 months with related subjects, we have both missed actual shooting at matches. Not only have we missed the matches, we've missed the fresh air, the joy of spending the day in an activity, and the cameraderie of our friends.
For those of you who keep track of such things (nobody but me), I didn't participate in the 2007 Croc Match, but SWMBO and I attended for a few hours to watch. I had managed to dump a bottle of water in my camera bag, rendering my HP R807 digicam hors de combat. I replaced it with an HP 967 digicam which has many new features, including the ability to automatically refocus AND zoom while filming in video mode. I haven't had much time to play with it, and have under 700 shots with it. This doesn't matter to you, I think it's a Geek Thing.
We were determined to attend the match whatever the weather, but were pleasantly surprised to discover a warm, sunny day with lots of blue skies as we loaded the D.O.F. (Damned Old Ford) at 44 degrees. It warmed up to 54 degrees by the time we came back home at 3pm, having experienced 5 hours of standing on gravel while remaining dry; meeting new friends; equipment malfunctions; and our first match under the brand new 2008 USPSA rule book.
When we signed up for the match, we ignored our common practice of signing onto a squad with the most people we knew and enjoyed shooting with. Instead we just found the 'shortest' squad (8 people signed up) and ignored the other names. We had come to play, and enjoy the unseasonably lovely Oregon weather, and if we found new shooting friends, so much the better.
There were 68 people signed up to shoot the match, which is almost unheard of in February in Oregon. I think we were all getting cabin fever, and welcomed any excuse to get out of the house. Also, ARPC is one of the most weather-proof clubs in the country, so even though February matches are typically soggy we didn't much care. At least it wasn't snowing, and the wind wasn't blowing.
We were also surprised to discover that there were four new shooters at this match. These fine folks had been so determined to start the sport of Practical Pistol shooting, they had started during what was ordinarily one of the most climatically foreboding months of the year. (In February of 1995, the Mid-Willamette valley area experienced severe flooding blocking all but one entrance to the town of Corvallis.) The very good news was that two of these new shooters were assigned to our squad, bringing the total squad size up to a healthy 11 shooters.
Before the match actually started, Match Director Mike McCarter took me aside to emphasize that, according to the new 2008 Rule Book, the Range Officer was allowed to 'coach' new shooters. I'm glad he mentioned that, because I was so focused on the new "Make Ready" command (replacing "Load and Make Ready" that I had completely forgotten the improvement.
As it turned out, our squad had only 3 certified Range Officers ... me, SWMBO and Mark K. That meant that not only were we three going to do our fair share of taping cardboard targets, setting and painting steel targets and brassing, we were going to have to do all of the RO chores. (Fortunately, most of the other squad members were happy to help out with the scoring, and only a few of them required instructions on how to fill out the score sheets. That meant that the RO's needed to pay more attention to foot-faults and checking that all targets were taped or reset, but we had only a few false starts due to lapses in this area.)
Our two new shooters were Bill and Steve. Both were state employees ... actually, Geeks! ... from the state capital in Salem. Bill was under 6' tall, had a belly which rivaled my own. He was wearing a fire-engine red shirt with suspenders of the exact same hue. Steve towered over my own six feet height and wore a desert camo headscarf and a chambray shirt. Both were shooting in Production Division.
Before we started them shooting, I talked to both of them about their experience. Neither had done any Practical Pistol shooting other than during their Certification Classes, but were experienced hand gunners as they proved during the match. Their priority was to get through the match safely to complete their Certification process, and to have fun.
I explained to each of them, individually as they came up to shoot the first stage, that the USPSA rules explicitly allowed coaching of new shooters. That meant that if I saw that they were experiencing confusion or other problems while shooting a stage, I would be free to offer suggestions which not only related to safety issues, but would help them to make tactical decisions. For example, if they were having trouble hitting a steel target and were making reloads, I could assume they were in a 'white-line fever' mode and could suggest that they shoot at other targets and come back to this one after they experienced success on those targets. This, and other coaching, were helpful hints which SWMBO and I had been offered by Range Officers which I first started shooting ... and in fact had been so helped even though the rules at that time did not specifically allow.
As the match went on, everybody started to loosen up. Our squad was a bit shorter than the squad preceding us, so we were often waiting for the squad ahead of us to finish a stage so we could move on to it. As a result, we often finished a stage with the squad behind us watching our own performance.
It is the general practice in the Columbia Cascade Section (CCS) to pull the score sheets of new shooters out of the line-up, shuffle the rest of the score sheets, draw the First Shooter, and then put the rest of the score sheets back into the line-up with the new shooters at the end. This allows the new shooters to watch everyone else in the squad and determine which tactical approach best meets their personal strengths. It also allows them to become familiar with the requirements of the stage. Unfortunately, it also makes them the shooters most likely to have a large audience while they are shooting. If you have been competing for a while, you may have forgotten how intimidating this can be on your first 'real match'. (I remember it; I was extremely self-conscious for my first two years of competition, and it is only due to the friendly encouragement of the 'old hands' that I ever got past it. Referring to my abysmal performance while trying to play Golf, it's comparable to being the first in your foursome to tee off on the first tee, while the groups 'behind you' stood around and discussed the impressive flare you demonstrated in topping the ball.)
Half way trough the match, we quit saying "Bill is On Deck, Steve is In The Hole". Instead, we just said "Followed by the 'Bill and Steve' Show."
To be honest, it was the 'Bill and Steve' Show.
New shooters are sometimes completely new to the art of handgun shooting. There are not only safety issues due to unformed gun handling habits, but the new shooters find it difficult to hit the targets. Their skills sets are not yet established, which makes their first experience at an Actual Match personally embarrassing for them.
Not so Bill and Steve.
They may have felt uncomfortable and unsure, but once the buzzer initiated the action, both competitors settled into a credible approach to every stage. They didn't forget targets, they didn'' forget to see the sights, and most importantly they didn't forget safety.
There was a moment on the final stage of the match where Steve overbalanced his foot position on the left side of a shooting 'box' while attempting a difficult shot around an intrusive barrier. As he fell forward his leading foot, his following foot left him facing to the rear. He managed to bring the pistol behind him, keeping the muzzle safely downrange while he turned the pistol upside down so it was easy to point it in a safe direction.
Then, since he wasn't sure what to do, he transferred the gun to his weak hand as he ended up facing completely up-range, while the pistol was still pointing safely downrange. Then he calmly discussed his options with the RO (SWMBO), who explained that as long as he kept the handgun pointing in a safe direction.
Given these instructions he turned back downrange while continuing to keep his pistol pointed in a safe direction, calmly reloaded, and continued the stage.
For a guy who was completely disoriented, I thought he demonstrated a masterful understanding of the safe gun-handling practices necessary for this kind of bizarre situation. This was the last stage of the match, and we were pleased to offer a standing ovation to him, and to Bill (who completed the stage with far fewer dramatic gestures) for successfully completing the final 'test' of his Certification process.
As I said to both Bill and Steve; "you can shoot on my squad anytime!"
Bill and Steve, I hope you are reading this. Every USPSA member (and IPSC members around the world) are typically more concerned with the safe completion of the First Match for new shooters than with our won competitive performance. I won't even go into the way you managed the difficult Texas Star target tonight. Although you both shot the Star well, it is not as impressive as the way you completed a difficult series of stages with grace, stage presence and safety.
Welcome to the League of Disenfranchised USPSA Bums, and I hope you enjoy many more years of it!
(Still photos of this squad are now available at the Geek Video Shooting Gallery.)
(This picture available here; all still photos from this match available here.)
A word of explanation: Between illness, vacation, family obligations, equipment malfunctions, bad weather, ammunition shortage and ennui, SWMBO shot her last match in September, 2007, and I shot my last match in October.
While I've managed to fill the blog-hours over the last 5 months with related subjects, we have both missed actual shooting at matches. Not only have we missed the matches, we've missed the fresh air, the joy of spending the day in an activity, and the cameraderie of our friends.
For those of you who keep track of such things (nobody but me), I didn't participate in the 2007 Croc Match, but SWMBO and I attended for a few hours to watch. I had managed to dump a bottle of water in my camera bag, rendering my HP R807 digicam hors de combat. I replaced it with an HP 967 digicam which has many new features, including the ability to automatically refocus AND zoom while filming in video mode. I haven't had much time to play with it, and have under 700 shots with it. This doesn't matter to you, I think it's a Geek Thing.
We were determined to attend the match whatever the weather, but were pleasantly surprised to discover a warm, sunny day with lots of blue skies as we loaded the D.O.F. (Damned Old Ford) at 44 degrees. It warmed up to 54 degrees by the time we came back home at 3pm, having experienced 5 hours of standing on gravel while remaining dry; meeting new friends; equipment malfunctions; and our first match under the brand new 2008 USPSA rule book.
When we signed up for the match, we ignored our common practice of signing onto a squad with the most people we knew and enjoyed shooting with. Instead we just found the 'shortest' squad (8 people signed up) and ignored the other names. We had come to play, and enjoy the unseasonably lovely Oregon weather, and if we found new shooting friends, so much the better.
There were 68 people signed up to shoot the match, which is almost unheard of in February in Oregon. I think we were all getting cabin fever, and welcomed any excuse to get out of the house. Also, ARPC is one of the most weather-proof clubs in the country, so even though February matches are typically soggy we didn't much care. At least it wasn't snowing, and the wind wasn't blowing.
We were also surprised to discover that there were four new shooters at this match. These fine folks had been so determined to start the sport of Practical Pistol shooting, they had started during what was ordinarily one of the most climatically foreboding months of the year. (In February of 1995, the Mid-Willamette valley area experienced severe flooding blocking all but one entrance to the town of Corvallis.) The very good news was that two of these new shooters were assigned to our squad, bringing the total squad size up to a healthy 11 shooters.
Before the match actually started, Match Director Mike McCarter took me aside to emphasize that, according to the new 2008 Rule Book, the Range Officer was allowed to 'coach' new shooters. I'm glad he mentioned that, because I was so focused on the new "Make Ready" command (replacing "Load and Make Ready" that I had completely forgotten the improvement.
As it turned out, our squad had only 3 certified Range Officers ... me, SWMBO and Mark K. That meant that not only were we three going to do our fair share of taping cardboard targets, setting and painting steel targets and brassing, we were going to have to do all of the RO chores. (Fortunately, most of the other squad members were happy to help out with the scoring, and only a few of them required instructions on how to fill out the score sheets. That meant that the RO's needed to pay more attention to foot-faults and checking that all targets were taped or reset, but we had only a few false starts due to lapses in this area.)
Our two new shooters were Bill and Steve. Both were state employees ... actually, Geeks! ... from the state capital in Salem. Bill was under 6' tall, had a belly which rivaled my own. He was wearing a fire-engine red shirt with suspenders of the exact same hue. Steve towered over my own six feet height and wore a desert camo headscarf and a chambray shirt. Both were shooting in Production Division.
Before we started them shooting, I talked to both of them about their experience. Neither had done any Practical Pistol shooting other than during their Certification Classes, but were experienced hand gunners as they proved during the match. Their priority was to get through the match safely to complete their Certification process, and to have fun.
I explained to each of them, individually as they came up to shoot the first stage, that the USPSA rules explicitly allowed coaching of new shooters. That meant that if I saw that they were experiencing confusion or other problems while shooting a stage, I would be free to offer suggestions which not only related to safety issues, but would help them to make tactical decisions. For example, if they were having trouble hitting a steel target and were making reloads, I could assume they were in a 'white-line fever' mode and could suggest that they shoot at other targets and come back to this one after they experienced success on those targets. This, and other coaching, were helpful hints which SWMBO and I had been offered by Range Officers which I first started shooting ... and in fact had been so helped even though the rules at that time did not specifically allow.
As the match went on, everybody started to loosen up. Our squad was a bit shorter than the squad preceding us, so we were often waiting for the squad ahead of us to finish a stage so we could move on to it. As a result, we often finished a stage with the squad behind us watching our own performance.
It is the general practice in the Columbia Cascade Section (CCS) to pull the score sheets of new shooters out of the line-up, shuffle the rest of the score sheets, draw the First Shooter, and then put the rest of the score sheets back into the line-up with the new shooters at the end. This allows the new shooters to watch everyone else in the squad and determine which tactical approach best meets their personal strengths. It also allows them to become familiar with the requirements of the stage. Unfortunately, it also makes them the shooters most likely to have a large audience while they are shooting. If you have been competing for a while, you may have forgotten how intimidating this can be on your first 'real match'. (I remember it; I was extremely self-conscious for my first two years of competition, and it is only due to the friendly encouragement of the 'old hands' that I ever got past it. Referring to my abysmal performance while trying to play Golf, it's comparable to being the first in your foursome to tee off on the first tee, while the groups 'behind you' stood around and discussed the impressive flare you demonstrated in topping the ball.)
Half way trough the match, we quit saying "Bill is On Deck, Steve is In The Hole". Instead, we just said "Followed by the 'Bill and Steve' Show."
To be honest, it was the 'Bill and Steve' Show.
New shooters are sometimes completely new to the art of handgun shooting. There are not only safety issues due to unformed gun handling habits, but the new shooters find it difficult to hit the targets. Their skills sets are not yet established, which makes their first experience at an Actual Match personally embarrassing for them.
Not so Bill and Steve.
They may have felt uncomfortable and unsure, but once the buzzer initiated the action, both competitors settled into a credible approach to every stage. They didn't forget targets, they didn'' forget to see the sights, and most importantly they didn't forget safety.
There was a moment on the final stage of the match where Steve overbalanced his foot position on the left side of a shooting 'box' while attempting a difficult shot around an intrusive barrier. As he fell forward his leading foot, his following foot left him facing to the rear. He managed to bring the pistol behind him, keeping the muzzle safely downrange while he turned the pistol upside down so it was easy to point it in a safe direction.
Then, since he wasn't sure what to do, he transferred the gun to his weak hand as he ended up facing completely up-range, while the pistol was still pointing safely downrange. Then he calmly discussed his options with the RO (SWMBO), who explained that as long as he kept the handgun pointing in a safe direction.
Given these instructions he turned back downrange while continuing to keep his pistol pointed in a safe direction, calmly reloaded, and continued the stage.
For a guy who was completely disoriented, I thought he demonstrated a masterful understanding of the safe gun-handling practices necessary for this kind of bizarre situation. This was the last stage of the match, and we were pleased to offer a standing ovation to him, and to Bill (who completed the stage with far fewer dramatic gestures) for successfully completing the final 'test' of his Certification process.
As I said to both Bill and Steve; "you can shoot on my squad anytime!"
Bill and Steve, I hope you are reading this. Every USPSA member (and IPSC members around the world) are typically more concerned with the safe completion of the First Match for new shooters than with our won competitive performance. I won't even go into the way you managed the difficult Texas Star target tonight. Although you both shot the Star well, it is not as impressive as the way you completed a difficult series of stages with grace, stage presence and safety.
Welcome to the League of Disenfranchised USPSA Bums, and I hope you enjoy many more years of it!
(Still photos of this squad are now available at the Geek Video Shooting Gallery.)
(This picture available here; all still photos from this match available here.)
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Geek News Flash!
The Geek Family is pleased to announce an unexpected growth rate projected to culminate near the end of the third quarter of this year.
My son informs me that he and his beautiful bride are expecting in increase of productivity in August or September: Twins!
All kidding aside, please share my joy in anticipation of this wonderful event. It's to early to know whether they are fraternal, whether boys or girls, and frankly nobody really cares. They'll be bright, beautiful and personable. Also, very much wanted and loved.
This will increase the count of Geek Grandchildren from 5 to 7, giving me even more ways to enjoy life.
My son informs me that he and his beautiful bride are expecting in increase of productivity in August or September: Twins!
All kidding aside, please share my joy in anticipation of this wonderful event. It's to early to know whether they are fraternal, whether boys or girls, and frankly nobody really cares. They'll be bright, beautiful and personable. Also, very much wanted and loved.
This will increase the count of Geek Grandchildren from 5 to 7, giving me even more ways to enjoy life.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
John McCain on the Second Amendment
The John McCain 2008 Website on the 2nd Amendment
Rivrdog notes that McCain's webpage on the Second Amendment is 'blacked out'. I assume this is a browser incompatibility; I was able to view the entire page using FireFox. For the benefit of those who can't view that page, I'll present the content here.
McCain is the last 'major' Republican candidate for President (I know I'm offending some Ron Paul and Huckleberry supporters here) so perhaps it's worth the time and effort to see what he says about Gun Control ... or Gun Ownership, or Right to Personal Defense.
Overview:
Assault Weapons:
Importation of High Capacity Magazines:
Gun Locks:
Banning Ammunition:
DC Personal Protection:
(ED: I'm not aware of this legislation. I know about Parker vs DC, and Heller vs DC, but I didn't know that the U.S. Senate had weighed in on the issue. I would be grateful if anyone could point me toward to Senatorial legislation (isn't the House required to introduce this kind of legislation?) so I ... and you ... could evaluate the claim.)
Criminal Background Checks:
(ED: Isn't this 20-year old legislation?)
Background Checks at Gun Shows:
(ED: This measure [emphasis added] infringes on the 2nd amendment right of private firearms transfers. Many, if not most gun shows have added this 'instant check' measure to their policy in an effort to establish 'self-policing'. But it's a 'slippery-slope' treatment when the Federal Government gets involved. The 'Next Step' would be Federal control over Estate transfers (parent to child in a will), personal sales (friend-to-friend sales), and even loans (including a parent allowing a spouse or child to temporarily use a firearm). The Gun Control Lobbyists dismissively denigrate such concerns as facetious or extreme arguments; however, in their drive to outlaw non-regulated private transfer of firearms, they have never defined any firearms transfer ... familial, estate or temporary ... as exempt from their arbitrary restrictions. That McCain supports the first step of this Federal restriction does not absolve him from responsibility for further infringements on the Second Amendment.)
The Firearm Purchase Waiting Period:
(ED: This is at least a positive policy. I know, however, of no recent Federal bills which would establish this restriction, and McCain's website does not identify the bill against which he voted.)
The Confiscation of Firearms after an Emergency:
(ED: We presume that this is in reference to the notorious New Orleans confiscation of firearms after Hurricane Katrina. There are many outstanding suits against the actions of National Guard, and N.O.P.D. as well as other supporting L.E.O.'s who resorted to confiscation during this period. While laudatory, there is nothing particularly daring about opposing this policy.)
Stiffer Penalties for Criminals who use a firearm in the commission of a crime:
Rivrdog notes that McCain's webpage on the Second Amendment is 'blacked out'. I assume this is a browser incompatibility; I was able to view the entire page using FireFox. For the benefit of those who can't view that page, I'll present the content here.
McCain is the last 'major' Republican candidate for President (I know I'm offending some Ron Paul and Huckleberry supporters here) so perhaps it's worth the time and effort to see what he says about Gun Control ... or Gun Ownership, or Right to Personal Defense.
Overview:
John McCain believes that the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual Constitutional right that we have a sacred duty to protect. We have a responsibility to ensure that criminals who violate the law are prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals - criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway.Gun Manufacturer Liability:
John McCain opposes backdoor attempts to restrict Second Amendment rights by holding gun manufacturers liable for crimes committed by third parties using a firearm, and has voted to protect gun manufacturers from such inappropriate liability aimed at bankrupting the entire gun industry.(ED: well, that's already a federal law. Not impressively aggressive.)
Assault Weapons:
John McCain opposes restrictions on so-called "assault rifles" and voted consistently against such bans. Most recently he opposed an amendment to extend a ban on 19 specific firearms, and others with similar characteristics.(ED: The "Assault Weapons Ban" sunset a few years ago, so this is not particularly impressive except that he apparently didn't vote to extend it ... unlike Kerry, Kennedy, and various radical Democrats. That's a plus, but not amazing for a Senator from Arizona.)
Importation of High Capacity Magazines:
John McCain opposes bans on the importation of certain types of ammunition magazines and has voted against such limitations.(ED: Again, part of the Assault Weapons Ban ... see above.)
Gun Locks:
John McCain believes that every firearms owner has a responsibility to learn how to safely use and store the firearm they have chosen, whether for target shooting, hunting, or personal protection. He has supported legislation requiring gun manufacturers to include gun safety devices such as trigger locks in product packaging.(ED: Again, better than the RadicLib party, but real 2nd Amendment supporters have issues with the 'mandatory gun-lock' legislation. Requiring manufacturers to include them 'in product packaging' doesn't necessarily improve gun safety, although it does add to the price of purchasing firearms. This is 'feel-good' legislation, with no positive benefit to the purchaser, and as such is a transparent ploy which appeals only to the anti-self defense crowd. )
Banning Ammunition:
John McCain believes that banning ammunition is just another way to undermine Second Amendment rights. He voted against an amendment that would have banned many of the most commonly used hunting cartridges on the spurious grounds that they were "armor-piercing."(ED: The predicate is a null-value statement, although true. The recent trend toward states attempts to enforce 'Encoded Ammunition' is a truer test of the "another way to undermine Second Amendment rights", it's too early to use this trend as a test of 2nd Amendment protections.)
DC Personal Protection:
As part of John McCain's defense of Second Amendment rights, he cosponsored legislation to lift a ban on the law abiding citizens of the District of Columbia from exercising their Constitutional right to bear arms.
(ED: I'm not aware of this legislation. I know about Parker vs DC, and Heller vs DC, but I didn't know that the U.S. Senate had weighed in on the issue. I would be grateful if anyone could point me toward to Senatorial legislation (isn't the House required to introduce this kind of legislation?) so I ... and you ... could evaluate the claim.)
Criminal Background Checks:
John McCain supports instant criminal background checks to help prohibit criminals from buying firearms and has voted to ensure they are conducted thoroughly, efficiently, and without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens.
(ED: Isn't this 20-year old legislation?)
Background Checks at Gun Shows:
At a time when some were trying to shut down gun shows in the name of fighting crime, John McCain tried to preserve gun shows by standardizing sales procedures. Federal law requires licensed firearm sellers at gun shows to do an instant criminal background check on purchasers while private firearm sellers at gun shows do not have to conduct such a check. John McCain introduced legislation that would require an instant criminal background check for all sales at gun shows and believes that such checks must be conducted quickly to ensure that unnecessary delays do not effectively block transactions.
(ED: This measure [emphasis added] infringes on the 2nd amendment right of private firearms transfers. Many, if not most gun shows have added this 'instant check' measure to their policy in an effort to establish 'self-policing'. But it's a 'slippery-slope' treatment when the Federal Government gets involved. The 'Next Step' would be Federal control over Estate transfers (parent to child in a will), personal sales (friend-to-friend sales), and even loans (including a parent allowing a spouse or child to temporarily use a firearm). The Gun Control Lobbyists dismissively denigrate such concerns as facetious or extreme arguments; however, in their drive to outlaw non-regulated private transfer of firearms, they have never defined any firearms transfer ... familial, estate or temporary ... as exempt from their arbitrary restrictions. That McCain supports the first step of this Federal restriction does not absolve him from responsibility for further infringements on the Second Amendment.)
The Firearm Purchase Waiting Period:
John McCain has opposed "waiting periods" for law abiding citizen's purchase of firearms.
(ED: This is at least a positive policy. I know, however, of no recent Federal bills which would establish this restriction, and McCain's website does not identify the bill against which he voted.)
The Confiscation of Firearms after an Emergency:
John McCain opposes the confiscation of firearms from private citizens, particularly during times of crisis or emergency. He voted in favor of an amendment sponsored by Senator David Vitter prohibiting such confiscation.
(ED: We presume that this is in reference to the notorious New Orleans confiscation of firearms after Hurricane Katrina. There are many outstanding suits against the actions of National Guard, and N.O.P.D. as well as other supporting L.E.O.'s who resorted to confiscation during this period. While laudatory, there is nothing particularly daring about opposing this policy.)
Stiffer Penalties for Criminals who use a firearm in the commission of a crime:
John McCain believes in strict, mandatory penalties for criminals who use a firearm in the commission of a crime or illegally possess a firearm. Enforcing the current laws on the books is the best way to deter crime.(ED: This is 100% aligned with the NRA position; it adds penalties {an extra 5 or 10 years imprisonment} for using a firearm during the commission of a crime. This is an example of legislation which Gun Rights Advocates consider "common-sense gun control measures". It is also an example of what Anti-Gun Extremists, ever-critical of any measure supported by the NRA, consider to be "questionable" .. which means they are not inclined to support it for fear that it will suggest that they agree with the NRA in ANYTHING relating to gun control. As such, this is the boldest Second Amendment stance espoused by John McCain.)
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
The Buttoned Down Mind of your Anti-Gun Friends
Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality, By Sarah Thompson, M.D.
I had discovered, and read, this article a couple of years ago, but I lost track of it and never gave myself a chance to recommend it. Thanks to a link in the Comments section of an article by "Geek With A .45", I've found it again. I've reread it, and I can recommend it to you.
Taken by itself, it's a powerful insight into the reasons why some people unthinkingly assume that anyone who owns a gun is a danger to society. Words like 'rage', 'Projection' and 'Denial' are key to the understanding. Dr. Thompson also includes suggestions about how to present yourself as a sane, responsible member of society even though you do own a gun. The goal seems to be to convince anti-gun friends that people who own and shoot firearms aren't necessarily dangerous; by extension, guns aren't inherently evil.
I admit to some reserve in embracing the interpersonal techniques she suggests. I'm sure they can work, but I'm not convinced that 'just everyone' can use these conversational techniques in a successful attempt to diffuse the firm convictions of my friends.
Among my co-workers, I have one who is interested in shooting, and I took him to the range one weekend where he had a great time burning up a lot of ammunition. He wasn't someone who needs to be convinced; I was able to show him how to safely handle firearms, but mostly it was just a nice day at the range which we both enjoyed.
Another co-worker (and I'm sure I've mentioned this story before, too), wandered by my desk at the end of the day when I was discussing shooting with the fellow I just described. This second co-worker mentioned "I've never seen any reason for anyone to own a gun. I've never even seen one, let alone shot one." I didn't try to convince him of anything, although I did say that this was his choice, but I enjoy shooting and I've been competing at shooting matches for decades. Since I've never shot anybody in my office, I figured that was about all I needed to say. The implication was that some people do have a reason to own a gun, and it's one which he might accept. I haven't said another word about shooting guns to him, and we remain friendly.
Still another co-worker knows that I compete in shooting matches most weekends. I've described the experience in casual conversation, noted that it's a fun activity which both I and SWMBO enjoy as much for the company of good people as for the excuse to go to the range. Most Friday afternoons she asks me if I'm going to a match this weekend, or on Monday she asks if I HAVE gone to a match. The resulting conversation is much like that between colleagues who say to each other "so, did you go see that movie you were talking about?"
I consider that a healthy collegial relationship. She spends her weekends picking up trash from the Oregon beaches or working in her garden; I spend my weekends blasting holes in cardboard targets. Everybody had a good time, either enjoyed or suffered inclement weather, and we're all just good people.
The most significant story about "convincing an anti-gunner that guns and gunners aren't evil" is, probably the "How My Sweetie Learned To Love Shooting."
My Beloved SWMBO grew up in a gun-free zone. Her father, a lay preacher, never allowed (or had reason to) a gun in the house. She, too, grew up with the understanding that "there is never any reason for a person to own a gun." It wasn't something that was discussed; it was just understood.
After we met, and began dating, we soon spent every weekend together. We lived in different towns, so I would spend Friday night driving to her home ... bringing my range gear with me.
On Saturday Morning I would be found hauling my range gear out her door to the car, on my way to the match. We would say goodbye at the door, and I would say "you know, you're invited." She would always say "yeah, right" and I would be off to spend 8 or 10 hours at the range, or in travel. She would spend most of the day doing whatever she had planned.
After a bit over a year, she said: "I'm getting sick of this. We're together because we like being together, but it's only a couple of days each week and I'm tired of being left alone half of my weekend. Let's go to the match together."
Her perception of "people-who-shoot" was (predictably) a bunch of red-necked yahoos who spent the day at the range shooting at everything, and then sat on the pickup tailgate for a couple of hours drinking beer and shooting casually at random targets while cursing volubly.
She was surprised when she met a lot of clean-cut guys, and a few women, who treated each other with respect and treated Range Safety and Gun Handling as Gospel. More, the treated her and each other with respect ... modified by good-natured kidding. It was like being a golf match, except for picking up expended brass.
She came to know the competitors socially, and learned that she liked them. Except for the picking-up-the-brass thing.
After another year of going to matches, and picking up a lot of brass, she finally announced to me "Hey! I'm tired of picking up everybody's brass. Get me a gun, show me how to do this thing. I want to see these guys pick up MY brass!"
SWMBO has been much more comfortable at matches as a competitor than as a hanger-on.
For a while, she worried about people who may expect her to 'do well'. She didn't want them to think she was competitive, she just wanted to go shooting for the fun of it.l
Then, for a while, she was worried about people who had stared shooting after she did, but they were scoring higher in the order-of-finish than she did. So we got her better guns, spent some time training her until, for example, she realized that "Steel Is My Friend" ... and I stepped quietly out of the way and let other people take charge of her training.
Now she trains other ladies, in her spare time.)(
Then she got competitive. She would shoot a stage, then I would shoot it differently and do better, and she would say "Hey! Why didn't you tell me that was a better way to shoot the stage?!!" We went through iterations where I would coach her, and she would seem to take offense. Then I didn't coach her, and she would take offense. Eventually, she started doping the stages on her own, trying to find the best approach which made the best use of her own personal skills set, and she started moving up the 'order of finish' score sheet.
I would like to say that today SWMBO is entirely independent, dopes the stages to her personal best advantage, and regularly kicks my butt. Can't do that; she frequently beats me on the individual stage, she enjoys what she is doing, and she likes the people we shoot with. That she is unwilling to invest in practice time to the point where she regularly beats me is a personal decision, and I can't fault her for it.
I can only say ... she enjoys shooting, she performs to her expectations usually ( as I do, usually) and she had met new friends At The Range who are as important to her as they are to me.
The point is, this lady who "never knew a reason why anyone would want to own a gun" now loves to shoot, has her own guns (and is better trained in gun-handling techniques than 99.99% of everyone in the world) , has expanded her personal horizons, and looks forward to weekends when she can spend at least one day in a gravel pit with her friends.
Me?
I'm ecstatic. I don't really enjoy going to a match without her, even though I did so for 15 years in competition. It's just not as much fun without my sweetie, my lover, my very best friend. Our relationship is much stronger for our shared interest, and I thank God for the day when she decided that she decided that she didn't want to be left behind any more.
Here's the bottom line:
(1): Just because someone "doesn't know why someone would want to own a gun" doesn't mean that they can't enjoy the experience.
(2): ... uhhhh .. see (1).
I had discovered, and read, this article a couple of years ago, but I lost track of it and never gave myself a chance to recommend it. Thanks to a link in the Comments section of an article by "Geek With A .45", I've found it again. I've reread it, and I can recommend it to you.
Taken by itself, it's a powerful insight into the reasons why some people unthinkingly assume that anyone who owns a gun is a danger to society. Words like 'rage', 'Projection' and 'Denial' are key to the understanding. Dr. Thompson also includes suggestions about how to present yourself as a sane, responsible member of society even though you do own a gun. The goal seems to be to convince anti-gun friends that people who own and shoot firearms aren't necessarily dangerous; by extension, guns aren't inherently evil.
I admit to some reserve in embracing the interpersonal techniques she suggests. I'm sure they can work, but I'm not convinced that 'just everyone' can use these conversational techniques in a successful attempt to diffuse the firm convictions of my friends.
Among my co-workers, I have one who is interested in shooting, and I took him to the range one weekend where he had a great time burning up a lot of ammunition. He wasn't someone who needs to be convinced; I was able to show him how to safely handle firearms, but mostly it was just a nice day at the range which we both enjoyed.
Another co-worker (and I'm sure I've mentioned this story before, too), wandered by my desk at the end of the day when I was discussing shooting with the fellow I just described. This second co-worker mentioned "I've never seen any reason for anyone to own a gun. I've never even seen one, let alone shot one." I didn't try to convince him of anything, although I did say that this was his choice, but I enjoy shooting and I've been competing at shooting matches for decades. Since I've never shot anybody in my office, I figured that was about all I needed to say. The implication was that some people do have a reason to own a gun, and it's one which he might accept. I haven't said another word about shooting guns to him, and we remain friendly.
Still another co-worker knows that I compete in shooting matches most weekends. I've described the experience in casual conversation, noted that it's a fun activity which both I and SWMBO enjoy as much for the company of good people as for the excuse to go to the range. Most Friday afternoons she asks me if I'm going to a match this weekend, or on Monday she asks if I HAVE gone to a match. The resulting conversation is much like that between colleagues who say to each other "so, did you go see that movie you were talking about?"
I consider that a healthy collegial relationship. She spends her weekends picking up trash from the Oregon beaches or working in her garden; I spend my weekends blasting holes in cardboard targets. Everybody had a good time, either enjoyed or suffered inclement weather, and we're all just good people.
The most significant story about "convincing an anti-gunner that guns and gunners aren't evil" is, probably the "How My Sweetie Learned To Love Shooting."
My Beloved SWMBO grew up in a gun-free zone. Her father, a lay preacher, never allowed (or had reason to) a gun in the house. She, too, grew up with the understanding that "there is never any reason for a person to own a gun." It wasn't something that was discussed; it was just understood.
After we met, and began dating, we soon spent every weekend together. We lived in different towns, so I would spend Friday night driving to her home ... bringing my range gear with me.
On Saturday Morning I would be found hauling my range gear out her door to the car, on my way to the match. We would say goodbye at the door, and I would say "you know, you're invited." She would always say "yeah, right" and I would be off to spend 8 or 10 hours at the range, or in travel. She would spend most of the day doing whatever she had planned.
After a bit over a year, she said: "I'm getting sick of this. We're together because we like being together, but it's only a couple of days each week and I'm tired of being left alone half of my weekend. Let's go to the match together."
Her perception of "people-who-shoot" was (predictably) a bunch of red-necked yahoos who spent the day at the range shooting at everything, and then sat on the pickup tailgate for a couple of hours drinking beer and shooting casually at random targets while cursing volubly.
She was surprised when she met a lot of clean-cut guys, and a few women, who treated each other with respect and treated Range Safety and Gun Handling as Gospel. More, the treated her and each other with respect ... modified by good-natured kidding. It was like being a golf match, except for picking up expended brass.
She came to know the competitors socially, and learned that she liked them. Except for the picking-up-the-brass thing.
After another year of going to matches, and picking up a lot of brass, she finally announced to me "Hey! I'm tired of picking up everybody's brass. Get me a gun, show me how to do this thing. I want to see these guys pick up MY brass!"
SWMBO has been much more comfortable at matches as a competitor than as a hanger-on.
For a while, she worried about people who may expect her to 'do well'. She didn't want them to think she was competitive, she just wanted to go shooting for the fun of it.l
Then, for a while, she was worried about people who had stared shooting after she did, but they were scoring higher in the order-of-finish than she did. So we got her better guns, spent some time training her until, for example, she realized that "Steel Is My Friend" ... and I stepped quietly out of the way and let other people take charge of her training.
Now she trains other ladies, in her spare time.)(
Then she got competitive. She would shoot a stage, then I would shoot it differently and do better, and she would say "Hey! Why didn't you tell me that was a better way to shoot the stage?!!" We went through iterations where I would coach her, and she would seem to take offense. Then I didn't coach her, and she would take offense. Eventually, she started doping the stages on her own, trying to find the best approach which made the best use of her own personal skills set, and she started moving up the 'order of finish' score sheet.
I would like to say that today SWMBO is entirely independent, dopes the stages to her personal best advantage, and regularly kicks my butt. Can't do that; she frequently beats me on the individual stage, she enjoys what she is doing, and she likes the people we shoot with. That she is unwilling to invest in practice time to the point where she regularly beats me is a personal decision, and I can't fault her for it.
I can only say ... she enjoys shooting, she performs to her expectations usually ( as I do, usually) and she had met new friends At The Range who are as important to her as they are to me.
The point is, this lady who "never knew a reason why anyone would want to own a gun" now loves to shoot, has her own guns (and is better trained in gun-handling techniques than 99.99% of everyone in the world) , has expanded her personal horizons, and looks forward to weekends when she can spend at least one day in a gravel pit with her friends.
Me?
I'm ecstatic. I don't really enjoy going to a match without her, even though I did so for 15 years in competition. It's just not as much fun without my sweetie, my lover, my very best friend. Our relationship is much stronger for our shared interest, and I thank God for the day when she decided that she decided that she didn't want to be left behind any more.
Here's the bottom line:
(1): Just because someone "doesn't know why someone would want to own a gun" doesn't mean that they can't enjoy the experience.
(2): ... uhhhh .. see (1).
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Campus Carry in The Washington Gulag
The War On Guns has an information-rich article on two bills being considered by the Washington (the state, not the district) legislature.
SB6841 (click here for full text), introduced January 28, 2008 by Senators Murray, Jacobsen, Kline, Shin, Kohl-Welles, is scheduled for a Public Hearing on February 7.
The bill makes it unlawful to carry a firearm (including a spring-loaded BB gun) onto the grounds or facilities of a "institution of higher education". That would be a college, University ... no word yet whether it includes a trade school.
Violation of this law would be treated as a "Gross Misdemeanor". Okay, it's not a felony; it's just a way of creating a Gun Free Zone, with some teeth in it.
Well, imprisonment for a "Gross Misdemeanor", whatever the term of incarceration, isn't the only penalty. They've added some frills.
They can kick you out of school (if you're a student). Don't expect to be reimbursed for your tuition, and/or say sayonara to any scholarships you may have.
Also, they can revoke your Concealed Carry permit (if you have one) for 3 years. Having been incarcerated for a weapons violation, you can kiss goodbye any chances that the local sheriff will look kindly on you re-application after the 3 years are up.
One of the most shameful of penalties is that you are reduced to an object; They can and will require that you be examined by a 'mental health professional', perhaps also by a 'chemical dependency specialist'. This is not a legalistic process, where you are reliably protected by your own lawyer. This is a 'medical procedure' (comparable to a hysterectomy) during which the 'professionals' and the 'specialists' can operate on you as they will, with no legal recourse and no defense against their predations. They're doing whatever they choose with your mind and your body, because it is 'for your own good'.
Sounds a lot like a Soviet Gulag, or more appropriately like the Soviet practice of incarcerating political prisoners in a mental institution, under the principle that if you protest against the state you must be crazy.
Adding insult to injury, the bill also encourages the posting of "Gun Free Zone" signs all over the place.
__________________________
SB6860 (click here for full text) was first read on January 29, 2008; it is also scheduled for a public hearing on February 7,2008. In a surprising contrast, this bill "[Prohibits] institutions of higher education from adopting rules concerning the possession of firearms".
Presented by Senators Roach, Delvin, Stevens, This bill is much more elegant. The basic premise is that "... The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the
8 entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state." It further states that "... Cities, towns, and counties or 13 other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law ..." and "... Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted ..."
There are a few more word in the bill than are quoted here, but that's the gist of it.
The first bill says "the individual has no rights, and we will stomp you into the dirt if you insist upon them". The second bill says "the suits have no right".
I know which one I would support.
Live, work or go to school in Washington? Write your congress critter. And show up for the Public Hearings on February 7. Take a day off work, or school. There's nothing you can do on campus that day which is more important, more rewarding, or more meaningful in the evolution of a Free Citizen than to be there.
(Read the original article, link at the top, for place and time.)
And thank you, David, for bringing this to our attention.
SB6841 (click here for full text), introduced January 28, 2008 by Senators Murray, Jacobsen, Kline, Shin, Kohl-Welles, is scheduled for a Public Hearing on February 7.
The bill makes it unlawful to carry a firearm (including a spring-loaded BB gun) onto the grounds or facilities of a "institution of higher education". That would be a college, University ... no word yet whether it includes a trade school.
Violation of this law would be treated as a "Gross Misdemeanor". Okay, it's not a felony; it's just a way of creating a Gun Free Zone, with some teeth in it.
Well, imprisonment for a "Gross Misdemeanor", whatever the term of incarceration, isn't the only penalty. They've added some frills.
They can kick you out of school (if you're a student). Don't expect to be reimbursed for your tuition, and/or say sayonara to any scholarships you may have.
Also, they can revoke your Concealed Carry permit (if you have one) for 3 years. Having been incarcerated for a weapons violation, you can kiss goodbye any chances that the local sheriff will look kindly on you re-application after the 3 years are up.
One of the most shameful of penalties is that you are reduced to an object; They can and will require that you be examined by a 'mental health professional', perhaps also by a 'chemical dependency specialist'. This is not a legalistic process, where you are reliably protected by your own lawyer. This is a 'medical procedure' (comparable to a hysterectomy) during which the 'professionals' and the 'specialists' can operate on you as they will, with no legal recourse and no defense against their predations. They're doing whatever they choose with your mind and your body, because it is 'for your own good'.
The Gods Must Be Crazy. And So Must You.
Sounds a lot like a Soviet Gulag, or more appropriately like the Soviet practice of incarcerating political prisoners in a mental institution, under the principle that if you protest against the state you must be crazy.
Adding insult to injury, the bill also encourages the posting of "Gun Free Zone" signs all over the place.
__________________________
SB6860 (click here for full text) was first read on January 29, 2008; it is also scheduled for a public hearing on February 7,2008. In a surprising contrast, this bill "[Prohibits] institutions of higher education from adopting rules concerning the possession of firearms".
Presented by Senators Roach, Delvin, Stevens, This bill is much more elegant. The basic premise is that "... The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the
8 entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state." It further states that "... Cities, towns, and counties or 13 other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law ..." and "... Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted ..."
There are a few more word in the bill than are quoted here, but that's the gist of it.
The first bill says "the individual has no rights, and we will stomp you into the dirt if you insist upon them". The second bill says "the suits have no right".
I know which one I would support.
Live, work or go to school in Washington? Write your congress critter. And show up for the Public Hearings on February 7. Take a day off work, or school. There's nothing you can do on campus that day which is more important, more rewarding, or more meaningful in the evolution of a Free Citizen than to be there.
(Read the original article, link at the top, for place and time.)
And thank you, David, for bringing this to our attention.
Monday, February 04, 2008
2008 Geek Guide to "State Encoded Ammunition" Bills
Given the plethora of "Encoded Ammunition" bills introduced into various State legislatures in January, 2008 (five so far; there may be more, I'm still researching), it occurred to me that it would be handy to have some kind of 'tracking document'.
Accordingly, I spent a couple of hours building an Excel Spreadsheet listing the salient characteristics of all the bills I have so far discovered. You can download the "2008 Geek Guide ..."( etc.) here.
Note that the file, 2008_Encoded_Ammunition.xls, will require that you have Microsoft EXCEL loaded on your computer. You can download it, but you can't read it without the software.
Here's a list of the states reported to date: Illinois, Indiana, Mississippi, Hawaii, Tennessee.
And here is a list of the data items found there, along with a short (?) description of the data points:
I'm tempted to dismiss these bills as bogus, not likely to pass; nothing to see here folks, move along. But since the Microstamping Bill (not the same thing) was passed in California last year, it is demonstrably NOT SAFE to expect that any gun-control bill, no matter how unreasonable or how irresponsibly enacted or how badly worded, cannot be passed by any given legislature. EVERY TIME a bogus gun-control bill is passed by a state, it sets a precedent for other states which are controlled by liberal gun-grabber politicians who just want to get their names on the roster of 'people who are trying to accomplish something about crime!'
No more editorializing. Every time I write one of these articles, it makes my guts ache for the rest of the night. I find it hard to believe that these weasels are stomping on the rights of their constituents for their own career advancement.
But then, if they weren't rats and weasels, they would find honest work.
Accordingly, I spent a couple of hours building an Excel Spreadsheet listing the salient characteristics of all the bills I have so far discovered. You can download the "2008 Geek Guide ..."( etc.) here.
Note that the file, 2008_Encoded_Ammunition.xls, will require that you have Microsoft EXCEL loaded on your computer. You can download it, but you can't read it without the software.
Here's a list of the states reported to date: Illinois, Indiana, Mississippi, Hawaii, Tennessee.
And here is a list of the data items found there, along with a short (?) description of the data points:
- State: The name of the state in which the bill is introduced.
- Bill #: The designation of the bill(s). Note that in at least one state (Tennessee), the identical bill was simultaneously introduced in both houses.
- Link to Text: A "Tiny URL" code. Copy and past it into your web browser, and the original URL will be generated to take you to the document which contains the full text of the bill. Note that I neglected to include this link in at least one of my original articles. I hope I've corrected those articles, but ALL are referenced here.
- Sponsor: The name of the state legislature(s) who sponsored and/or introduced the bill. This allows you, if you are a resident of that state, to follow him/her back to his/her personal website and send him/her emails appropriate to the amount of outrage you feel about his/her disenfranchisement of honest shooters.
- Justification for bill?: A simple YES/NO, if the text of the bill includes verbiage which attempts to justify the introduction of this disgusting piece of .... legislation. (Sorry, I can't help editorializing, even when I know I shouldn't. I'm just that irritated.)
- Date Bill Introduced: The date the bill was first read into the record in the state house, assembly or senate.
- Bill Status: The current status of the bill, usually, "referred to Committee" or similar verbiage. Bills so designated sometimes STAY in committee until the end of the legislative session (January 1 of the following year), after which they will die. At least one bill has a "bill expiration date" built into it, which I presume refers to the legislative guidelines for that state.
- Type of Ammo: The limitations on the kind of ammunition which is subject to these restrictions. ALWAYS "Handgun", but may also include "Assault Weapon" or "Assault Pistol". Some states include a list of "Designated Weapons" in the bill, which usually refer to what is essentially an "Assault Weapons" list established by existing state laws.
- Sell Only By Date: The date upon which vendors (retailers, etc.) may offer for sale 'only' ammunition ... or bullets (some states mention both) which has been "encoded".
- Own Only By Date: The date upon which all vendors and private citizens may not possess ammunition (or bullets? .. not always clear) which has not been "encoded". Possession may or may not involve specific penalties; see below.
- Per-Round Tax/Fee?: ALL states have, as far as I know and of this date, imposed some kind of tax or fee per bullet; this is most commonly five cents, although one state sets the fee at ".005 cents" which works out at five cents per thousand rounds or bullets. As noted, this last may be a typographical error. It's difficult to imagine politicians setting the fee so low, as long as the bill is obviously designed as an ipso facto impediment to free exercise of the second amendment. (There I go again!) Mississippi politicians aren't even honest enough to set the fee as part of the bill. They merely stipulate that a "End User Fee" will be established. Don't expect a "five cents per thousand rounds" fee from these boys. They ALL have to finance a database system, enforcement, and undefined other expenses needed to administer this bogus bill. (Oops! Sorry.)
- Fee Retained by Retailer: A couple of states provide that the vendor may retain a portion of the fees they collect, presumably to encourage the vendors to support the bill. Fat chance, ammunition sales will be so undercut by this oinker that the resulting market won't support any retail sales of ammunition or other firearms-related business in these states. (Dammit! Stop that, Geek!)
- Owner Penalties: This identifies the fines or penalties which may be imposed on 'anyone' who attempts to defile, obscure or obliterate the serial numbers on a bullet or round of ammunition. Usually a misdemeanor ... but we're usually talking about a year in the pokey and/or a fine of $1,000.
- Merchant Tax Penalty: One state (Illinois) imposes a penalty on a vendor who fails to accurately report tax revenues (the "per-round tax/fee"). This is a Class 4 Felony in Illinois. As may be presumed, the bureaucrats don't like it if you file the serial numbers off bullets but they take it seriously when you don't pay them their Dane Geld, hence the Felony vs the Misdemeanor. (That was okay, wasn't it? Not 'editorializing'?) The rest don't mention it ... to date. Apparently, that is covered in another section of the Code.
- Merchants Adherence Fine: I THINK this is the fine for selling non-encoded ammunition after the cutoff date. Your guess is as good as mine. Universally, it's $1,000.
- Buyer Data Collected: The information that the vendor is required to collect to define the retail buyer. Always Name, Date of Birth, Driver's License Number, and "any other information which the (governing agency) may define/require". More weasel words; they can ask for the serial number of the firearm in which you choose to shoot the ammunition, if they want to, and if there are not state laws forbidding this ... it's okay!
- Retailer Reporting: The vendor must report the information recorded on each ammunition sale periodically. This is either Monthly or Quarterly, if it is included in the Bill. Presumably, when you report the information, you must also remit the 'End User Fee' collected at the time of sale.
- Enforcement: For the Average Joe, this is one of the most important facets of the bills. In Illinois, the 'administrative authority' (usually the DOJ) can make it up as they go. Excuse, I mean the "any reasonable rules" may be imposed. That's an administrative decision, not subject to normal Congressional Oversight. Not encouraging. In Tennessee, the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) is the administrative authority. Isn't it nice when the police get to make the rules?
- Exceptions: Who do these bills, if they become laws, NOT apply to? In those states in which the legislators actually spent more than ten minutes writing the bill, the "Federal, State and Local Law Enforcement Organizations" are exempt. No word yet on whether the National Guard and the U.S. Military are exempt; but since they are not LEOs, and they are not specifically exempt ... hey, they might grab a few bucks from the Feds! (Must ... Control ... The ... Fist ... Of ... Death!)
- Bill Expiration Date: As mentioned above, one state included and expiration date for the bill if it is not enacted into law. Probably an administrative requirement, but I include it just for ... well, actually, no reason at all.
- Notes: Miscellaneous notes included only to show that not all states just stuck to boilerplate. The general text is obviously taken from a template ... source not yet identified ... but some states legislatures seemed to feel that they needed to assert their individuality. Indiana declared an emergency; Hawaii and Mississippi granted an 'income tax credit' for in-state bullet/ammunition manufacturers to purchase, install and use bullet-encoding machinery; Tennessee included a really onerous records-keeping requirement for both vendors and manufacturers.
- Text for Justification of Bill, if present: For states which included a justification of this bill (a minority, only Hawaii and Tennessee), the full text of their 'justification' is included just so you don't have to read the actual bills. I found it interesting that (so far) the majority of states which accepted this bill-template didn't feel it necessary to explain WHY this bill was necessary. I interpret this to mean that they don't care enough about the citizens who have to live under these egregious rules; they just entered the bill because they can. I'm guessing that they're Liberal Democrats who are just looking for a real good rating from The Brady Campaign, and don't expect the bills to get out of committee, let alone actually pass, so why bother? This may be "a good sign" that the authors aren't serious about the bill(s).
I'm tempted to dismiss these bills as bogus, not likely to pass; nothing to see here folks, move along. But since the Microstamping Bill (not the same thing) was passed in California last year, it is demonstrably NOT SAFE to expect that any gun-control bill, no matter how unreasonable or how irresponsibly enacted or how badly worded, cannot be passed by any given legislature. EVERY TIME a bogus gun-control bill is passed by a state, it sets a precedent for other states which are controlled by liberal gun-grabber politicians who just want to get their names on the roster of 'people who are trying to accomplish something about crime!'
No more editorializing. Every time I write one of these articles, it makes my guts ache for the rest of the night. I find it hard to believe that these weasels are stomping on the rights of their constituents for their own career advancement.
But then, if they weren't rats and weasels, they would find honest work.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Encoded Ammunition: Tennessee
NRA-ILA :: Legislation
FINALLY we see the NRA reacting to the plethora of "Encoded Ammunition" bills being presented to state legislatures across the land.
But do they recognize that this is NOT just an isolated incident?
No, the NRA does not.
Instead, they present their usual Alerts with just a single notification in the case of Tennessee, without mentioning that similar bills have been presented in Maryland, Illinois, Indiana, Mississippi, Maryland and Hawaii.
That's SEVEN out of FIFTY states which have presented bills with essentially the same text.
(The Tennessee text is available here for your comparison.)
The National Rifle Association, which has for the past 20 years presented itself as the nation's premier resource for defending your 2nd amendment rights, has completely missed the larger issue: that the same bill (which would perform an 'end run' around the 2nd amendment) has been proposed in SIX states (Maryland, Illinois, Indiana, Mississippi, Hawaii, and now Tennessee) within a 30-day period.
Rather than being recognized as a trend; rather that noting that this represents a concerted and highly organized attack on the 2nd Amendment; the NRA has decided to report this as an isolated incident.
Is it possible that the NRA is unaware that similar bills have been presented in (at least) five other states?
(Note: Other states may be, and probably are, subject to the same or similar bills. I'm just one man, it's impossible for me to track the bills introduced to ALL state legislatures. Is the NRA capable of identifying only ONE attack on the 2nd Amendment, while I, a lone and independent blogger have so far identified SIX similar assaults? We who are members of the NRA ... however reluctantly ... are capable of independent internet searches. Hey, NRA! For Minimum Wages, I will be happy to find and identify states which have presented similar bills, which you with your multi-million dollar annual budget seem unable to find or address.)
WTF is WRONG with the NRA, your First Line of Defense?
My guess: if it doesn't directly support an established Fund-Raising Activity, they really don't give a shit.
_______________________________________-
Back to the issue at hand: the Tennessee bill on "Encoded Ammunition:"
Referring to the links supplied by the NRA:
Tennessee Bill SB3395:
What is the NRA doing about this?
Nothing.
According to their last emailed member notification, this is the extent of their concerns:
___________________________________________________
ILLINOIS: Gun Rights Under Assault in Cook County! As we reported previously, Cook County is currently considering two anti-gun proposals that must be defeated! First, the Safe Streets/Weapons Registration Ordinance requires the registration of all firearms and firearm owners in the county. As written, it is an outright gun ban and prohibits the transport of a firearm in your vehicle unless the firearm is "broken down in a nonfunctioning state." The other proposed ordinance would amend the county's "Deadly Weapon Dealers Ordinance" to completely ban all gun shows within the county, and prohibits federally licensed dealers from operating within 10 miles of one another. Please contact the Cook County Board of Commissioners today and respectfully urge them to oppose these ordinances. Contact information for the Board can be found by clicking here.
___________________________________________________
That's right. Similar bills have been introduced in (to my personal knowledge) Maryland, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Mississippi and Tennessee within the past 30 days, and the text of the bills have been essentially identical. Yet although the NRA has specifically addressed "New Legislation in half of these states in their recent Alerts, only in Tennessee have they noticed that the "Encoded Ammunition" bills have been introduced in January, 2008. They seem not to have noticed that this is a recurring theme, nor have the noticed that it is evidence (six states out of 50, in one month, with boiler-plate text modified only by 'local' concerns) text.
Again, I do NOT have the resources to track legislation in all 50 states, but I have incidentally identified bills in six of 50 states, without even trying.
What has the NRA done for you here?
Please discontinue your NRA membership, and sign on to my personal "I Will Tell You What Crap The Anti-gunners Are Visiting Upon You" website. Send me whatever the NRA has charged you for annual membership.
I will do a better job of identifying 2nd Amendment threats than the NRA. I will tell you first, I will give you the details, and I will not confuse you with secondary issues such as "Let's Force Your Boss to Let You Carry A Gun In Your Car In The Company Parking Lot" issues.
Oh, by the way: I won't mount a national campaign to proselytize issues which you don't care about. But I WILL do a much better job of keeping you informed about bullshit national campaigns by the anti-gun forces to undermine your 2nd Amendment rights.
FINALLY we see the NRA reacting to the plethora of "Encoded Ammunition" bills being presented to state legislatures across the land.
But do they recognize that this is NOT just an isolated incident?
No, the NRA does not.
Instead, they present their usual Alerts with just a single notification in the case of Tennessee, without mentioning that similar bills have been presented in Maryland, Illinois, Indiana, Mississippi, Maryland and Hawaii.
That's SEVEN out of FIFTY states which have presented bills with essentially the same text.
(The Tennessee text is available here for your comparison.)
The National Rifle Association, which has for the past 20 years presented itself as the nation's premier resource for defending your 2nd amendment rights, has completely missed the larger issue: that the same bill (which would perform an 'end run' around the 2nd amendment) has been proposed in SIX states (Maryland, Illinois, Indiana, Mississippi, Hawaii, and now Tennessee) within a 30-day period.
Rather than being recognized as a trend; rather that noting that this represents a concerted and highly organized attack on the 2nd Amendment; the NRA has decided to report this as an isolated incident.
Is it possible that the NRA is unaware that similar bills have been presented in (at least) five other states?
(Note: Other states may be, and probably are, subject to the same or similar bills. I'm just one man, it's impossible for me to track the bills introduced to ALL state legislatures. Is the NRA capable of identifying only ONE attack on the 2nd Amendment, while I, a lone and independent blogger have so far identified SIX similar assaults? We who are members of the NRA ... however reluctantly ... are capable of independent internet searches. Hey, NRA! For Minimum Wages, I will be happy to find and identify states which have presented similar bills, which you with your multi-million dollar annual budget seem unable to find or address.)
WTF is WRONG with the NRA, your First Line of Defense?
My guess: if it doesn't directly support an established Fund-Raising Activity, they really don't give a shit.
_______________________________________-
Back to the issue at hand: the Tennessee bill on "Encoded Ammunition:"
Referring to the links supplied by the NRA:
Tennessee Bill SB3395:
- Is essentially the same (see the text) as the Mississippi bill referenced in a previous post, with minor differences in detail:
- The bill is known as the "Ammunition Accountability Act";
- There is a minimal attempt to justify the bill in terms of ".. quickly [identifying] persons of interest in gun crime investigations" ... which is a refreshing change from the majority of bills of this type, which typically don't even make this cursory effort to justify the unreasonable and unsupportable reason for presenting such legislation;
- The deadline for Encoded Ammunition being presented for sale is ONE YEAR (January 1, 2009);
- The deadline for "non-coded" (as opposed to "noncoded" [sic] as proposed in the Mississippi bill) is January 1, 2010;
- The data to be recorded is similar to the Mississippi bill ... almost word-for-word;
- Rather than penalties for non-compliance for "manufacturers" to be $1000 for the first offense, $5000 for the second offense, and %10,000 for the third offense, the penalties for non-compliance for "manufacturers" will be $1000 for the first offense and $5000 for the second and subsequent offenses.
- ____________________________
What is the NRA doing about this?
Nothing.
According to their last emailed member notification, this is the extent of their concerns:
___________________________________________________
ILLINOIS: Gun Rights Under Assault in Cook County! As we reported previously, Cook County is currently considering two anti-gun proposals that must be defeated! First, the Safe Streets/Weapons Registration Ordinance requires the registration of all firearms and firearm owners in the county. As written, it is an outright gun ban and prohibits the transport of a firearm in your vehicle unless the firearm is "broken down in a nonfunctioning state." The other proposed ordinance would amend the county's "Deadly Weapon Dealers Ordinance" to completely ban all gun shows within the county, and prohibits federally licensed dealers from operating within 10 miles of one another. Please contact the Cook County Board of Commissioners today and respectfully urge them to oppose these ordinances. Contact information for the Board can be found by clicking here.
MARYLAND: De Facto Gun Registration Scheme Proposed! On Tuesday, February 26, the House Judiciary Committee and the House Ways & Means Committee have scheduled a hearing to consider House Bill 517. HB517 would require ammunition manufacturers to encode a serial number on all ammunition for regulated firearms (handguns and "assault weapons") sold in the state. Shotgun ammunition is exempted. The bill would also create an intrusive database of ammunition purchasers, including the name, date of birth, driver's license number, serial number of ammunition purchased, and "any other information the Secretary (of State Police) considers necessary" would be compiled. Please contact the members of the House Judiciary Committee and the House Ways & Means Committee and respectfully urge them to oppose this onerous attack on our privacy and Second Amendment rights. Contact information can be found by clicking here.
MISSISSIPPI: Two Bills Introduced to Protect Ranges! Earlier this week, two bills were proposed in the Mississippi Legislature that would expand the scope of protection for shooting ranges and gun club facilities within the state. Senate Bill 2466 and House Bill 346 would prohibit local governments from placing restrictions on existing shooting ranges by prohibiting any new laws or ordinances from being enacted. Please contact your State Legislators and respectfully urge them to support both SB 2466 and HB 346 once they are assigned hearing dates within their referred committees. Contact information can be found here.
{skip}
___________________________________________________
That's right. Similar bills have been introduced in (to my personal knowledge) Maryland, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Mississippi and Tennessee within the past 30 days, and the text of the bills have been essentially identical. Yet although the NRA has specifically addressed "New Legislation in half of these states in their recent Alerts, only in Tennessee have they noticed that the "Encoded Ammunition" bills have been introduced in January, 2008. They seem not to have noticed that this is a recurring theme, nor have the noticed that it is evidence (six states out of 50, in one month, with boiler-plate text modified only by 'local' concerns) text.
Again, I do NOT have the resources to track legislation in all 50 states, but I have incidentally identified bills in six of 50 states, without even trying.
What has the NRA done for you here?
Please discontinue your NRA membership, and sign on to my personal "I Will Tell You What Crap The Anti-gunners Are Visiting Upon You" website. Send me whatever the NRA has charged you for annual membership.
I will do a better job of identifying 2nd Amendment threats than the NRA. I will tell you first, I will give you the details, and I will not confuse you with secondary issues such as "Let's Force Your Boss to Let You Carry A Gun In Your Car In The Company Parking Lot" issues.
Oh, by the way: I won't mount a national campaign to proselytize issues which you don't care about. But I WILL do a much better job of keeping you informed about bullshit national campaigns by the anti-gun forces to undermine your 2nd Amendment rights.
Encoded Ammunition: Hawaii
According to an article in Knowledge Is Power, Hawaii has also introduced a bill requiring "Encoded Ammunition". (The link takes you to the "Hawaii Reporter", which cites the NRA as the original source and encourages readers to "... [p]lease contact the members of the House Judiciary Committee and respectfully urge them to protect the Second Amendment rights of Hawaii’s law-abiding gun owners by opposing HB2392."
________________________________________________________________
This represents the fifth state bill pertaining to "encoding ammunition" presented to a state legislature within the month of January, 2008.
The text of the bill is, in most respects, almost identical to that presented in the Mississippi state legislature during this time period.
A personal note: even before I had become aware that this bill had been proposed in Hawaii, I had begun to suspect that these bills were not being independently proposed. That is, the verbiage included in the bills includes so many similarities that it is beyond reason to presume that legislators in each of the FIVE states (Maryland, Indiana Illinois, Mississippi, and now Hawaii) woke up one morning and were struck with the thought that "Hey, I think I'll introduce a bill requiring that my state should allow only 'encoded ammunition' to be sold!"
I had expected to find some reference to this ex parte proposal on the websites of The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (HCI), the Violence Policy Center, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, or the Americans for Gun Safety (a broken link ... have they FINALLY 'gone under'?). Not entirely surprisingly, I found no NGO websites openly taking credit for, or acknowledging the accomplishment of a similar 'sister organization' which may have organized this assault of American 2nd Amendment Rights.
Just because you're paranoid, that doesn't mean they aren't out to get you!
Not only is the verbiage an indication of collusion, but the timing is also suspect. Every bill was introduced within a 3-week period.
This leads me to believe that a 'central source' is providing a package of gun control verbiage to state legislators across the nation. This include the text of a basic law, with hints about how it could be tailored to fit the cultural context unique to each state ... while still following the basic construct of a law which would make it financially difficult for any honest citizen to conform to the onerous requirements of the law.
Common threads to these bills [which generally reflect the stated purpose of the "Microcoding of Ammunition" law enacted in California in 2007 (October 15, 2007: Schwartzenegger signs handgun microstamp bill) ... note that this California law requires handguns to 'microstamp' information onto the base of cartridges, NOT that the ammunition must include an 'encoded' serial number on the bullet!] include:
To my surprise, Hawaii has protested against this bill in a "Testimony" (February 1, 2008) authored by "Mark J. Bennett, Attorney General or Lance M. Goto, Deputy Attorney General"
In this Testimony, the following comments are significant:
For details of the bill, go here. The discerning reader will note similarities to the Mississippi bill (full-text version), except that some lip-service has been paid in Hawaii to tax relief which the sponsors apparently felt were necessary to protect retailers in Hawaii.
UPDATE: February 3, 2008:
In case I neglected to mention it, Maryland introduced a similar bill.
________________________________________________________________
This represents the fifth state bill pertaining to "encoding ammunition" presented to a state legislature within the month of January, 2008.
The text of the bill is, in most respects, almost identical to that presented in the Mississippi state legislature during this time period.
A personal note: even before I had become aware that this bill had been proposed in Hawaii, I had begun to suspect that these bills were not being independently proposed. That is, the verbiage included in the bills includes so many similarities that it is beyond reason to presume that legislators in each of the FIVE states (Maryland, Indiana Illinois, Mississippi, and now Hawaii) woke up one morning and were struck with the thought that "Hey, I think I'll introduce a bill requiring that my state should allow only 'encoded ammunition' to be sold!"
I had expected to find some reference to this ex parte proposal on the websites of The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (HCI), the Violence Policy Center, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, or the Americans for Gun Safety (a broken link ... have they FINALLY 'gone under'?). Not entirely surprisingly, I found no NGO websites openly taking credit for, or acknowledging the accomplishment of a similar 'sister organization' which may have organized this assault of American 2nd Amendment Rights.
Just because you're paranoid, that doesn't mean they aren't out to get you!
Not only is the verbiage an indication of collusion, but the timing is also suspect. Every bill was introduced within a 3-week period.
This leads me to believe that a 'central source' is providing a package of gun control verbiage to state legislators across the nation. This include the text of a basic law, with hints about how it could be tailored to fit the cultural context unique to each state ... while still following the basic construct of a law which would make it financially difficult for any honest citizen to conform to the onerous requirements of the law.
Common threads to these bills [which generally reflect the stated purpose of the "Microcoding of Ammunition" law enacted in California in 2007 (October 15, 2007: Schwartzenegger signs handgun microstamp bill) ... note that this California law requires handguns to 'microstamp' information onto the base of cartridges, NOT that the ammunition must include an 'encoded' serial number on the bullet!] include:
- A short time span during which the law is to be enacted ... typically within 6 months to one year of introduction of the bill;
- Only "Encoded Ammunition" may be sold in the state within 6 months of introduction of the bill;
- Only "Encoded Ammunition" may be OWNED in the state within 12 months of introduction of the bill;
- Penalties for ownership of "noncoded" [sic] ammunition to be $1000 fine for vendors (or private citizens") after stated deadlines;
- Penalties for manufacture of "noncoded" [sic] ammunition to be $1000 fine for "manufacturers" of ammunition after stated deadlines for the first offense, $5000 for the second offense, $10,000 for the third offense;
- No definition of "Manufacturer", no provision to protect those who "hand load" or "reload" their own ammunition, no reason why private citizens who reload their own ammunition should not be considered as a "Manufacturer" of ammunition within this law;
- No provision for delay of enaction of the law, or for delays of penalties under the law, if circumstances preclude development of technology which would definitively support this law, or if problems developed in finding a vendor which can reliably or accurately (or economically!) perform the "encoding" of ammunition;
- Imposition of a tax (from 5 cents to 0.005 cents per round) imposed on purchase of "encoded ammunition", purported to support the infrastructure necessary to fund a 'database' or 'tracking system' to be developed by the state to record ammunition transfers;
- No provision to fund, or establish, a method of Enforcement of this law or, otherwise a process to restrict draconian measures to enforce the law.
To my surprise, Hawaii has protested against this bill in a "Testimony" (February 1, 2008) authored by "Mark J. Bennett, Attorney General or Lance M. Goto, Deputy Attorney General"
In this Testimony, the following comments are significant:
The Department of the Attorney General respectfully opposes this measure.The concept of a bill which is "... unduly burdensome ..." may be foreign to some state legislators, but apparently it is not inconceivable to the Attorney General of Hawaii. Although the firearms ownership restrictions in Hawaii are often more strict ... or restrictive ... than those which are prevalent in other states, the Hawaiian Attorney General's Office seems to know a Bad Bill when he sees one. We applaud both gentlemen for their reluctance to impose a Bad Bill upon their fellow citizens, and note that the bill has been 'deferred', which is the bureaucratic equivalent of saying "Talk To The Hand!"
The purpose of this bill is to require all ammunition of specified caliber manufactured or sold in Hawaii that is capable of use in handguns, including assault pistols, to be coded to assist law enforcement in identifying and prosecuting offenders who use firearms in the commission of crimes. The bill also requires the Department of the Attorney General to establish a statewide database to track coded ammunition.
While the concept of maintaining a database to enable law enforcement to trace ammunition used in the commission of heinous crimes back to a certain criminal is a commendable one, we believe there are legal and practical problems presented by this bill that prevent the workable implementation of such a concept. This bill may be an instance where a firearm measure is unduly burdensome.
For details of the bill, go here. The discerning reader will note similarities to the Mississippi bill (full-text version), except that some lip-service has been paid in Hawaii to tax relief which the sponsors apparently felt were necessary to protect retailers in Hawaii.
UPDATE: February 3, 2008:
In case I neglected to mention it, Maryland introduced a similar bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)