Ammunition Ban

[Ron61]

This is way to long to put here, but all gun owners should read the May issue of American Rifleman, starting on page 15. Thirteen states, Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Washington have bills pending to prohibit the sale and manufacture of ammunition unless the cartridge cases are marked with a code and registered to the owners in a computerized data base. Also all ammunition now owned under these bills must be turned in with no compensation at all. Senator Ted Kennedy is making pushing the stupid California law that in 2010 all guns must imprint on any fired bullet a code identifying the gun. Congress is trying to get a bill that would virtually make any type of ammunition come under the class of armor piercing and ban it. Ted Kennedy seems to think that if no one is allowed to own ammunition, then that is as good as a ban on guns.
So I urge all of you gun owners who want to be able to use them in another three years to start looking at what your state is doing. And get a copy of the above mentioned magazine and read the whole article.

Ron

[AMF]

No need to worry, it amounts to gun registration and will eventually get squashed by a higher court (if it passes).

These kinds of things have been tried many times before and they always fail (eventually).

Our lawmakers never cease to amaze me....in how stupid they think we are.

If I was intent on doing something criminal (with a firearm), do they REALLY think I'd be dumb enough to use "registered" ammunition?

Once again it only punishes (or hinders) the law abiding citizens. If you're a criminal, it's not like you're going to give a second thought to murdering someone with illegal ammunition.

Personally, I could support background checks for ammunition sales, but not registration. I don't mind having to do a background check to purchase a gun, I fully support it. I just don't like the idea of "registration."

[Ron61]

Just for those with your heads up your Ass** that think this won't go anywhere. California AB 2062, which our Governor has already said he will sign as quickly as they can get it on his desk. This crap of, Oh the people won't let it happen is just that. The people no longer have any say in what laws are passed. The only thing that will help us is if the term limits run out on Kevin De Leon before he can push this all the way through but it is already nearly ready for the final vote and he has enough support to get it to the Governor. Next step will be the banning of all guns which can shoot the same ammunition as a rifle. That is already being written as I type this. That way they can do away with several caliber guns and rifles at the same time. Also for the people that think they are safe because they live in another state, think again. Now a 22 rifle is considered a Sniper Rifle in the next round of bills, so that will take anything more than a pellet gun away. Just remember that what they get away with in this state comes to your states. I spent 4 hours last night at a safety/qualification class talking to people from Sacramento and other areas who are very familiar with what is going on and this is coming.

Ron

[SPF2245]

I'm curious how the bill deals with the actual marking of the bullets...seems like another left field attempt to get re-election votes by supporting/creating a bill with no hope of ever being passed just due to technical problems. I will say this, it would be nice to be able to go to a drive-by shooting crime scene, collect the shell cases...run the code on the case...and arrest the idiot who bought the bullets. But, that won't happen in my lifetime...

[AMF]

Originally Posted by SPF2245

I'm curious how the bill deals with the actual marking of the bullets...seems like another left field attempt to get re-election votes by supporting/creating a bill with no hope of ever being passed just due to technical problems. I will say this, it would be nice to be able to go to a drive-by shooting crime scene, collect the shell cases...run the code on the case...and arrest the idiot who bought the bullets. But, that won't happen in my lifetime...

Well said about the political aspect.

As far as actual effectiveness against stopping crime.....it's a long shot.

The problem becomes one of legacy. Even if you wanted to have everyone register their guns and their ammo and their knives and whatever, you have millions of each out there right now that are unaccounted for.

It's not like a criminal is going to walz into Wal-Mart, pass a background check and walz out to go to his drive by shooting.

If criminals can't get unregistered bullets legally, what makes anyone think they'd think twice about buying them illegally? Again, it only punishes the law abiding citizen and has little to no effect on the criminal.

There have been some proposals from time to time like this, and they all fail, either because of constitutional issues or implimentation. There was a proposal that all guns that are manufactured or sold in the US have to have ballistics registration..(and that those registrations be accessible to law enforcement efforts), but that's been squashed.

It's no different than On-Star or any of the other in vehicle assistance services provided nowadays. If that stuff ever became admissable in a court venue, you'd see every car buyer out there drop that crap immediately.

It amounts to an unjustified invasion of privacy. Banning something altogether has it's contsitutional challenges.

In the end, I think the decentralization of the Federal Government is working. I welcome it. If you're gay and you want to get married....fine, move to California or Mass. If you want to live in a place where only the criminals have guns...move to Cali or Mass. If you want to live someplace where they make kids say the pledge of allegiance and the state capital has the ten commandmants out front, move to the South. It's easy.

I would never move to Cali simply based on the fact that I own a .50 rifle. (among other things). Some people might not move to conservative states because they have no marital recognition (or tax breaks). Fine with me.

[Ron61]

SPF,

They want to make the guns use micro marking, but any person with an emery board can get rid of that in 30 seconds. Also as you probably well know, after shooting a gun for a long time, wear will destroy the micro marking anyway. Also what happens if you have one that does mark it that is working and you are shooting at the range. Here you leave the brass and they collect it at the end of the day. So I pick up some of yours and another persons and go commit a crime and toss your brass there. Who do you think they are going to come after? And some ammunition company has already jumped on the bandwagon saying they can make ammunition that the micro stamping will work on.
Another thing that came up last night which has been kept out of the press was a series of murders in the San Diego area, all committed with a 357 Magnum. Trouble was, none of the ballistics could match any two bullets to the same weapon so the figured they had more than one killer. Finally after some people described a vehicle they saw leaving the scene of a couple of the crimes, they arrested a guy and he had a 357 Magnum. Trouble was, it didn't match any of the bullets from the victims. For basically immunity as they really didn't have enough to convict him on he told them what he did. And I have the same thing I can do with my Browning DBM 9M. After each shooting he would change the barrel and throw the used one into a river.

Ron

[SPF2245]

Ron,
I understand all too well the problems with ballistics (comes with the job...), I have seen a couple (two) cases destroyed because of ballistics (lands/groves failed to match the gun to the bullit when I believe there wasn't enough bullet left to even attempt to process...but my DA thought better, and the failed match read like a bad b-movie script in front of a jury). But, I will say, removing a barrel or even better just the firing pin and extractor will do wonders for destroying a ballistic based case in most examples I delt with, but most of the criminal element causing the majority of crimes isn't smart enough to know that...a micro S/N on a shell would be a nice start to ask questions (if it leads no where...then I'm back to where I was today on a case with no witnesses).
As for re-loads...I've yet to see one used in a crime where the ballistic evidence was used to "prove" the case...ie, we had enough without it. And most thugs don't shoot re-loads in my area...thank god.

AMF- All good points, however, the criminal element which I'm used to spending most of my time isn't that smart (much like me) and believe my experience in this...one killer off the streets would be worth seeing if something useful could be developed without the abuse of loosing our right to own firearms. Again, I'd be curious to see the technicals on the artical...guess I'm going shopping for a new magazine tonight.

[Ron61]

SPF,

Another point to this knee jerk reaction. The honest people that own guns have no objection to trying to improve any way to slow down the crime rate. But I can go to any city here, San Francisco comes to mind as I have seen it in the past, and within an hour have any type of gun I want, including a Uzi, AR-16 or whatever and all of the ammunition I want. Most of the few murders they do actually solve in this area are from these type guns that are bought from illegal, under the table garbage that gets them from the military or steals them and alters them. Or someone just breaks into a place and steals a few guns, uses them for a crime and throws them away. I don't know why as there isn't a lot up here for major crime unless you count the meth labs and marijuana business, but now unless someone murders the son or daughter of a local politician it doesn't even make the front pages of the paper. When I first came here, if anyone broke into a store or home it was front page news. I just don't see how this ammunition micro marking mess is going to do anything but cost people a lot of money. The people doing the crime need to be held responsible with more than a slap on the wrist as that would do more to deter it than taking away guns and ammo from people who don't do them. I just don't think banning guns from honest people is going to help or do anything but raise the crime rate as then the bad guys know that they can break into any place and the people there can't defend themselves.

Ron

[SPF2245]

Ron,
I agree banning guns is the wrong solution, I believe there are enough laws on the books (too bad many are not enforced by the courts), to some degree I can agree with the micro marking causing some pain for the average joe, but I also can see a small glimmer of hope of something to give law enforcement a lead in many cases without any. Even if it's just the victim of a residential burglary who's gun had been stolen and used in a crime...there may be latent prints there. I will agree many guns are just dumped after being used in crimes, but some are not and I can sadly say many guns used in crimes were not reported stolen by the original owners. The worst fact happened two days ago, a gun owner had his handgun stolen from his car. Guess what he provided me for information? "Uh, sir...it was a silver .38". He didn't know the make, model, S/N...hell he didn't even keep the information anywhere...so, there is another gun which is floating around that a criminal has but isn't entered into NCIC (meaning on when he caught with it...it won't show up as stolen). My point, we as gun owners need to be responsible and evaluate any new technology that may keep guns in our hands and help catch those who use them in crimes.

I guess my only problem will be no more bulk deals on Russian fodder for my evil assault rifles...

[Ron61]

SPF,

I agree and you make good and valid points. My guns are registered in two places along with the serial numbers, date I got them, and any other information that would be needed to identify them. Also if one were stolen I would be immediately reporting it as so as soon as I found it gone. The problem with micro marking is it won't last long if the gun is used much. And the firing pin can have that mark removed in a few seconds with an emery board or even just replace the pin. I kind of liked the idea they were kicking around about making the guns where they could only be fired by the owner but I think that has been dropped as to expensive and they hadn't really perfected the technology. Also it could hurt the police if one was hurt and another had to use that person weapon to defend themselves, then they would be out of luck. Personal responsibility, safety, and common sense is what is most stressed in our classes. And as for the changing of the barrel, I can change mine in about 15 seconds, so that would throw off any ballistics if I wanted to use mine to commit a crime. The sad case is, crooks are going to get weapons no matter how many laws and safe guards are passed and only the honest people are going to be hurt if they take away any means for them to defend themselves.

Ron