|
"Officer, I was in fear for my life"
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MooseMan3000
Not according to the article. I'm going by what I've got, here. Where did you read that it's in the Senate? I'd like to read the article, if you have it.
|
Bullet Serialization Bill Advanced
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Don_Thompson
SACRAMENTO (AP) -- A proposal to put a serial number on every handgun bullet passed a Senate committee Tuesday and law enforcement officials said they hoped the novel effort would spread to other states.
The measure cleared the Senate Public Safety Committee Tuesday on a 4-2 vote over opposition from sportsmen, firearms dealers and manufacturers who said it is impractical and would harm law-abiding citizens.
The technology now exists to laser-cut each bullet with a serial number, said Sen. Joseph Dunn, D-Garden Grove, who is carrying the bill. Police would immediately be able to trace who purchased bullets used in crimes.
Purchasers would pay up to a halfpenny per bullet to fund record-keeping by the state Department of Justice on every handgun-caliber bullet made or sold in California. Vendors would pay up to $50 a year to register. Rifle ammunition would be exempted, though some calibers are used in both handguns and long guns.
''We'll solve a lot of crimes if this becomes law,'' said Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who supported the bill. ''This proposal is kind of like DNA science applied to ballistics.''
He acknowledged criminals could find ways around the law, but said milk, medicine, soda cans and most other things sold in stores have identification numbers.
''Why not bullets?'' he said.
Lawrence Keane, general counsel of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute Inc., said American manufacturers produce 8 billion bullets a year, 15 million a day. They would have to either stop selling in California or rebuild ammunition plants at a cost of hundred of millions of dollars, he said, disputing far lower cost estimates by proponents.
U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, who chairs the U.S. House Armed Services Committee, fears the measure would also harm police and the military who would be exempted but get their ammunition from the same factories.
Hunter sent Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger a letter Monday warning of the impact on manufacturers and what he called a resulting threat to national security.
A manufacturers' representative said the proposed system is impractical, while an ammunition distributor and firing range owner said they feared the bill would put them out of business. Republicans on the committee were skeptical and voted against it.
The law would take effect in July 2007, giving gun owners enough time to use existing bullets, Dunn said.
But Gerald Upholt, a lobbyist for the California Rifle and Pistol Association, said law-abiding citizens would be stuck with millions of rounds of ammunition.
Lockyer, who plans to seek the Democratic nomination for governor next year, had considered identification systems similar to ones in Maryland and New York that record the unique markings each gun makes when it fires a bullet.
He said such a system was impractical because so many guns are sold in California. Lockyer concluded that a national tracking system made more sense.
Dunn said the California proposal is the first step toward a national system.
|
Quote:
|
So they custom make one shell (and bullet) to go in the box with the same serial number as the other ones in that box. That's what I meant when I originally posted. It's still not hard to do.
|
Hard, no. Time consuming, yes. You will either have to stop all production, or have a second machine sitting around specifically for the purpose of custom making a round. Once engraved, the custom bullet and case would have to be assembled seperately to ensure it made it back to the original box.
Quote:
|
Two things. First, it's not a personal computer running Windows ME. If it was, I'd agree with you. It's a ocmputer designed for exactly one purpose - they don't fuck up as often. Second, more importantly, it's not like the laser is going to be anywhere NEAR the powder. The casing and the bullet get engraved BEFORE the bullet is assembled. Only an idiot would do that near the actual propellant. I think the point of having a laser on the factory floor is moot, because it would take major human retardation for it to be a safety concern. If basic precaution is taken (say, having the laser engraving machine in a different room from the powder?), there's no danger.
|
I'll agree on the common sense protion of what you said, but this brings up another point. Once the bullet and casing are engraved, they must remain together. You would not be able to mass produce a thousand rounds at a time just by filling a hopper with brass and a hopper with bullets.
Quote:
|
Like I said - regulate that practice. Introduce ammunition recycling programs, run by the manufacturers themselves. That way, you both know which serials go into a new box, and revenue for the manufacturer goes up. Of course there's overhead - which is why I think this should be a federally funded (or at least assisted) venture. This is one of the things I was talking about when I said "this proposal needs a lot of work."
|
A lot of people who are in this business don't have the funds for this. There used to be a local company that I bought ammo from. They ran the business out of their house. Bought brass casings from company A and bullets from company B. This type of business would not be able to continue if the current bill passed.
Quote:
|
I did read about the Brandon Maxfield situation, and I think the family had a very good case. The gun couldn't be unloaded with the safety catch on. That is a major design flaw, one which causes a severe safety hazard. Obviously most of the fault lies with the family and (especially) the babysitter. But that doesn't mean the gun manufacturer shouldn't be held responsible for their faulty design. However, this is a different situation (a gun manufacturer versus an ammo manufacturer), and this discussion is for another thread, anyway.
|
Personally I think the only case should have been against the babysitter. Many revlovers don't even have a safety catch. It's only faulty if it doesn't work as advertised. Safety hazard, in the wrong hands, yes. Anyway, probably better to agree to disagree on this point and move on for this thread.
Quote:
|
I agree that having the ballistics database would be more effective than the serialization, but I think having both couldn't hurt. I was under the impression (obviously, I was wrong) that most states already required the spent shell casings to be submitted after a gun is purchased. However, this is also costly, which is the main argument against serialization. Both of the cost money. Does that mean they're bad ideas? No.
|
Only a handful of states require a spent shell casing. Yes, this also costs money as does everything. I think in the long run it is cheeper to do this than the serialization. And if it is federal, then the manufacturer could submit the spent casing at the time of completed assembly and testing passing a small cost (compared to the assumed cost of serialization) on to the purchaser (instead of everyone).
Quote:
It also has many similar pitfalls - for example, what about black market arms? They aren't registered, so how does it help? As I stated before, I think that's a poor argument against a law; my point is that the problem exists for either system.
And like I said before, I don't know whether serialization is a good idea. My main point is that most of the arguments against it are irrelevant, and it really comes down to the money.
|
I agree that it mostly comes down to money. Money that both you and I will have to spend as consumers. If this is put into effect in CA and manufacturers adopt this principle, they aren't going to just up the price in CA, the price will go up for everyone. I personally don't want to have to pay extra because of a CA law. The above article from the AP even states that they want this to become a federal project not just a state project. |