Another Reason Not To Live in California

[hrdwareguy]

Linky

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer is in the process of submitting a proposal to the California legislature to mandate that any handgun bullets and their cartridges manufactured, imported and sold in the state be engraved with a serial number. The stated goal of this proposal is to match bullets or their casings recovered at a crime scene with the purchaser of the ammunition. Although this idea sounds laudable in theory, it is totally unworkable in reality. If California passes this legislation, it threatens to bankrupt any ammunition manufacturer that attempts to comply with the legislation, would most likely force an end to all ammunition sales within the state—including those to law enforcement, and because of the nature of the ammunition market, would cripple the ability of our armed forces and law enforcement to procure domestically manufactured handgun ammunition.

The proposal being considered requires that:

* All handgun ammunition cartridges manufactured, imported, sold at retail or possessed in the state have a serial number laser engraved on the bottom of the bullet (projectile) and on the inside of the cartridge casing;
* All cartridges contained in a box of handgun ammunition must bear the same unique serial number;
* All packaging would bear the serial number for the cartridges contained in that box and that each box of handgun ammunition and the cartridges contained therein would have a unique serial number; and
* We understand that under this scheme licensed retail firearms dealers would be required to record the identity of the purchasers and the serial number of the ammunition to be housed in a government-run database.

The ammunition industry in the U.S. dates back centuries. Each year U.S. manufacturers produce over 8 billion rounds of ammunition. The manufacturing processes of today that takes a lead ingot and casts it into a bullet, and a copper bar that is made into a cartridge, the loading of powder, mating of the bullet and cartridge, then finally packaged is sophisticated, highly automated and geared towards mass production to reduce costs and increase production. Any proposal that would slow this process down to serialize individual rounds would result in hundreds of millions of dollars in costs to manufacturers and the reengineering and redesign of most equipment used in the ammunition manufacturing process. Simply put, it is impossible for manufacturers to comply with the California proposal and remain economically competitive.

Why This Is Not Just a California Issue

In the firearms and ammunition industry, the civilian market supports research, development and sales to our military services and law enforcement. Unlike rifle ammunition, all pistol ammunition purchased by the armed forces and law enforcement comes from civilian manufacturers. By themselves, these markets are too small to support the extremely high volume necessary for ammunition manufacturers to stay in business. California is one of the largest markets for handgun ammunition manufacturers in the country. If manufacturers were forced to abandon the California market, many could face bankruptcy, and our armed forces, homeland security, and state and local law enforcement would suddenly find themselves facing dramatically increased costs for their ammunition. This would curtail training, reduce target practice and leave our armed forces personnel and law enforcement vulnerable on the battlefield and on America’s streets.

The Proposal

The California proposal being Attorney General Lockyer is based on technology under limited development and testing by Ravensforge Skateboard Solutions (www.ravensforge.com), a company that specializes in products to prevent damage by roller blades and skateboards. To our knowledge Ravensforge has not consulted with any firearms manufacturer on incorporating this technology into ammunition manufacturing. It appears Ravensforge is seeking to be a “sole source” provider of this technology and creating a monopoly for itself through legislative fiat.

Problems with this technology in the manufacturing process include the following:

* Huge Costs: It would cost hundreds of millions of dollars for firearms manufacturers to completely redesign their production facilities to incorporate the laser engraving bullets and casings;
* Economically Impossible: It is not possible with the equipment available today to serialize bullets or cases under Attorney General Lockyer’s proposed scheme. For example, serializing the base of the bullet and interior of the case would have to occur after each component has been manufactured and passed through many—though not all—steps in the quality control process, but before the bullet, case, primer and powder are assembled into a single round. However, after the round is assembled, it might be rejected as it undergoes final quality control measures (e.g., powder charge weight, inverted primer, dents, blemishes) that can force its removal from a particular lot. Removing one round would force pulling an entire box (ammunition is typically sold in 50 round boxes) since you cannot sell a 50 round box with 49 rounds. Also, SAAMI standards recommend testing across an entire product run for test firing, thereby interrupting serial number sequence and adding even more costs to the process;
* Safety Concerns Abound: The presence of a laser on the assembly line process close to propellant could be an explosives hazard. For example, standard safety precautions prohibit camera flashes on the factory floor;
* Packing and Tracking: A large ammunition factory typically produces over 8 million rounds of ammunition/day. There is simply no other way to guarantee that sequential numbers would be packed in an identically numbered box other than through human packing. It would take literally hundreds of workers to hand pack this volume of ammunition, thereby making this process a non-starter. Tracking and registering the purchasers of hundreds of millions of ammunition boxes would cost tens of tens millions of dollars in store employee staff time, computer infrastructure, and additional government workers. Moreover, leading manufacturers will produce over 1,600 different ammunition varieties (many calibers multiplied by different bullet weights) on a daily basis. Again, volume and speed of the manufacturing process prohibit the possibility of serializing without slowing output to a virtual trickle, thereby driving up prices to the point where a box of ammunition will be prohibitively expensive.

No Proven Law Enforcement Benefits

To our knowledge, there is not one, independent, study that has been produced demonstrating any value in serialization. In fact, the enormous costs to implement such a system would draw funds away from proven crime fighting initiatives. Moreover, loopholes exist in the proposal that render it ineffective. These include, but are not limited to, the following:

* To date, home re-loaders are exempt from the plan, thereby offering criminals easy access to unmarked ammunition;
* A round of ammunition can be disassembled, its markings removed, then reassembled;
* A revolver can be used in the commission of a crime, thereby leaving no spent shell casing if it is discharged; and
* Spent shell casings can be collected from target ranges and reloaded (a common practice), thereby effectively masking ownership; and
* Those determined to procure unmarked ammunition will purchase it from out of state or on the black market.

Conclusion

A significant portion of the California legislature has been hostile to the firearms industry. If the serialization proposal is taken up and passed to further an anti-gun agenda, the repercussions will be felt across the country. In the end, it could result in the bankruptcy of the U.S. ammunition industry, the destruction of a critical component of our defense industrial base, force the military and law enforcement to curtail training and become dependent on foreign sources of ammunition, and send the cost of a box of bullets well beyond what most could pay.

OK, this is just California trying to enforce their will on the rest of the United States. I for one don't like the idea of being a criminal just because the ammo that I have stored in my closet (that I have had for 10 years) doesn't have a serial number on/in it. That's just crazy.

Also, look at the exemptions, reloaders are exempt. Well now, that just means you buy your brass someplace else, reload then go shoot someone with it. I know, I know, crooks aren't going to take the time to reload their own. But still, they could.

Can you imagine all the ammunintion companies having to retool to buy one of these laser ingravers. I wonder how much stock Lockyer has in Revensforge. So the consumer is going to have to pay more to fund this, more for the bullets to pay for the retooling, more for the bullet in general because more brass will have to be used in the caseing wall. If you cut a serial number into the wall of the casing, that is going to be a week spot, no matter how small the ingraving.

I see this as to much of a PITA. If this passes, ammo manufacturers should just say fuck it and pull out of Cali.

[longbough]

I heard of this proposal a couple of months ago, and made the mistake of dismissing it as impossible because the whole notion was so blatantly impractical, ill-conceived, useless and just plain ludicrous.

It's the last time I'll make that mistake.

I don't think it's framers really believe that it'd make it easier to track criminals. The whole purpose is to create a mechanism whereby it would be possible to file lawsuits against ammunition manufacturers in addition to gun manufacturers for crimes committed with firearms.

The whole impetus behind this gun/ammo maker witchhunt is to emulate the lucritive legal campaigns against the tobbacco manufacturers. Basically extortion for settlement costs.

These are sad times.

[kinsaj]

I'm outa here first chance I get... so many damn laws that make no sense and add insane restrictions. I'd be gone earlier if my current situation allowed it. Though I do realize that is not really an excuse.

[MSD]

I read something yesterday (I'll try to find it) about a guy who wanted to put specially marked stainless steel rods into every bullet that could be identified by scanners manufactured by his company. Apparently nobody told him that a 2-3mm wide stainless steel rod would turn any bullet into an armor-penetrating round.

[hrdwareguy]

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

I read something yesterday (I'll try to find it) about a guy who wanted to put specially marked stainless steel rods into every bullet that could be identified by scanners manufactured by his company. Apparently nobody told him that a 2-3mm wide stainless steel rod would turn any bullet into an armor-penetrating round.

LOL

That's kida like setting a cotter pin in a hollow point, cutting it fluch, filling with mercury, capping it, and then filing the top to make it all flush.

[qualhiveldorf]

I hate how California restricts its citizens so much. I want to move to wyoming or idaho someday just to get out of this mess.

[Lebell]

Dear God,

That is one of the stupidest things I've read in a long time.

I agree that the intent is probably gun control by default.

I would also say that it is impossible to imagine anyone taking this seriously, but then again we are talking about California.

[merkerguitars]

Wow, now thats something that would cause mass confusion. What a good way to make it a pain in the ass. And seriously do they really think they could make enough serial numbers for every single bullet?

[beejay]

This state is just pain insane... It's the same one that tried to require biometric gun locks a couple of years ago...

I gotta get out of here...

[MooseMan3000]

Alright... a couple of things.

1) This is not a law. It's not even in the legislature yet. It's the Attorney General, giving a proposal for something that might be considered to be voted on at some point in the future. It's not "California." It's one guy.

2) The article is a load of shit.

Removing one round would force pulling an entire box (ammunition is typically sold in 50 round boxes) since you cannot sell a 50 round box with 49 rounds. Also, SAAMI standards recommend testing across an entire product run for test firing, thereby interrupting serial number sequence and adding even more costs to the process

Since you obviously test rendomly anyway, you can clearly put one bullet back into the box from which you removed it. Adding a custom serial number would not be hard.

The presence of a laser on the assembly line process close to propellant could be an explosives hazard. For example, standard safety precautions prohibit camera flashes on the factory floor

It's not some guy writing each serial number by hand with a laser pointer. It's a robot. It's not like they slip and fuck up where the laser is pointing.

There is simply no other way to guarantee that sequential numbers would be packed in an identically numbered box other than through human packing.

...

Do I even need to explain this one? Well, since he said it, and nobody's mentioned it, I guess so.

BAR CODES. ELECTRONIC SCANNERS. They've existed for quite a while now. Fed-Ex and UPS use them to track individual packages. Supermarkets use them to track products. What the fuck is this guy thinking? "There is simply no other way." Did anyone else notice this, or am I the only one who read the entire article?

...tens of tens millions of dollars...

Some of us call those "hundreds." Am I to trust this guy's math? (Or grammar?) He gives no actual figures, no evidence for his sweeping claims that the price of the ammunition would skyrocket. But, of course, he doesn't need evidence, because California is bad.

To our knowledge, there is not one, independent, study that has been produced demonstrating any value in serialization.

Has there ever been such a study? Since no states require serialization of ammunition yet, why would there be a study?

To date, home re-loaders are exempt from the plan, thereby offering criminals easy access to unmarked ammunition

1) "To date." Bills get changed before they become laws. Read up on your legislative process.
2) Home reloaders generally keep their spent casings to (wait for it) reload them. They're still going to be registered to that person.
3) As hrdwareguy mentioned, most criminals won't bother reloading their own casings.

A round of ammunition can be disassembled, its markings removed, then reassembled;

See points 2 and 3 above. And add this one: most violent crimes are not premeditated. Very, very few people would stop to think to remove the marking before shooting someone with the bullet. Plus, as hrdwareguy also mentioned, where the serial number is will be a weak spot on the casing. If you scratch out the brass even further, who's to say the round will even fire correctly?

A revolver can be used in the commission of a crime, thereby leaving no spent shell casing if it is discharged

Yeah, but the bullet's still there. Oops, you forget that both parts have a serial?

Spent shell casings can be collected from target ranges and reloaded (a common practice), thereby effectively masking ownership

See point above about bullets. Or, this practice could be regulated.

Those determined to procure unmarked ammunition will purchase it from out of state or on the black market

Good point. Let's remove all regulations on everything, because criminals don't care anyway. Fuck, why do we have laws to begin with?

Originally Posted by hrdwareguy

I for one don't like the idea of being a criminal just because the ammo that I have stored in my closet (that I have had for 10 years) doesn't have a serial number on/in it. That's just crazy.

You wouldn't be. Ex Post Facto. You can't be charged for a crime that wasn't illegal when you did it.

Originally Posted by longbough

I don't think it's framers really believe that it'd make it easier to track criminals. The whole purpose is to create a mechanism whereby it would be possible to file lawsuits against ammunition manufacturers in addition to gun manufacturers for crimes committed with firearms.

Wow. I'm not even sure what to say to that. I'm one of the most cynical people I know (in case you hadn't noticed), but I have a really hard time swallowing that one.

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

Apparently nobody told him that a 2-3mm wide stainless steel rod would turn any bullet into an armor-penetrating round.

That is pretty funny.



Now that I'm done berating everyone... I don't necessarily agree with the proposal. Buit I absolutely don't agree with the article - nearly everything in it is circumstantial or arbitrary. His points have no evidence, and most of them are short sighted. I understand the article is by SAAMI, the people who should know the most about the subject. I won't, however, be convinced until I actually see the figures. Until I see the "studies." Don't forget that SAAMI has an economic stake in this, too.

If anyone thinks this post is meant to be a flame, it's not. I just can't stand it when something like this is written and people swallow it blindly - especially people whose opinions I generally respect. I'm not saying it's WRONG. Just that it's written and argued very poorly.


Now, to my actual opinion:

I think this proposal needs a lot of work, but I also think that if implemented correctly it could be very effective, for many reasons. There are studies showing who commits crimes, and the circumstances under which they're committed. Most violent crimes are committed by people who legally own the firearms, or by people who have stolen them from people who do. If it's the former, tracking the criminal becomes incredibly easy. If the latter, it clearly doesn't help as much, but it's another clue that could be used. Furthermore, if unmarked casings and bullets are used, that in itself can be used to help determine the owner of the gun.

What the article seems to me to be is an argument against change. This happens every time any sort of regulation is proposed. One could argue that a mandatory waiting period and background check for anyone who wants to buy a firearm are bad ideas, but one could just as well argue that the moon is made of cheese (which, by the way, it's not). Some regulations are good. Some are bad. Some we're not so sure on. But every time one is proposed, people cry out against them. The article is argued mostly from an economic standpoint (half-assed "Law Enforcement Benefits" section aside), and basically what it's saying is "we don't want to spend the money to implement a new system, so we're going to make up reasons that it wouldn't help anyway."

I could argue against the article for hours, because so many of the points are just inane, but I'm tired of it. It literally hurts my brain to read some of it, so I'm going to go take some ibuprofen and go to bed.

One last disclaimer: Feel free to argue with me, but I honestly don't care. You may think I'm a jackass, but that's alright with me. Conservatives have been hating me my entire life - I'm used to it. All I ask is that you think about what you say before you respond to me. That's it.

[teflonian]

Well, I think you are clearly a voice of reason MooseMan3000 and found your points very well thought out and constructive.

That said, I really don't have anything to add to the discussion on this proposed law, except that the knee jerk reaction of "those California wackos" really bugs me. California is a pretty large state with many many different viewpoints and political idealogies. There are some stupid laws on the books here in Cali I am sure, but I hardly doubt anyone will find any place to live where they don't have to put up with some legislation or local customs that goes against his/her grain. I once had a person ask me "What's it like living in California?" and the way she asked it made it sound like she believes there are a bunch of wild half-naked hippies smoking joints and wanking it on the streets. That view may be more true for say Berkeley (just kidding Berkeley love ya), but the area I live in is actually very conservative and tends to lean to the right politically.

[hrdwareguy]

It's not that hate you because I'm conservative, because I don't, however I will respond to your listed points:

Originally Posted by MooseMan3000

Alright... a couple of things.

1) This is not a law. It's not even in the legislature yet. It's the Attorney General, giving a proposal for something that might be considered to be voted on at some point in the future. It's not "California." It's one guy.

Actually, it is in the State Senate, and has been passed out of committee.

Since you obviously test rendomly anyway, you can clearly put one bullet back into the box from which you removed it. Adding a custom serial number would not be hard.

Yes, currently random testing is done. Random testing with the proposed legislation would be difficult. You aren't adding a custom serial number to a box, all 50 rounds in the box have to have the same serial number. That serial number is also printed on the outside of the box.

It's not some guy writing each serial number by hand with a laser pointer. It's a robot. It's not like they slip and fuck up where the laser is pointing.

Yep, it would be a robot, controlled by a computer. When was the last time your computer fucked up and didn't work right?

BAR CODES. ELECTRONIC SCANNERS. They've existed for quite a while now. Fed-Ex and UPS use them to track individual packages. Supermarkets use them to track products. What the fuck is this guy thinking? "There is simply no other way." Did anyone else notice this, or am I the only one who read the entire article?

Yes, bar codes have been around for a number of years. However, Fed-Ex and UPS use them to track individual packagas. Each package is unique. The legislation would require 50 (or 20 in a small box) rounds to have identical numbers and be packed into the same box. Since the number would be engraved on the inside of the case and the bottom of the bullet, how is it going to be read to sort it into the correct box?

Some of us call those "hundreds." Am I to trust this guy's math? (Or grammar?) He gives no actual figures, no evidence for his sweeping claims that the price of the ammunition would skyrocket. But, of course, he doesn't need evidence, because California is bad.

I read somewhere, apparently not in this article, the machines would run about $300,000. And I also have a problem with a company being the "sole source" of these machines (as claimed in the article).

Has there ever been such a study? Since no states require serialization of ammunition yet, why would there be a study?

I'm sure the manufactureres will be looking closely at this as this moves through the legislative process.

Yeah, but the bullet's still there. Oops, you forget that both parts have a serial?

Oops, yeah, misread that.

See point above about bullets. Or, this practice could be regulated.

What about people that reload and sell remanufactured ammo?

Good point. Let's remove all regulations on everything, because criminals don't care anyway. Fuck, why do we have laws to begin with?

Laws are like locks. They only keep honest people honest. I'm not saying there shouldn't be laws, but lets start enforcing existing laws instead of tacking on more and more legislation that restricts the already law abiding citizen.

Wow. I'm not even sure what to say to that. I'm one of the most cynical people I know (in case you hadn't noticed), but I have a really hard time swallowing that one.

Although I'm sure it's not the original intent, suing the bullet manufacturer will become easier. There have already been cases (in California) where manufacturers have been sued (and lost) for shootings. Google Brandon Maxfied for more information on this particular case. I could go on about this case, but that's for another thread.

Personally, I think a far better solution would be to have 1) A balistics database for every handgun and 2) A spent shell casing database on every handgun. It has been found that most handguns leave unique markings on the case when it is ejected. Some states already require a spent shell casing to be submitted after the purchase of a gun. Some manufacturers include a spent shell casing with the purchase of the handgun.

[MooseMan3000]

Originally Posted by hrdwareguy

Actually, it is in the State Senate, and has been passed out of committee.

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.

Yes, currently random testing is done. Random testing with the proposed legislation would be difficult. You aren't adding a custom serial number to a box, all 50 rounds in the box have to have the same serial number. That serial number is also printed on the outside of the box.

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.

Yep, it would be a robot, controlled by a computer. When was the last time your computer fucked up and didn't work right?

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.

What about people that reload and sell remanufactured ammo?

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."

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.

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.

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.

[Cynthetiq]

am I glad I moved out of Cali 15 years ago...

this is just nonsensical.

[hrdwareguy]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

[Gilda]

Getting 50 rounds with the same serial number and a test round from the same batch is pretty simple. Mark 51 rounds in a row, pack 50, take the extra to test fire or for quality control purposes.

Being able to track a bullet to the person who bought it seems to have good investigative use to me.

[hrdwareguy]

Originally Posted by Gilda

Getting 50 rounds with the same serial number and a test round from the same batch is pretty simple. Mark 51 rounds in a row, pack 50, take the extra to test fire or for quality control purposes.

Being able to track a bullet to the person who bought it seems to have good investigative use to me.

The problem with that is you don't test fire 1 in 50. You may only test fire 1 in 1000.

I agree that being able to trace back is a good thing. Instead of tracing the bullet though, it would be a lot easier, and more eficient to trace back to the gun. A lot fewer guns are sold than bullets.

[Gilda]

Originally Posted by hrdwareguy

The problem with that is you don't test fire 1 in 50. You may only test fire 1 in 1000.

Even easier, then. Manufacture bullets in sets of 1001, test fire the one extra, package the other 1000 into 20 boxes of 50.

I agree that being able to trace back is a good thing. Instead of tracing the bullet though, it would be a lot easier, and more eficient to trace back to the gun. A lot fewer guns are sold than bullets.

It doesn't have to be either or. Having both options would be better than just one.

[hrdwareguy]

Originally Posted by Gilda

Even easier, then. Manufacture bullets in sets of 1001, test fire the one extra, package the other 1000 into 20 boxes of 50.

How do you tell which round is the 51st round since the serial numbers are on the inside? Also, what about the ones that are tossed out for quality control reasons. Lets say out of 1001, you test fire one and throw out 2 for quality reasons. You are now down to 998. How do you know which 2 serial numbers you need to remake? How do you know which bullets go in which box since the serial numbers are on the inside?

It doesn't have to be either or. Having both options would be better than just one.

We could always make guns like in Judge Dreed where every round fired carried a bit of your DNA also, but I don't see that happening either. My point is it would be more efficient and less costly to have a balistics and spent shell database then a database of every bullet made and sold. Less costly from a production stand point and less costly from a purchasing stand point.

[Gilda]

Originally Posted by hrdwareguy

How do you tell which round is the 51st round since the serial numbers are on the inside? Also, what about the ones that are tossed out for quality control reasons. Lets say out of 1001, you test fire one and throw out 2 for quality reasons. You are now down to 998. How do you know which 2 serial numbers you need to remake? How do you know which bullets go in which box since the serial numbers are on the inside?

I can see a couple of solutions. Assuming that the bullets are sold in sets of 50, manufacture them in sets of 51. If one out of a set needs to be discarded for quality control purposes, you still have a full set of 50. This gives you an extra 20 for test firing out of every 1000, and only increases the manufacturing cost by 2%.

Solution 2: Sell boxes of 49 or 48 bullets, clearly marked as 49 or 48.

In either case, no remarking of bullets would be necessary.

My point is it would be more efficient and less costly to have a balistics and spent shell database then a database of every bullet made and sold. Less costly from a production stand point and less costly from a purchasing stand point.

Certainly it would be less costly. That doesn't make it a better system.

[soundmotor]

Originally Posted by hrdwareguy

Linky

A noble goal certainly; a potential calling card left whenever a firearm is discharged during a crime and therefore, a potentially higher probability of solving the case. This would work well in a vacuum but in real life, not a chance. No, let me emphasize for the east coasters, not a friggin' chance!

As it makes reloaders exempt, their stock in trade just became in demand. A cottage industry of the likes William Gibson has envisioned would spring up overnight to sell ammo for off-the-books purposes. Likely some would get involved to commit criminal acts for profit.

Next, a porous border with Mexico who happens to house many ammunition manufacturers. Can enyone envision something new being smuggled in amongst everything else? A box of (50) Aguila .22's might sell for $25 or more.
How about bordering (3) states with less draconian laws about ammo & purchases, NV, OR & AZ? Would every car coming into California be searched for ammo now? Would every mile of border be watched to keep ammo from sneaking in through the 1000's of out of the way back roads along CalNeva?

How about legacy ammo? When CA made its first abortive attempt to ban AW's in the 90's, ammo purchases went off the charts. Likely, some of this was shot up but I'd hazard that 10's of million rounds lay dormant there. Ammo does not go bad it only waits to be used. If this proposal were enacted, when is pre-SN ammo no longer a factor? Probably never.

I could continue, but you get my drift. Could a means & method to serialize each round be realized? Certainly. Would it have any affect whatsover on increasing the number of solved cases? I have no evidence to support my conclusion, but I'd have to hazard that any increase would be insignificant if there is any measurable at all. However, there is one increase you could measure which leads to my last point.

Who funds the serialization enforcement bureaucracy this initiative would require to operate? Sure, the good citizens of CA. Perhaps California has become giga-efficient under Arnold so your tax $$$ goes farther now, or does it still have the teetering, bloated, state hack mob mentality it has always had?

Noble goal, really silly idea at how to attain it.



soundmotor

[hrdwareguy]

Originally Posted by Gilda

I can see a couple of solutions. Assuming that the bullets are sold in sets of 50, manufacture them in sets of 51. If one out of a set needs to be discarded for quality control purposes, you still have a full set of 50. This gives you an extra 20 for test firing out of every 1000, and only increases the manufacturing cost by 2%.

Solution 2: Sell boxes of 49 or 48 bullets, clearly marked as 49 or 48.

In either case, no remarking of bullets would be necessary.

OK, so if manufacturing cost goes up by 2%, we shall assume that cost gets passed on to the consumer. No the box of bullets I paid 10.00 is now 10.20 (assuming a streight through increase). The state is going to get an extra 0.25 on that box to help pay for the tracking. Making the cost now 10.45. After tax (pre and post proposed legislation) the cost per box now costs me an extra 0.50. That's not terrible however the manufacturers aren't going to have time to test fire an extra 19 bullets. (I don't know the exact number they manufacture in a day, but the reports say 8 million bullets produced daily). Since they won't be test firing these extra rounds, they must now be discarded or somehow remanufactured. Discarding them would result in excess waste, not a good solution. They can't be reused because of the serial numbers. What now?

Also selling boxes of less than 50 would actually drive prices up. These boxes would need special labels and would also have to have special handling. When being sold to distributors and then to the retail chains, these special boxes would have to have special pricing for each box. This will add extra overhead in ordering and billing.

Mildly off topic here and you don't have to answer if you don't want to, but I have a couple of questions for you:
Since you live in CA, how do you think passage of this would affect you personally?

What are you current views/beliefs about firearms and current firearm legislation?



Just out of curiosity sake, I sent Federal Cartridge and Remington emails about this. I have not yet heard back from Federal but here is the email and response from Remington:

My email:

I have been reading recently about a proposed law in California that would require ammunition manufacturers to laser engrave a serial number on the bottom of each bullet and inside each case for every box of ammunition manufactured.

Can you tell me the current steps components go through in the manufacturing process? Which of these steps are automated and which are done by humans? If the law in California passes, what will this mean to the current way Remmington manufacturers ammunition?

Thank you.

The Response

The law is being proposed by people who either don’t understand high volume manufacturing processes and/or are following a strictly anti-gun agenda. It would essentially ban ammunition in California, but would have no real affect on crime except to disarm the law abiding citizens.

We do not release information regarding our manufacturing process.

[woolley bear]

like most anti gun laws does anyone think a felon is woried about the misdemeanor he'll getfor violating a gun law

[ziadel]

all gun companies need to do what Barett is doing...


California ban's Barett's .50cal rifle, Barett stops selling and servicing all californian agencies...

If all the gun companies, firearm and ammunition manufacturers just said, hey, cali, fuck you, ya bunch of hippy scumbags, we aint selling you ANYTHING anymore, if would bring the state to its knees. The cops would run out of bullets, and they would panic. It would hurt the manufacturers, but they'd gain a lot more in the long run.

[Marvelous Marv]

Originally Posted by MooseMan3000

You wouldn't be. Ex Post Facto. You can't be charged for a crime that wasn't illegal when you did it.

The people in California who owned what are now deemed to be "assault weapons" would surely disagree with you.

I could check, but if memory serves, many of them were told their firearms would have to be registered, only to be told later that they would have to surrender those firearms.

Those that were smart enough not to register them became criminals, but kept their property.

Lockyer, a legendary asshole (IMO) seems to have hit upon a great plan. It's illegal to create a database of gun owners, so he'll just do an end run around the Constitution and create a database of ammunition buyers.

[Marvelous Marv]

Originally Posted by Gilda

Being able to track a bullet to the person who bought it seems to have good investigative use to me.

Especially if you're trying to create a database of people to confiscate guns from.

As I said, it's already been done in California, the Constitution be damned.

[Suave]

They should rename the state of California the state of confusion! Hahahaha...

[cj2112]

being able to track ammo to the person who bought it is a great idea in theory. In practice it is a piss poor idea. What the state of California, and the proponents of this legislation don't seem to realize is this: The people who are committing crimes with guns aren't going down to their local WalMart and buying a gun, they are purchasing them illegally to begin with. Why are they purchasing them illegally? Because they are cheaper, more difficult to track, and more readily available. This is exactly what will happen with ammunition if this law passes. This law also doesn't take into account that there are shot shells manufactured for handguns, how do they propose tho put a serial number on each individual pellet? What about the guys who reload their old brass, and mold their own bullets? This law is simply impractical.

[Seer666]

Originally Posted by MooseMan3000

Yeah, but the bullet's still there. Oops, you forget that both parts have a serial?

Just a quick comment on this. Very lightly engrain a number into a piece of lead, then throw it into a wall at 750 feet per second. You really think it's still going to be readable at all???? Not to mention the effects them extra little groves would have on the aerodynamics of the bullet. Accuracy would go to shit for long range shot. SWAT team snipers would be useless. The would be more likely to kill a hostage then a bad guy. If just for that reason alone, this is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard.

[KirStang]

Originally Posted by Seer666

Just a quick comment on this. Very lightly engrain a number into a piece of lead, then throw it into a wall at 750 feet per second. You really think it's still going to be readable at all???? Not to mention the effects them extra little groves would have on the aerodynamics of the bullet. Accuracy would go to shit for long range shot. SWAT team snipers would be useless. The would be more likely to kill a hostage then a bad guy. If just for that reason alone, this is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard.

I think the idea proposed that the serial # be on the back of each bullet, thereby not drastically affecting aerodynamics of the bullet itself. Also, I've seen many spent bullets where the front of the bullets were deformed, but the bast of the bullet remained relatively intact, thus keeping the proposed serial #'s intact too.

I am for this proposition, though, like you guys say, people intent on killing with a gun will take measures to circumvent this proposition, most people will not go through the trouble. Yes, there is a black market, but for the most part, I think drug dealers and other lower end crime people, plus peoples who've commited crimes of passions with a gun will be much easier to catch.

As for manufacturing troubles, it's just a major PITA for ammo manufactures to go through. It is however, feasible for ammo manufacturers to engrave serial #'s. The cost to private industries vs. the improved law enforcement capabilities are, in my opinion, worth it.

[The_Dunedan]

The thing is, it's -not- just a PITA, it's financially impossible to sustain. Do you have any idea how much extra equipment would be needed, how much more time it would add to the production of each individual casing and projectile, and how much money that would all cost?

A typical ammuinition manufacturer can produce anywhere from several hundred-thousand to several million rounds per day. If each individual casing and projectile has to be laser-engraved with an individual number, you're talking about adding several seconds to EACH of those millions of rounds; to say nothing of the cost of purchasing, installing, and maintaining the machinery to do the engraving itself. This greatly-inflated cost gets passed on to the consumer. $.50/round for .22LR?! I think NOT! Then you've got the cost to keep the book-keeping system running, which would be a simply WONDERFUL excuse for California to raise their already-insane tax rates. And finally, you have the simple fact that ( contrary to VPC propaganda ) gun-owners ARE NOT CRIMINALS, and we object in ther strongest possible terms to being treated like them!!

As for engraving things onto the tail of the bullet; that won't work for one simple reason, and that reason is HEAT. A firearm is a firearm, after all, and lead has an extremely low melting-point. The exposed lead tail of the bullet is melted smooth by the heat of discharge; this would melt off any such number.
This entire proposal is nothing more than back-door gunbanning. If the ammo becomes too expensive to produce and sell, the manufacturer either goes out of buisiness, or moves to another state. If it becomes too expensive to buy, shooters give up and find another hobby. Criminals, it should be noted, will just go across the State Line to Nevada, pick up their ammo there, and shoot someone else. And hey, guess what? If the cops find an old, "pre-number" round of ammo in your posession, they get to fine you or lock you up! It's a felony! One more gunowner, and all their weapons, out of circulation which is precisely what those gungrabbing traitors are after in the first place. The requirements of this law are both physically and financially impossible to meet, and its' sole intent is to drive manufacturers and shooters out of California.

[Dragonknight]

I believe that the idea is good as well as the intentions, but the cost to the consumer will be huge. Also it leaves WAY to much room for reloaders, or hits them even harder with restrictions. It would be far easier to geta spent shell from each gun you sell. Gun shops already keep records of sold guns this is just one more thing for them to get a spent round, and then give there info to the local police in there city.
Now the question of what if the gun was bought from a differend city/state and was used in the crime somehwere else? We'll now there's just one more clue out there for some one doing there job to get a hold of.

[filtherton]

I don't know how anyone can speculate about costs who isn't either an engineer and also intimately familiar to the ammunition manufacturing process. I see a lot of people making what seems like a lot of convoluted, knee-jerk excuses as to why this will never work.
I think we should be able to have guns, but i also think that they should be regulated up the ass.

[cj2112]

Originally Posted by filtherton

I don't know how anyone can speculate about costs who isn't either an engineer and also intimately familiar to the ammunition manufacturing process. I see a lot of people making what seems like a lot of convoluted, knee-jerk excuses as to why this will never work.
I think we should be able to have guns, but i also think that they should be regulated up the ass.

so should bats, knives, cars, ropes, chains, bottles rocks, etc, also be heavily regulated?

Currently in the state of California the following restrictions are in place

1.You may only purchase one handgun per month

2. magazine capacity is limited

3. ban on all rifles with folding stocks, pistol grips, flash suppressors, etc.

4. state and federal background checks for all sales

5. Licensing required for individual purchase or possession of a handgun

6. safety training required for handgun ownership or individual possession (possession without somebody present who has passed said training)

7. Ten day waiting period on all gun sales

8. Handguns are required to meet certain safety standards (drop test, and firing performance test)

9. All firearms sold are required to come with a state approved lock

10. State law requires new handgun models introduced in 2006 to have either a loaded-chamber indicator or a magazine safety disconnect, and by 2007 newly introduced handgun models must have both devices.

11. any weapon capable of being concealed must be carried unloaded in a locked container other than the glove box while traveling in a vehicle.

These restrictions are in addition to those already enacted by the federal government. Again it's not the guy who goes into your local gun shop and purchases a gun that you should be worried about, it's the kid who buys one out of some guys trunk on the corner that you need to worry about, and no law that you pass is gonna stop that guy from getting his hands on a gun, especially when I can go out into my garage and build a single shot gun that will kill you just as dead as one I go buy.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by cj2112

so should bats, knives, cars, ropes, chains, bottles rocks, etc, also be heavily regulated?

Currently in the state of California the following restrictions are in place

1.You may only purchase one handgun per month

Yeah, anything whose sole purpose is to kill should be regulated up the ass, especially handguns.
Cars are already heavily regulated, do you think they shouldn't be?
I don't see your point on the one handgun per month thing.

[cj2112]

Originally Posted by filtherton

I don't see your point on the one handgun per month thing.

I clicked submit before i finished my post....sorry

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by cj2112

I clicked submit before i finished my post....sorry

Even with the entire list, i don't see how any of those would limit your ability to effectively defend yourself.

[cj2112]

Originally Posted by filtherton

Even with the entire list, i don't see how any of those would limit your ability to effectively defend yourself.

I don't necessarily think that it severly limits the ability to defend oneself, but my point is that firearms are already heavily regulated, more regulation does not necessarily mean less gun crime. It just means less law abiding citizens owning guns.

[Ustwo]

I'm trying to figure out how this would help catch a criminal.....

Ok I could see it helping catch a stupid one....

Do we have a problem catching stupid criminals?

It would just be another market for blackmarket 'unmarked' bullets and stolen ammo (who cares about a serial number if the box is stolen).

[ForgottenKnight]

I read through most of the posts, thinking of the points and counter-points made by each person, and I conclude that while it may be a good idea upon first glance, it just doesn't seem practical in the slightest. Plus upon second glace you realize it wouldn't have much effect on the criminals, but would have a major effect on the already law-abiding citizens. My view on gun laws in general is that we don't need more laws, just for the ones we have to be fully enforced.