MONDAY MORNING MEMORANDUM
By Assemblyman Ray Haynes

June 24, 2005

Missing the Target Again On Crime


Liberals in Sacramento are missing the target again. At a time when people are upset and fearful of serious sex offenders that are being placed in group homes in their neighborhood with little or no oversight, the Democrats in the legislature have once again rallied around their favorite “tough on crime” issue and declared war on… bullets!

Despite the lack of evidence that any of their goofy gun control laws have ever stopped a single murder, and despite the fact that they have already succeeded in banning scary “assault weapons”, allegedly unsafe “Saturday night specials”, and the imaginary menace of “50 caliber sniper rifles,” they have dug deeper this year to invent new ways to harass gun owners in California.

There are four major gun control bills moving through the legislature. Two are major threats to the future of gun ownership in California. One that is mostly just annoying (AB 944) adds a bogus new warning to the six warnings already required by law. Relying on discredited studies, it claims that the “State… has determined that” among other things “it is safest not to keep a gun in the home.” I guess that means you’re okay if you keep it in your purse or car?

The second more limited bill (AB 996) requires all handgun ammunition to be kept inaccessible to the public, but doesn’t explain how this is to be done. It could require all of it to be under lock and key. It could require it to be merely behind the counter. It could require specific lock requirements like the state now does for handguns. No statistics indicate that theft of ammo is a major problem in this state, and at $10-$50 per box, don’t retailers already have sufficient incentive to prevent theft? Some of the larger gun stores have rows of ammunition for sale in a wide variety of weights, bullet types, and grains of powder, under different manufacturer labels at differing prices. Keeping it all behind the counter under lock and key will be nearly unworkable for some stores.

The two bills that seem designed to stop the sale of firearms and ammunition in California are AB 352 and SB 357. Apparently written by someone who has watched too many episodes of CSI, both of these bills attempt to add high tech identifying marks to bullets to make it easier for the police to solve crimes. AB 352 sets up a cockamamie, laser-etched, micro-stamping system inside the firing pins and chambers of handguns that would mark the ejected shell casings with the make, manufacture, and serial number of the firearm. From a law-enforcement perspective, it will only provide even greater incentives for the bad guys to steal guns that won’t be registered (which is what they usually do anyways). It would also allow killers to collect marked casings at shooting ranges and then scatter them at crime scenes to confuse the police and cause law-abiding citizens to be harassed and questioned by the police. Oh yeah, and it is completely useless on revolvers. This will also require manufacturers to completely retrofit equipment and factories to make handguns that will only be sold in California. My guess that many won’t bother and will just leave the market here.

SB 357 will require every bullet in California to have an identifying number that will be traceable to the purchaser with a complicated and expensive bullet registration system. Anyone who keeps his old ammo, or casts his own bullets would be subject to expensive fines. People (including one of my own staff members!) would have to dispose of hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of unmarked ammo to comply with the new law. With 8 billion rounds of ammunition manufactured world-wide per year, and some factories turning out a million rounds a day, how can they verify that 50 rounds in a single box have the exact same serial numbers? And how do they keep them from being switched later? The industry suggests they’d have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars building special factories, just to sell handgun ammunition in California. Furthermore, while stealing ammunition (as discussed in AB 996) hasn’t been a problem before, if this bill passes it will create an immediate hot new black market for out-of-state and stolen ammunition. Is that really what they want?

I’m afraid what they want is to make gun ownership for recreational and personal protection purposes impossible in California, as manufacturers and retailers continue to flee the state.

But while these gun bills have passed the floor in their house of origin, bills to extend parole periods and require GPS tracking of sex offenders (SB 1044), prevent felons from owning sex offender group homes (SB 1046), keep sex offender group homes away from schools (SB 1051), and create a one-strike punishment for certain sex crimes against children (SB 448) have been defeated or stalled in Sacramento by the Democrat majority.

Do you feel safer yet?

###

Assemblyman Ray Haynes represents the 66th Assembly District, which includes portions of Western Riverside County and Northern San Diego County. For more information call our office at 951-699-1113.
Redistribution or reproduction of this article with attribution is permitted and encouraged!

I believe the proposed law is unworkable for a number of reasons but I expressed the opinion, either in this forum or another one, that it is the ammo and not the gun itself that the emphasis on control ought to be. Attempting to reduce gun crime and accidents by placing heavy restrictions on the gun but pretty much ignoring the ammo is akin to trying to reduce heroin addiction by regulating needles and having little to no restrictions on the heroin itself.

It's been awhile since I've purchased ammo and I don't recall ever having to show an I.D, even when I was in high school, or go thru a background check to do so. As long as I had the cash, I got the ammo I wanted and in the quanity I needed.

Earlier, there was a discussion about the FN seveN handgun and how it was being called a "cop-killer" gun by some because, if loaded with certain types of ammo, it could penetrate commonly used body armor. The gun itself cannot penetrate such and the ammo that it fires which does is restricted or has been discontinued from production for sale to civilians.

One may cosnider the idea that to purchase ammo, they have to show not just a valid i.d. and go thru an instant background check but also show proof they have attended a safety course such as provided by the NRA that is comapatible with the ammo being purchased. If one wants to buy handgun ammo, they would have had to attend a handgun safety course first. Same with long gun and shotgun ammo. One may also limit the amount of ammo a person can purchase in a given amount of time. If all ammo had a stamped lot and/or serial number and one needs to purchase more then what the limit is, then they would have to turn in the spent cases to purchase such what they expended. A national data base would need to be put in place where the records of what ammo a person pruchased, how much and where it was bought.

Those who have the hobby of shooting at a firing range would have to purchase what is available at the firing range or pre-pay to have it stored there. This could be expensive and somewhat impractical and maybe to allow certain individuals who expend a great deal of ammunition or load their own, they'd have to get an equivilant of a class III license.

Well, back when I used to shoot a lot I used to reload. And being a cheapskate I used a bullet mold and cast my own bullets. I suppose I'd have to invest in some kind of laser machine to etch my bullets in California, eh? Sort of screws up the cheapskate part.

Expanding on what I said earlier, the commercially produced ammo may be indentified with a lot and/or serial number but those who cast or reload their own would need a license to show they can own unmarked ammo.

Refer back to SB 357 (a few threads down) to see what a sham all of this is. Consider it a "backdoor" attack on gun ownership in general. The citizens of the PRK better wise up soon before the other Bill of Rights start disappearing.

Ah, shooting sports for the wealthy, screw the peons!

Sort of like a waiver?

That's not the California way.