Serial Numbers On Ammo
Posted 06 June 2005 - 12:55 AM
Have you seen this?????????
On New Zealand web site.
California lawmakers voted June 2nd to require manufacturers to ensure that
all bullets and
cartridges are branded with distinctive serial numbers.
Read About It: Los Angeles Times
Lockyer, Dunn and Perata Misrepresent Their Bullet Registration Scheme
On April 26, 2005, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Sen. Joe Dunn
and Senate President
pro tem Don Perata held a press conference announcing the introduction of SB
357, a bill to
mandate that all handgun ammunition carry a unique serial number engraved on
the casing of each
cartridge and on the bottom of every bullet. During this conference, Lockyer
made a number of
claims in support of the bill that are not supported by the facts. The
Sporting Arms and
Ammunition Manufacturers Institute, Inc. responded to those claims, and
provided important insight
into the real impact of this ill-conceived legislation.
* Lockyer, Dunn and Perata claimed SB357 would cost manufacturers only
one-half of a cent to
laser engrave a serial number on the base of a bullet and side of a
According to SAAMI, the actual cost to serialize ammunition--with a number
engraved on the bottom
of each bullet and on the side of each casing--would be staggering,
requiring the creation of
entirely new factories and purchase of new production equipment. This alone
would cost tens of
millions of dollars. Additionally, the time required to laser engrave each
round, even if only a
fraction of a second for each of the millions of rounds produced, would
seriously slow down
production. SAAMI estimates it would take three weeks to produce what is now
completed in one DAY.
This sort of slowdown would cripple the industry. It would also require that
ammunition, which is
now made in production lots of millions, be made in lots of 20, 50 or 100
rounds, eliminating the
benefits of mass production that enable ammunition manufacturers to operate
SAAMI analysis projects that a round that now costs pennies would cost
several dollars each! A far
cry from the half-cent claim made by Lockyer and his allies.
* Lockyer, Dunn and Perata said that serializing each bullet is the same
as printing lot
numbers on the packaging of other products.
These two procedures are not comparable. Ammunition manufactures already
place lot numbers on
ammunition packaging, just as makers of other products do. They do not,
however, place serial
numbers on each item in the package. Imagine the cost to consumers if every
aspirin, antacid or
prescription drug capsule had to carry a serial number. The costs would make
excessively expensive for even well off Americans.
* Lockyer, Dunn and Perata claimed the industry has test-fired
serialized bullets to ensure
the technology works.
No major firearms manufacturer, or SAAMI--the nation`s leading authority,
which sets standards
followed by every ammunition maker--participated in any testing of
serialized ammunition. SAAMI
has serious questions regarding the practicality of reading the number from
a laser engraving on a
bullet after it has been subjected to the pressures and deformation involved
in firing a handgun.
In any case, General Lockyer was misleading in suggesting the industry has
participated in testing
* Lockyer, Dunn and Perata asserted that the bill would not impact rifle
This claim shows the lack of general knowledge the proponents of this bill
have about firearms. SB
357 specifies "handgun ammunition" without providing a definition, and that
opens the ban up to
any round that can be fired from a handgun. This would include all .22
caliber rimfire rounds, the
most common target shooting round, and many traditional rifle rounds that
can and are shot from
handguns that are designed for hunting. Additionally, there are many rifles
that are designed to
use common "handgun" ammunition, including .38, 9mm, .44 and .45.
* Lockyer, Dunn and Perata said SB 357 would not adversely impact law
Even with a law enforcement exemption, the cost of ammunition will increase
will have an adverse impact on police department budgets and on the costs to
all city and county
bottom lines. Additionally, it is the civilian sales of ammunition that fund
development of ammunition for law enforcement and the military.
Not only would the enormous costs of implementing a bullet registration
scheme divert critical
funding from proven crime fighting initiatives, the proposal could hardly be
crime-fighting tool. Consider that, among other things, criminals could:
* Use reloading equipment to produce unmarked ammunition.
* Disassemble rounds of marked ammunition, remove the markings, then
* Collect spent shell casings at target ranges and use them to throw
police off the trail.
* Steal marked ammunition from registered owners.
* Use handguns that don`t eject cartridge cases and leave evidence at
* Buy unmarked ammunition out of state or on the black market.
Additionally, this bill would have a negative impact on our military forces
by making all
ammunition more expensive and less available due to significantly slower
Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), as chairman of the Committee on Armed
Services in the U.S.
House of Representatives, has expressed his concerns about SB 357 in a
letter to Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger. The proposal would drive up the price of ammunition, he
said, and would lead to "a
reduction in cartridges available for target practice, which would leave our
armed forces and law
enforcement personnel vulnerable on the battlefield and on America`s
streets." Chairman Hunter
urged the Governor "to strongly oppose ammunition serialization on the
grounds that it would harm
our national and homeland security."
The most likely short-term impact of this legislation would be that
ammunition makers would simply
abandon the California market, rather than incur the exorbitant costs
associated with bullet and
cartridge serialization. The net effect would be to rob all Californians of
right to keep and bear arms--no doubt exactly the result anti-gun
politicians have in mind.
Finally, it must be noted that the sponsors of this legislation were given
the opportunity to
learn first hand about the industry their legislation threatens to destroy.
SAAMI invited members
of the California legislature as well as Attorney General Lockyer on a tour
of an ammunition
plant. Not surprisingly, Lockyer and the other bill sponsors failed to take
advantage of the
opportunity to learn first-hand how ammunition is made, and why this bill is
a bad idea.
For more information go to SAAMI and
Happy days guys
Posted 06 June 2005 - 07:36 AM
Posted 06 June 2005 - 09:03 AM
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Posted 06 June 2005 - 09:29 AM