PDA

View Full Version : Looks like SB357 pulled until next yr..


bg
08-24-2005, 3:04 PM
Lockyer pulls inane bullet ID until next yr
but the vote goes on regarding AB352..You know
the drill, please call, fax, and write your
Senator asking they vote NO on AB352. >
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20050824-9999-1n24bullets.html

bwiese
08-24-2005, 3:11 PM
The article is poorly written.

DOJ's Lockyer can recommend, push, support, recommend against, etc. a bill in House or Senate but an actual legislator in the appropriate house is the one that introduces or kills a bill. Joseph Dunn was that legislator.

The danger here is that SB357 is a two-year bill, so even dead now, it could still come up to bite us again, tweaked or untweaked. IIRC, resurrecting a 2year bill in 2nd year is easier than getting a new bill introduced since it's been thru the introductory processes and is still kinda out there in limbo and not fully dead.

Bill Wiese
San Jose

imported_TMC
08-24-2005, 3:48 PM
I like the two estimates of cost, somewhere between 1 cent per bullet (Lockyey) to prohibitively expensive (industry guy). That helps?!

Bruce
08-24-2005, 7:50 PM
The reality is that the ammo companies would cease sales to California and who can blame them. California Law Enforcement is looking at no ammo for practice or duty. If they were exempted from the serialization requirement, any shooting with unmarked ammo would have built in reasonable doubt.

railroader
08-24-2005, 8:03 PM
Lockler is refering to 1 cent per round for the paperwork to track the ammo. He leaves out the actual extra cost of manufacturing the ammo that would be added to every box. Mark

bwiese
08-25-2005, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by railroader:
Lockler is refering to 1 cent per round for the paperwork to track the ammo. He leaves out the actual extra cost of manufacturing the ammo that would be added to every box.

Actually the danger here is that the law could be changed to make marks non-human-readable.

This then means some kinda binary code could then fairly readily marked on the case and bullet, and it could be read optoelectronically during production to coordinate brass-vs-bullet serialization, with these numbers in turn going into barcode on the box of 50 rounds.

LEO would be able to put case head on scanner and software could readily read marks. Error-correction codes (Reed-Solomon, etc.) would assist in recovering data from scratched/dinged cases, bullets. (This is very similar to how a severely-scratched CD disc can nevertheless often play OK without pops & dropouts.)

The bigger issue than the marking (as discussed here, not the human-readable text that currently proposed SB357 required) is the IT overhead required by gun & sporting goods stores to track inventory, sales vs. IDs, etc. That requires custom programming and integration to existing stores' computer systems.

A Big5 or WalMart or OSH chain might have an IT dept capable of doing this as yet another custom programming job. Joe's Guns down the street doesn't wanna pay another $1000 for software, along with $200/year updates, etc.

What also worries me is that if this law passes, and the big US ammo makers fail to update their equipment, Wolf and some other ammo mfgrs (Chinese) will figure out how to do this providing law is changed a bit.

Bill Wiese
San Jose

bg
08-25-2005, 10:45 PM
Let just call it like it really is. This and AB352
aren't about stopping crime. It's about making
gun ownership & useage so expensive, burdensome,
and complicated that interest will wain here
in Ca regarding firearms.

The Dems and the anti-firearms front attack
from the side, the back, underneth, etc trying
to make a pro-firearms agenda a thing of the
past here in Corruptfornia.

We all know this, and the bad part is so do
the anti's and they for one are lovin' it.

That's why the new redistricting prop is SOOO
important in the special election.

Down in Tx, when the GOP attempted a majority
in their state, the Dems took flight to Ok
and wouldn't come back, holding up state bis
for I don't know how long..Just goes to show
you how the other party thinks. When things
don't go your way....RUN

arvs
08-26-2005, 4:23 PM
This bill will never happen in a million years. Theres over 1 million hunters, if they do, they may loose their next elections.

bwiese
08-27-2005, 4:24 PM
Originally posted by arvs:
This bill will never happen in a million years. Theres over 1 million hunters, if they do, they may loose their next elections.

Naaah. You're way off the mark.

If hunters had any organizing or clout and stood out in numbers and voted single-issue (gun), we'd not have had any antigun bills from 1990s to now (AW bans, 'safe gun' idiocy etc.)

In fact, one writeup I saw said hunters in CA vote at a lower rate than general populaton.

Thank you for all the CA gun control, "hunters".

SB357 & AB352 affect only handguns and their ammunition. (SB357 could gradually be extrapolated to some rifle cartridges, though.)
Wouldn't even be on many hunters' radars since many of 'em only have seasonal involvment w/guns.

Hunters are almost poltically irrelevant in the gun rights fight, esp in California. Hunters - in comparison to gun-rights-for-any-cause advocates - have shown themselves, repeatedly, to not being that poliically involved. Many of 'em say things like, "I don't mind handgun registration," or "I have no need for an assault weapon." As long as they can keep their 30-06 deer rifles and Purdy doubles and not pay too much for tags, they are appeased.

In fact, "duck hunters" is an essentially derisory term used by gunnies like myself to remind people these folks are only at the periphery of the 2nd Amendment fight, and primarily defend only one small aspect of a sport - instead of a broad fundamental right.

John Kerry was/is a hunter. During 2004 campaign, he actually got some support from hunters - idiots.

2nd Amendment is not about hunting - it's about hunting politicians.


Bill Wiese
San Jose