PDA

View Full Version : SB357 ammo marking NEWS: taken off calendar!!!


bwiese
07-20-2005, 7:34 PM
Lookin' good!...

From NRA Memb. Council SB357 info :


Latest Info: 7/20/05 - SB357 has been taken off the calendar and is no longer scheduled for a hearing. Your calls, emails, faxes and letters have had an effect. NRA continues to watch SB357 very closely and asks you direct your efforts to other firearms-related bills. Also, please check this page frequently for further status changes regarding SB357.

However from
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_357&sess=CUR (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_357&sess=CUR)

...I do not yet see any updated info yet but it may be posted tomorrow.

This is (probably) good news... BUT CONTINUAL 100% VIGILANCE MUST BE MAINTAINED SO THAT IT DOES NOT GET "STEALTHED" IN WITH PROCEDURAL TRICKS AT THE LAST MINUTE!!

And this'll no doubt come up next year, so the fight never dies....

As for AB352 (microstamping for new autoloaders sold in CA), it's still due to come up to Appropriations Committee 8/15.


Bill Wiese
San Jose

Turbinator
07-21-2005, 10:11 AM
Thanks for the update. Time to write letters opposing AB352 now!

Turby

siglock2340
07-21-2005, 4:28 PM
Gun Violence Tragedy in Berkeley (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/07/21/EDG5GDQV9T1.DTL) Gun Violence Tragedy in Berkeley2 (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/07/21/EDGTRDQE7K1.DTL)

I know these are op-ed pieces published in a San Francisco publication, but what is expressed has me concerned for my gun rights. The Chronicle could influence many and I'm looking for a more gifted writer to provide a rebuttal letter to the paper.

SAN FRANCISCO - 'Trigger Lock' law helps cut gang-related killings in half - Focus on Bayview, Western Addition showing results (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/21/BAGTBDR2EJ1.DTL&hw=trigger+lock&sn=001&sc=1000)

However above is an article from the same section in the paper that shows what enforcing existing laws on actual criminals can do for public safety.

I really hope we can get support from another publication on the negatives of AB352 and SB357. I'm glad SB357 is off the calendar for now.

Charliegone
07-21-2005, 5:04 PM
I swear people are either very ignorant on the subject or either they just plain hate guns. One of the writers, use Meleia Willis-Starbuck tragedy as gain for their cause. Tell me how many of these "criminals" buy their guns legally? Not much I bet.. Yet you have people who would impose a useless law, just to save one life. Wouldn't it better if it can save 10 or 20 lives? Oh, thats right we have that law already, but to us Californians the right to self-defense is more and more becoming dependant on the police, WHO I might add have NO obligation to protect you. More gun-control rhetoric? Defintely. Will it ever end? No. Too many people who are extremely gullible.

bwiese
07-21-2005, 5:12 PM
The author of the first article mentioned above is Griffin Dix. He's the father of Kenzo Dix, a teenager who was unfortunately shot several years ago by another teenager - shot by an unsupervised cop's kid with a cop's gun. (Clearly no Eddie Eagle graduates here.)

You might remember the appropriately-named Dix as the guy who sued Beretta (reason: no mag disco safety) because, clearly, that gun was directly related to his failing to supervise his son. Beretta was also, clearly, responsible for further failing to stop him from hanging around cops' kids. (Guess he must've wanted his kid to be a real achiever - but then, hey, maybe those million-dollar pensions are indeed the way to go for career success. Times change, I guess: if I'd told my dad I wanted to be a cop, I'd've had my arse kicked down the street for having such low aspirations.)

I do not recall if charges were filed against that cop, or if the more severe unsafe storage laws were in effect then (early/mid 90s).

The very recent Oakland shooting of budding socialist Meleia Willis-Starbuck is a perfect example of why SB357 and AB352 are NOT needed - two arrests have already been made, based off phone records.

It seems young Ms. Willis-Starbuck may have dug her own grave. Apparently she was 'dissed' by some young men trying to pick up on her while hanging out on the streets Sunday evening; afterward, it appears she called some of her urban 'homies' (the recent arrestees) about the situation. One can only speculate if she actually called out a 'hit' on her blundering suitors-du-jour, or whether she just felt the need to have some urban guys offer some gang-"flava" urban posturing to "have her back".

Whatever the case, the two friends she called took a shot and hit their friend instead. Whatever urban social justice Willis-Starbuck supposedly championed has been transformed into two more urban youth going to death row or, at best, life in prison.

Perhaps Willis-Starbuck might still be alive and thriving had she spent less time searching the paradises of Cuba and Vietnam for purported "social justice" and a bit more time learning there are better places for a young woman to hang out on an early Sunday morning than a Berkeley street corner in a not-so-good area.


Bill Wiese
San Jose

SI-guru
07-21-2005, 5:46 PM
Yap, I love to see the Ivy newspaper eat their own words about how "Meleia had already contributed so much to making the world a better place."

arvs
07-21-2005, 6:30 PM
What I heard was that when they read that actually bill they freaked out (Omg, how did this get through). If this bill ever becomes to law, everyone will be after them like crazy.

And also it probably was determained that it would be impossible to keep track of bullets.

But I think Ab352 could pass. But it is kindof a good idea, but the technology is not available so it isn't gonna happen.

Trader Jack
07-21-2005, 9:51 PM
Bwiese; You are right on the money about Starbuck.

Sort of a Black Jane Fonda

siglock2340
07-22-2005, 12:59 AM
bwiese, though I am quietly grateful of all the great advice on California Gun Laws you provide on this forum, the purpose of my post was not to attack the young girl whose life was sadly taken away. It was more a criticism of the op-ed piece published in the Chronicle that refer to AB352 and SB357 without even a dissenting, rebuttal, or alternative opinion. The death of Starbuck is sad no matter what her supposed political views or urban connections are. I was primarily seeking someone (more able than myself) to write to the Chronicle with a rebuttal opinion regarding these new bills. I'm slightly troubled by what you have speculated of Starbuck's situation but from what I have read from your prior posts I believe you to be a better person than the prejudice implied in this last post. My apologies if this post is offensive to you because none was intended.

Charliegone has hit the nail on the head that if these bills came to pass criminals would still acquire the necessary tools for destruction illegally and would only serve to criminalize law-abiding gun owners.

SI-guru
07-22-2005, 8:56 AM
http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_2881679

"Upset at being called a vulgar name, Ivy League student Meleia Willis-Starbuck telephoned one of her best friends — someone who was like a brother — to defend her honor and suggested he bring a weapon, sources said Thursday."

Commie or not, she got what she asked for.

imported_1911_sfca
07-22-2005, 10:19 AM
to write to the Chronicle with a rebuttal opinion

B,

Read the articles from Cinnamon Stilwell. She writes excellent articles with an alternative (i.e. not socialist) view on violence and gun control attempts in SF.

Her most recent article is about the anarchists' riot resulting in one SFPD officer with a cracked skull, and can be found here (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/07/21/BAcardgame21.DTL) .

Regarding SB 357, I'm glad to hear that it was pulled (if indeed true). I also looked at the most recent revision of 6/22, and noticed that they changed the dates so that purchase and transfer of non-serialized ammo would begin 1/1/09, and posession would become a crime in 1/1/16. Needless to say, we hope that this will never go through.

Inoxmark
07-22-2005, 11:18 AM
Anyone knows if (when) this bill is re-introduced would they have to start the legislative process anew, or from where it was left off?

bwiese
07-22-2005, 12:09 PM
B wrote:
...the purpose of my post was not to attack the young girl whose life was sadly taken away. It was more a criticism of the [SF Chronicle] op-ed piece... {snip} ... The death of Starbuck is sad no matter what her supposed political views or urban connections are.

I understand your sentiments. But she does deserve at least some condemnation. When I get writing, I do get expansive and often discuss the 'bigger picture'. The bottom line is that, regardless of gun control laws, Ms. Willis-Starbuck's behavior did lead to a somewhat predictable outcome.

In fact, if one of Willis-Starbuck's girlfriends (in the vehicle) were hit, instead of her, Starbuck herself could've been charged with murder. She was aware of her Hollis' & Wilson's criminal background and it appears even more clearly now that she indeed called in her 'button men':

Upset at being called a vulgar name, Ivy League student Meleia Willis-Starbuck telephoned one of her best friends — someone who was like a brother — to defend her honor and suggested he bring a weapon, sources said Thursday.... {snip}...

...sources said Willis-Starbuck called one or both of the men — who were in Berkeley early Sunday — from her cell phone, urging them to come to her aid. ...{snip}...

Friends said Willis-Starbuck likely wasn't scared of the men but was "more standing up for herself," Smith said.

"She wouldn't let nobody talk to her like that," Smith said, while standing Thursday at an ever-growing street memorial on College Avenue. ...{snip}...

Paramedics responded to the scene, but she died about 15 minutes after being struck, police said. But sources said Willis-Starbuck called one or both of the men — who were in Berkeley early Sunday — from her cell phone, urging them to come to her aid.

B wrote:
I'm slightly troubled by what you have speculated of Starbuck's situation but from what I have read from your prior posts I believe you to be a better person than the prejudice implied in this last post.

Hmmm, why are you troubled? What's wrong with being prejudiced against stoopid idiots that buy their own trouble in bulk? It's easy enough to come into harm in that area without tring. It's not like she was 'innocent': she apparently called out a contract 'hit' on her would-be suitors and got in the way of a bullet meant for others.

This goes way, way beyond poor anger managment. As I said, if someone else were hit instead of her, there's a good chance she'd be in the cooler.


B wrote:
My apologies if this post is offensive to you because none was intended.

None taken! I get as good as I give...

Charliegone has hit the nail on the head that if these bills came to pass criminals would still acquire the necessary tools for destruction illegally and would only serve to criminalize law-abiding gun owners.

Absolutely.

Furthermore, this was such an open & shut case that Griffin Dix' outside editorial was immediately proven moot: no need for ammo forensic analysis.


Bill Wiese
San Jose

bwiese
07-22-2005, 2:10 PM
Here's my fast letter to ed @ Chronicle below.
Have no idea if it'll get published.

Bill Wiese
San Jose


------------------------------------------------------------------
Yesterday's Op-Ed piece by Griffin Dix (Thurs 22 Jun 05) reflects a very misguided opinion - perhaps understandably emotionally clouded due to Dix's tragic personal history - that specially-marked bullets and ammunition can stop gun crimes.

In fact, it's highly rare for specific ballistic information to be needed for successful investigations and prosecutions. It certainly would not have stopped Dix's son, Kenzo, from being shot by another unsupervised youth - nor was ballistic data needed to identify that shooter! And contrary to Dix's assertions, the recent Berkeley shooting of college student Meleia Willis-Starbuck hasn't demonstrated any need for marked ballstic information either.

Within a couple of days - and via standard investigative methods - it was revealed that apparently Ms. Willis-Starbuck called in some armed friends to 'defend her' from a verbal assault from some would-be suitors. If one of Willis-Starbuck's girlfriends were hit instead, there's a good chance there could be a prosecutable case against Willis-Starbuck as an accessory: she called her "button men" in.

Perhaps if Ms. Willis-Starbuck sought less "social justice" from the workers' paradises of Vietnam and Cuba and focused on her anger management skills instead, she'd still be alive. On balance, whatever social work performed by Willis-Starbuck was more than negated by destruction of three lives - hers, and two more urban youth from her area now charged with murder. Passage of SB357 and AB352 before this wouldn't have changed anything.

SB357 results in a huge government program that will not solve any further crimes, as marked ammunition can readily be purloined or re-marked, and will often be distorted and "unreadable" when bullets are recovered. There are vast existing stocks of unmarked ammunition in California anyway, which will become highly desirable regardless of penalties. (And cast lead bullets are marvellously easy to make from discared wheel weights.) SB357 will criminalize only those who legitmately hunt or target shoot with either commercial or reloaded ammunition: those who are bent on premeditated shootings will not care about the relatively mild penalties of an SB357 violation in contrast with those of more serious murder convictions. Those committing impulse shootings will not, of course, think about marked ammo beforehand, or will take post-shooting measures to destroy evidence (another crime).

Dix's assertion that this is cost-effective - or even remotely cost-reasonable - is false. SB357 imposes huge costs upon the state and sporting goods retailers and law-enforcement suppliers for no perceptible gain whatsover. Added fees to ammunition price will not cover these costs. The commercial and governmental information- technology infrastructure - from manufacturer to distributor to shipper to retailer, along with Cal DOJ communication - is horrendously large. In fact, tracking & assigning individual bullets or rounds to a given buyer is so onerous that these major costs can easily raise the price of a box of ammunition from $10-$20 to way beyond $50. (Imagine the cost of tracking and selling individual peanuts to grocery shoppers and you get the idea.) Ammunition manufacturers and distributors, already in a thin-margin business anyway, have stated they will refuse to sell ammunition for _any_ purpose (personal, sporting, or law enforcement/state agency use) into California if SB357 is enacted - and there was specifically no law-enforcment exemption written into SB357, so cops, CHP and other state law enforcement will be effectively disarmed after state ammo supplies run out.

AB352 is similarly misguided. The idea a firearm can reliably and repeatedly put consistent, recognizable ID marks on expended ammunition is laughable. This marking system is so easily tampered with or disabled, it's almost funny.

Both SB357 and AB352 were created by folks who have no firearms technical background, do not understand the costs and issues involved, and who apparently do not understand that these various means in no way stop somebody from killing someone else, or even reduce the chance that someone will kill someone else. These issues are so egregious, in fact, that their only goal must be to harrass legitimate sportsmen and gun owners, since they could serve little other legitimate purpose.

No California law-enforcement association - including the California Police Chiefs' Association (Cal-Chiefs) and Police Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) - supports SB357 or AB352 because they will simply have no impact on crime. For this very reason - along with the huge cost issues - SB357 already has been removed from the calendar in the Senate Appropriations Committee.


W. M. Wiese Jr.
San Jose, CA

C.G.
07-22-2005, 2:30 PM
Great re-buttal, Bill. http://www.calguns.net/bow.gif
Although I also doubt they will publish it; it is not in their interest to do so.

imported_1911_sfca
07-24-2005, 5:33 PM
Great response. I can see them publishing the first 4 or 5 paragraphs, but I doubt they would publish the whole thing -- or did they?

One technical point of clarification:

If one of Willis-Starbuck's girlfriends were hit instead, there's a good chance there could be a prosecutable case against Willis-Starbuck as an accessory: she called her "button men" in.

Not only could (and should) she have been prosecuted, she would have been charged as a principal, in advising her friends to commit murder. It would all depend on what the prosecutor thought he could prove she said.

The only time someone would be charged as an accessory is if they aided & abetted the murderers in avoiding capture, after the crime was already committed. Since Starbuck called in the hit, she would be a principal.

And this is a sad and kind of ironic case of "transferred intent": the shooter meant to shoot someone else, but is still guilty of killing the person that was hit -- his friend.

siglock2340
07-27-2005, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by cg:
Great re-buttal, Bill. http://www.calguns.net/bow.gif
Although I also doubt they will publish it; it is not in their interest to do so.

+1, Thanks Bill. Pretty much the kind of rebuttal I was looking for. Not likely to be published but a great letter anyways.

arvs
08-03-2005, 6:36 PM
Thought bill was dead. I still here that it is going through on the news.

Librarian
08-03-2005, 7:12 PM
Not dead. Lurking in the weeds - any bill can be dragged up for a committee vote or a floor vote, with very little warning to the public. It's often somewhat inaccurate, because apparently things can be added to the calendar on the day of the hearings, but check the DAYFILE (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/dayfile.html) page.

Here's the Assembly legislative calendar for the rest of the year:
Aug. 15 — Legislature reconvenes (that's why nothing is happening, they went home, mostly, July 15.)
Aug. 26 — Last day for fiscal committees to meet and report Senate bills to the floor -- if SB357 does not make it out of committee by Aug 26, it is probably dead for this session.
Aug. 29–Sept.9 — Floor session only
Sept. 5 — Labor Day.
Sept. 9 — Last day for any non-urgency bills to be passed (SB357 is non-urgency)
Oct. 9 —Last day for Governor to sign or veto bills passed by the Legislature on or before Sept. 9 and his possession after Sept. 9.


I've seen some of those news stories, too. I suspect it's an attempt to get this bill moving.

bg
08-04-2005, 10:28 PM
To slack off now by not writng, calling or
contacting in some sort to the politico's and
the Gov will only fuel the fire to anti's.

Won't hurt once or twice a week to contact em.
I try and do it at least once a week, and with
Sept coming up, I believe that's when the
Gov's pen starts to get busy, it's especailly
important to stay on top of this..

We got to realize we're dealing with something
much like cockroachs..Sure you might only
see one, but you can bet your bottom dollar
there's plenty more hiding and just waiting
to show their ugly mugs when the lights are
out and your back is turned.