“SB 357, as
amended, Dunn, would require, commencing
As used in this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
ammunition" means ammunition principally for use in pistols, revolvers, and
other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person, as defined in
subdivision (a) of Section 12001, notwithstanding that the ammunition may also
be used in some rifles.
As of this writing,
SB357, although temporarily set aside in 2005, could still run the gauntlet of
California’s legislative process later this year or next and if passed, could
turn Californians’ handguns and rifles that use handgun caliber ammunition,
into paperweights while it puts the state’s finances further in the hole.
How is that colonel? Guns
without bullets become hunks of steel; useful for holding down paper or as
displays in some lunatic museum dutifully reminding everyone of California’s “barbaric
California’s SB357 will be deservedly dead one day and soon—killed by the
severe outrage of the more sensible folks in California.
However, such diseased ideas like this have a tendency to spread to other
states controlled by gun hating politicians so watch out, this idiocy could
spill over into many other backyards at some point.
As many have seen on
the Wire, this insane bill requires every hand gun caliber bullet to be stamped
with an individual identification number! Why? “Crime
control” says one. “For the
Children” says another. “Common sense” says yet another.
But let’s look at this issue in several underlying ways to see how
riddled with holes and perhaps unintended consequences it actually is.
In my opinion and
this is only my opinion, a law must pass three tests in order to be
acceptable. #1 it must be good
law—well written, enforceable and constitutional.
#2 it must be effective and useful—it must serve the public good or
fill a real need. #3 it must be fair. Legally speaking, this law may pass muster
regarding #1—all the legal T’s crossed and I’s dotted, all words spelled
correctly and good grammar used throughout.
It may even be in accord with California’s Constitution but it
doesn’t pass the smell test where #2 and #3 are concerned. Let’s do a little common sense analysis of our own on that
score then you judge for yourself.
Business Case: The proposed
bill would compel manufacturers to extensively re-tool their hand gun caliber
operation in order to stamp those sequential numbers on every single round.
How expensive do you think this might be and given this would only be
applicable to one state out of fifty—for now—what do you expect the return
on investment would be for the manufacturer?
It would simply make the manufacture and distribution of this ammunition
excessively more expensive, tremendously complex and extremely vulnerable to
violations leaving manufacturers open to California fines and lawsuits. The bill also prohibits the importation of like ammunition
into the state that is not in compliance with California law.
What manufacturer will want to disrupt his entire business unit leaving
themselves vulnerable to California legal action in order to comply with that
one state’s asinine law? I think they could very justifiably write off California as
the more prudent business decision.
Revenue Case: Let’s face it, if passed as proposed, this bill will
seriously cripple many a shooting sport in California.
And what effects will that have other than being a prime example of the
anti-American trend sweeping the country these days?
My guess is that the shooting sports in California bring millions of
dollars in revenue to the state each year—private enterprise as well as in
taxes. Not just in the purchase of
guns and ammunition alone but in all the ancillary costs associated with
shooting. Just look at our own
sport as one example. All that
cowboy gear, shirts, pants suspenders, spurs, canteens and other accessories
have to purchased somewhere. And
what about the revenue associated with hotels, campsite rentals, restaurants,
food, gas, and so on. Now if much
of that went away because this politically engineered shortage of hand gun
ammunition made shooting all but impossible, does anyone think for a second the
minuscule $.005 charge per round tax would or could ever off-set the difference
lost in sales tax alone? So just
from a revenue stand point this makes no sense.
Crime Case: Now let’s look at it from a common sense view point where
“crime control” is concerned. In
that regard, I would once again ask my favorite simple straight forward question
of those who support this bill as a crime control measure.
Do any of you in Sacramento believe for one fleeting moment that those
inclined to ignore laws against murder, robbery, rape, assault etc will be
deterred from those crimes because they feel held bound by laws requiring the
use of registered ammunition so police could easily trace it!?!
This is akin to gun registration but more complex.
Those who ignore the laws pertaining to egregious felonies won’t be
deterred for one second by laws requiring the registration of their guns or
ammunition. To think this will in
any way have an impact on reducing or tracing criminal behavior, I have some
gold plated bullchips I’d like to sell you.
The only thing this will do for crime is to make law abiding citizens
more likely to become criminals—vulnerable to arrest and prosecution for
inadvertent violations. Keep in
mind, those law abiding citizens aren’t the ones committing the murders,
robberies or assaults and those that are committing such crimes will never be
restrained or abide by this phony law. So you tell me Mr/Ms California Politician, how does this
make any sense whatsoever as a crime control measure?
Real Case: Since lawsuits
against gun manufacturers didn’t work out quite as planned, the assault
weapons ban went by the way, SASS, NRA, GOA and others raised enough dust to
prevent many direct attacks on guns themselves, it now appears gun haters intend
to castrate millions of guns through draconian restrictions on the ammunition.
Less ammunition = more paperweights.
Make no mistake; the old indirect approach is hard at work here my
The not so subtle
intent behind this is to obviously render these guns useless or reduce their use
to a more “manageable trickle” and still be able to spout the political line
that “we politicians didn’t outlaw such guns at all.” How obvious!
This could be another Hollywood film with a catchy title like Sleepless
in Seattle but called Transparent in
Think of the liberal
response concerning the inevitable consequences of SB357 this way; imagine a man
accused of murdering his wife through dehydration defends himself by stating,
“But your honor, I didn’t murder her, I just severely restricted her access
to water—she died on her own". And
the good folks of California are expected to buy such transparent tripe?
Just the view from my
Contact Colonel Dan:
Dark Canyon Home Page