Gun Bills Take Aim at Ammo...

[spin]

SACRAMENTO, CA - A group of California lawmakers has introduced legislation taking aim at handgun ammunition.

"It's easier to purchase guns and ammunition in California than it is to buy a package of cigarettes," said Assem. Kevin De Leon, D -Los Angeles.

De Leon is the sponsor of AB 962 which would require people who buy ammunition to show their driver's license and have their thumbprint taken before completing their purchase. Ammo sellers would have to be licensed and complete paperwork with the buyer's information.

"This is a tool for law enforcement. (It will help them) investigate who has who lawfully has guns and ammunition and who doesn't," De Leon said.

*********snip********

Sacramento, Oakland and Los Angeles already have ammo laws on the books. Although Sacramento police say the law has helped get guns out of the hands of criminals, Barritt doesn't believe a statewide law will work. He remembers an ammunition law that was in effect in the U.S. years ago. "They never had a crime solved through the record-keeping program they had from 1968 to 1986," he said. underlining mine
http://www.news10.net/news/story.aspx?storyid=58089&catid=2

I remember the old program where you had to show your drivers license to buy ammo. I believe the seller had to record your name and license number in a log book. Lots of trees were cut down to produce the paper for those logs.

Like a lot of other "feel good" gun control laws, the ammo record keeping program accomplished nothing. The gun control advocates obviously ignore history as they are also pushing reinstating the AWB, another total failure.

Sad. We could try actually enforcing existing laws and actually reduce gun violence.

[elocs]

1. Trees may be replanted, paper may be recycled.

Nothing in the Second Amendment about ammunition, is there? Interesting.

[Hoopla Phil]

34. Yes there is. It has to do with the definition of "arms". I refer you to the Heller decision.

[Howardx]

2. why shouldnt you have to show id?

what objection could a law abiding gun owner have to that?

[slackmaster]

4. You already do have to show ID to buy handgun ammunition

It's illegal to sell it to anyone under 21.

http://www.discountgunmart.com/FAQs.html

[spin]

28. True, I don't normally have to show mine...

It's fairly obvious from my appearance that I'm much older than 21.

And I live in Florida.

edited to mention home state

[slackmaster]

40. I can't recall ever being "carded" for ammunition

I'm a little over 21 myself.

[Endangered Specie]

66. i get carded constantly, plus every mail order ammo dealer

requires a copy of your DL.

[rl6214]

5. What would showing an ID accomplish

Other than to establish age? I know if you are purchasing a handgun caliber you may be ID'd if you look under 21. I object to a record being kept of a purchase.

[Howardx]

7. why?

if youre using the ammo lawfully why would you care?

[rl6214]

9. It is an invasion of my privacy

Do you want a record kept for every email you ever recieve or send, DVD you ever rent, maybe have your mail opened and recorded before it gets to you?

What if a record is kept somewhere within the government archives of every prescription you ever filled, every doctor you ever saw.

Need I go on?

[Howardx]

11. maybe...

if those things had the potential to kill that would be a valid argument here but since they dont, its not.

[X_Digger]

12. "potential to kill"?

How about baseball bats, prescription drugs, steak knives..

[Howardx]

14. youre right

thats pretty vague, how about "designed for killing"

[X_Digger]

19. Guns are designed to propel a projectile, not kill.

All my guns have 'killed' is paper.. should I ask for a refund because my gun is defective?

[Howardx]

21. please

that is bullshit, why were guns originally invented? it has nothing to do with paper.

[X_Digger]

27. Guns were first designed to propel fireworks..

You got a problem with fireworks, too?

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

41. Do you really not know the history

of gunpowder and fireworks? The first 'guns' were mortars used to propel fireworks skyward. The first handheld gun was the fire lance, which was a bamboo tube packed with gunpowder and shrapnel on the end of a lance.

[Howardx]

42. youre proving me right here

"The first handheld gun was the fire lance, which was a bamboo tube packed with gunpowder and shrapnel on the end of a lance"

what do you suppose they used that for?

[X_Digger]

46. The first _handheld_..

.. are you trying to say that all 'firearms' are handheld?

"guns" have a history back to the chinese in the 9th century launching missiles out of bamboo tubes (fireworks). A century later, they pulled out the fireworks, made the tubes smaller, and filled them with shrapnel.

Fireworks launching tubes are still called mortars. :)

[Howardx]

51. im well aware of what a mortar is

nothing you have said counters my assertion, guns were invented for killing.

[rl6214]

13. Not a valid arguement

You can't legislate something because of what MIGHT happen. That would be like saying someone is guilty until proven innocent.

[Howardx]

15. isnt that what you want to do?

youre against this legislation because of what might happen, some vague nebulous fear of the govt "taking your guns"

[rl6214]

23. NO

I don't want it to infringe on what I might be able to do in the future. I can't find ammo now because of the BS that has been going on since the election. It is getting too expensive to pursue my hobby.

For a day at the range for myself and my boys to shoot my .223 it now costs me at least $100, if I can find the ammo. I bought a conversion kit to shoot .22lr so I can shoot the same amount for $20. It's just not the same though.

[Howardx]

25. so?

does the 2nd amendment guarantee cheap ammo? the fact that free market forces are effecting your hobby doesnt move me much.

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. It's not "vague nebulous fear" when the state of CA already confiscated guns

vide the SKS carbine...

[Howardx]

16. happens all the time

why do you think dui is illegal? because of what MIGHT happen.

[TheWraith]

39. DUI is illegal because a person under the influence isn't capable of driving.

It has nothing to do with there being the vague danger that something else might happen. It's because they cannot fulfill the requirements to safely operate a motor vehicle on public roads, which is in and of itself a crime. If you want to ban anything that MIGHT lead to someone getting hurt, you're going to have a very frustrating life.

[Howardx]

43. nobody but you has mentioned banning anything n/t

[TheWraith]

47. Thanks for admitting you can't counter-argue my points. nt

[Howardx]

49. i bet you think you win every argument

with logic like that.

[spin]

33. I think the medical records you mention...

will be part of the new computerized medical system.

Don Detmer, the president of the American Medical Informatics Association, estimates that it will take a small army — some 130,000 information technicians and 70,000 informatics specialists — to achieve President Barack Obama's goal of computerizing everyone's medical records within five years.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/62163.html

[DonP]

8. Why not for voting too?

After all what objection would an honest citizen have to proving their right to vote.

... and maybe take your thumbprint before you can check out books at the library, just in case you are taking out the "wrong" books.

Here in Illinois we have a Firearm Owners ID card (FOID) that we have to show before we can even touch a gun or ammo in a store or at a gun show. It's pretty useless in having any impact on crime and another excuse for the state to collect a fee for a constitutional right.

If you have any question about it's impact on crime - check out the Chicago murder rate for any given year.

[Howardx]

10. that already happens

when you register to vote, so nice try but no sale.

again

if youre using the ammo lawfully what is the problem with showing id to get it?

[rl6214]

17. That does NOT already happen

Just look at the legal battles over trying to force someone to provide a photo ID when they vote.

"Opponents, most of them Democrats, say requiring photo ID at the polls disproportionately affects the poor, the elderly and minorities — the most likely to lack photo identification."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-01-23-voting-court_N.htm

[Howardx]

20. yes it does happen

"an honest citizen have to proving their right to vote." is what you said. thats exactly what happens when you register to vote.

[rl6214]

24. Did you read the article posted?

Do you agree that someone that cannot afford to get a photo ID should be denied the right to vote?

[Howardx]

26. your argument is a side show

we are discussing id requirements for ammo purchases, i have already told you i dont find your analogy accurate, im done with it.

[rl6214]

32. You asked

I think it's relevant.

[Hoopla Phil]

50. That argument is entirely relevant. One right is just as equal to another right - Right?

So if you have to show photo I.D. to exercise one then why not the other?

[Howardx]

52. sorry i disagree

it is not relevant. its interesting how far some of you will go to avoid stating why you dont want to show id to buy ammo.

[Hoopla Phil]

53. Please read my other posts in this thread before jumping to "you people"

conclusions. I've already stated that I am NOT apposed to showing I.D. to purchase ammo. I AM apposed to the thumb print and the records being kept. I am also consistent in my belief in that a person should also show I.D. to walk into the voting booth. Are you consistent in that respect?

[Howardx]

54. i have stated no personal opinion on id

im merely sounding out those who oppose showing id for legal purchases of ammunition. im not sure how many times i need to say that i dont find the id for voting analogy to be accurate, voting and purchasing the lethal component of a weapon are two different things in my mind.

[rl6214]

56. So for the record

You think legally purchasing ammo is more important than voting, since you should have to show and ID to do it?

And participating in our election system and voting is not that important so you shouldn't need to show an ID.

OK, gotcha.

And as noted earlier, nowhere did I say I opposed showing an ID to purchase ammo, just the recording and retention of the sale.

[Howardx]

57. so for the record

you have put words in my mouth.

[rl6214]

59. I thought that was the preferred debating technique

for the anti-gun crowd.

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.

[Howardx]

60. no worries

youre nothing to me.

[rl6214]

62. Likewise

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. "what is the problem with showing id to get it?" Because it does nothing, according to the article.

I mean, if you've got some sources showing that the 1968-1986 ID law worked, now is the time to show it..

[Howardx]

35. so your particular concern is efficiency?

and not some outlandish idea that the 2nd amendment provides your gun ownership and ammo purchases with a privacy right?

[spin]

44. Why waste time and effort and money on "feel good" laws...

when you can devote that time, effort and money on laws that actually accomplish something positive.

For example, programs like Project Exile.

Project Exile was indeed an effective deterrent as shown by a few statistics. In 1997, prior to the
implementation of Project Exile, approximately 85 percent of Richmond’s homicides were committed with
guns, with more than 40 percent of them being drug related and more than 60 percent involving offenders
with prior criminal records. By 1998, when the program had been in operation for ten months, the number
of homicides decreased by 35 percent from the previous year and homicides committed with a firearm were
down by 41 percent. Since the inception of Project Exile, 890 persons have been indicted, 64 percent of
whom were detained without bond. As a result, 1,040 guns have been removed from Richmond’s streets
and kept out of the hands of criminals.2
http://www.policefoundation.org/pdf/preludetopsn.pdf

[Howardx]

48. sorry but i dont trust the "police foundation"s statistics

"U.S. Congressman Bobby Scott (D-VA) noted that Richmond had a smaller drop in crime during the period Exile was in effect than did Norfolk, which did not have Exile. <2>"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Exile

[friendly_iconoclast]

58. The contention that the proposed law is ineffective doesn't bother you?

Well then, you should be out lobbying to pass laws to ban swine flu and tooth decay, as well!

And it *does* infringe privacy. Sometimes, the exercise of civil liberties may not agree with
you but you just need to adjust.

You know, like same-sex marriage? Or neo-Nazis demonstrating?

[Hoopla Phil]

38. I believe the objection is on the thumb print and record being kept.

I have no objection to the showing of I.D, just like cigarettes. But I do have an objection to the thumb print and record being kept - I would object to such measures over the purchase of tobacco also.

[krispos42]

61. It's not the ID part, it's the thumbprint and log part

Or would you not mind it if, say, every time you went to the ATM the State Police and the Treasury Department logged the transaction and the serial numbers of all the cash it dispensed to you?

What objection to a law-abiding money user have to that?

[rl6214]

63. But, sniff, sniff, it's not the same thing...

Bullets are just meant to kill

[krispos42]

64. Yup, they are

And about one in 30,000,000 will wind up in a human body.


And those human bodies they wind up are likely to be involved with a drug gang, which uses $20 bills from ATMs to conduct their illegal commerce. Tracking those twenties and arresting the people that fuel the drug trade sounds like a viable crime-control effort.


And let's not forget prostitution and untaxed payments to workers.

[Endangered Specie]

67. that argument is even more ironic when you consider

something like 80-85% of people shot by a handgun survive, and most 'evil assault rifle' bullets are actually designed to wound, bullets truly designed to kill are fired from hunting rifles and shotguns!

[backwoodsbob]

65. why shouldn't you allow your phone and internet to be monitered?

what law abiding citizen would get in trouble from that?

[rl6214]

3. Why is it so hard to find someone to be truthful?

"It's easier to purchase guns and ammunition in California than it is to buy a package of cigarettes," said Assem. Kevin De Leon, D -Los Angeles.

[old mark]

36. That's really a shame - cigarettes will kill you...nt

[slackmaster]

6. Kevin de Leon is a lying sack of shit

http://www.discountgunmart.com/FAQs.html

[Political Heretic]

18. I want responsible gun regulation that works, not feel good baseless stuff that doesn't.

Basically any regulatory gun laws we pass ought to have sunset clauses and funding for qualitative research evaluation during the (let's say 5 year) period that a law is in effect.

I wish more of our laws were EVIDENCE BASED. We have a massive problem with gun violence in this country - disproportionate to the rest of the world. So what should we do about it? No one is sure because we haven't done anything yet.

I'm all for trying some things, but I want there to be accountability for our laws, especially regulatory ones. New ideas need to be connected to longitudinal research and they need to SUNSET - they need to be revisited/reauthorized periodically so they can be evaluated for effectiveness.

If it doesn't work, DON'T HAVE THE LAW.

[X_Digger]

22. Agreed.

Have you read the 1997 and 2003 studies on the effectiveness of the AWB? Pretty damning overall.

Legislation with effectiveness measures? A breath of fresh air!!

[Political Heretic]

31. I haven't because I've never had an opinion on the AWB. But if it comes up again

again then, I may have to take a look at it.

[Pullo]

45. This should help alleviate the hoarding of ammunition

:sarcasm:


Is this all part of an orchestrated firearm industry stimulus plan, or what???

[jody]

55. "Sacramento police say the law has helped get guns out of the hands of criminals"! Why do those laws

work for some ethnic groups and not others since all ethnic groups have precisely the same access to firearms under the same laws?

My question is prompted by FBI stats that show homicide rates for some ethnic groups are seven times that of other ethnic groups when all ethnic groups are subject to the same laws.