# Possible new CA gun law **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 28, 2005, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-new-ca-gun-law/301550 "2005-04-28T14:35:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-new-ca-gun-law/301550/81 "2005-05-02T13:21:35Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > He’s another reason it won’t work: The black market for unmarked bullets could be insanely lucrative. After all, your typical gang-banger only needs a handful of them probably for the rest of his life. So he’s not going to care if he has to pay $100 for them. That makes the black market bullets worth potentially 50-100 times more valuable than regular ones. As lucrative as drugs, and getting caught with them is just a misdemeanor. It’ll be a real growth industry. Any criminal with half a brain will be able to get them. Hell, any smart crook wouldn’t even have to worry about the misdemeanor charge (switch a box of registered ammo for somebody else’s in any of a dozen ways, and there’s no way to prove that it was anything but a clerical error if John Doe gets caught with a supply of ammo registered to Richard Roe). ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-new-ca-gun-law/301550/82 "2005-05-02T13:35:46Z")
Identification on the exterior of the items described in paragraphs (1) and (2) in a manner that is maintained subsequent to the discharge of the ammunition and subsequent to the **impact of the bullet**, based on standards prescribed by the department. Bolding mine. They are indeed talking about the bullet and NOT the casing. What they are saying here is the serial number needs to be readable AFTER the impact of the bullet. They did NOT say the serial number needs to be readable after the ejection of the casing. ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-new-ca-gun-law/301550/83 "2005-05-02T13:38:32Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > Yeah, a blanket universal prohibition would fix that, the same way it got rid of all the marijuana and cocaine… If the mere outlawing of guns would kill more people than it would save, we would indeed have a discussion, and a valid comparison. What’s the maximum penalty on reckless endangerment in the U.S.? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-new-ca-gun-law/301550/84 "2005-05-02T14:27:20Z")
> [@treis](#): > > First off I didn’t ignore it. > > Second I assume you have a cite showing that revolvers make up the majority of handguns used in a crime? I certainly don’t have to show that they make up a majority, only that they make up enough of a proportion that marking only the casing would not accomplish the goal stated. This is easy to do. The data in the cite is from the mid-1990’s, but is a good place to start. [Bureau of Justice Statistics - Guns Used in Crimes](http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf) > [@](#): > > Studies of the guns used in homicides show that large caliber revolvers are the most frequent type of gun used in homicides, but the number of large caliber semiautomatic guns used in murders is increasing. > [@](#): > > Most frequently reported handguns > in the NCIC stolen gun file > > Percent > of stolen > handguns Number Caliber Type > 20.5% 259,184 .38 Revolver > 11.7 147,681 .22 Revolver > 11.6 146,474 .357 Revolver > 8.8 111,558 9 mm Semiautomatic > 7.0 87,714 .25 Semiautomatic > 6.7 84,474 .22 Semiautomatic > 5.4 68,112 .380 Semiautomatic > 3.7 46,503 .45 Semiautomatic > 3.3 41,318 .32 Revolver > 3.1 39,254 .44 Revolver > 1.5 18,377 .32 Semiautomatic > 1.3 16,214 .45 Revolver > [@](#): > > Over half of the guns that police agencies asked ATF to trace were pistols and another quarter were revolvers. Now, it’s clear that the use of revolvers in crime is not insignificant, and the implications of this in an ammuniotion marking scheme is obvious. You can’t ever count on finding spent casings at a shooting. Given all of this data, you really should concede this point. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-new-ca-gun-law/301550/85 "2005-05-02T14:51:56Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > Identification on the exterior of the items described in > paragraphs (1) and (2) in a manner that is maintained subsequent to > the discharge of the ammunition and subsequent to the **impact of the > bullet**, based on standards prescribed by the department. > > Bolding mine. They are indeed talking about the bullet and NOT the casing. What they are saying here is the serial number needs to be readable AFTER the impact of the bullet. > . Whic, of course- is impossible. Sometimes bullets are fragmented into dozens of tiny oeices- although smashed to unrecognizability is more common. So- since\* some\* bullets are destroyed upon impact, it will be impossible to mark ALL bullets so that the “identification” is readable after “impact”. Thus, like I said- the bill’s only purpose is to ban the sale of ammo. Whether or not the casing could be so marked, and whether or not having the casing so marked would be a significant help to the police- is totally moot as that is not what is being suggested. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-new-ca-gun-law/301550/86 "2005-05-03T17:39:08Z")
> [@](#): > > Serializing the casing wouldn’t accomplish much. An awful lot of handguns arwe revolvers, and the casings do not eject when a revolver is fired. Not to mention - again - that casings are used over and over and over. In fact, bags of used casings in bulk are something that everyone sells and everyone buys at guns shows. Also, it doesn’t take a friggin’ genius to fashion a small cloth bag and attach it over the ejection port of a pistol to catch spent brass. In addition, there are dozens of aftermarket products that do just this; here’s just a few from one manufacturer: [http://shop.store.yahoo.com/campingsurvival/elribrca.html](http://shop.store.yahoo.com/campingsurvival/elribrca.html) ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-new-ca-gun-law/301550/87 "2005-05-04T00:08:50Z")
Legislation like this is the reason I changed from ‘middle of the road’ to pro-gun. There are too many people that don’t know enough about guns, bullets or ballistics that will think this bill is a good idea. It’s hard to say what the goal of this proposed legislation is. It may be purely an attempt to help try to solve crimes. If that’s all it is, then the folks that proposed, and support this bill do not know enough about guns to write it. I’m trying to be optimistic. Really I am. If, solving crime is the intent, why didn’t they get some expert advice? Admittedly, I’m not an expert, but I know enough about ballistics to recognize how far fetched the idea of putting serial numbers on bullets is. Forget about the logistical nightmare this would create, the additional crime it would create (black market bullets) and consider the technical problems that would have to be overcome to make this work. If, indeed, they can be overcome. This is ‘Make it so’ legislation, with little thought of if it can be done. The only way that I can see that it could be done is to not sell handgun ammo in CA. To remain an optimist about this, I have to take the position that the legislators don’t have the first clue of what they are talking about, and did not ask for any assistance. The pessimist in me says that they do know. Or at least some of them do. Is it ignorance, or misrepresentation of intent? ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-new-ca-gun-law/301550/88 "2005-06-07T13:27:18Z")
California one step closer to a de facto ammunition ban. The California Senate has now passed this bill, S.B. 357 (there’s a piece of irony for ya). It is scheduled to go to the California State Assembly for a vote before the end of August 2005. As the bill now appears, in addition to serializing fully-assembled ammunition, _bullets packaged to be sold for home reloading purposes must also be serialized_. Further, this serial number must be discernable _after firing and impact_, whether on the bullet, or the casing. The imprint on each of these must be discernable by naked eye and include, along with a unique identifying number, the manufacturer’s name. The exterior of every package of fully-assembled ammunition, or bullets for reloading must also carry the unique numbers of the items contained therein. This bill also provides for a ½¢ per round tax. Ammunition held and purchased by legal authorities, of course, is not subject to this law. Can’t find anything in the bill about ammunition currently held by residents of California. That is, whether it would still be legal to hold that ammo, or if it has to be turned in for destruction. The bill does not state explicitly that it pertains only to **new** ammunition. Here’s the text of the bill (in .pdf) with the latest ammendments: [http://www.saami.org/docs/SB357051805.pdf](http://www.saami.org/docs/SB357051805.pdf) Here’s the log of activity on the bill at the Californa State Legislature site: [http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill\_number=sb\_357&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen](http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_357&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen) ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-new-ca-gun-law/301550/89 "2005-06-07T13:31:11Z")
This might be a matter Congress should address, as the market for ammunition is an interstate one. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-new-ca-gun-law/301550/90 "2005-06-07T13:32:54Z")
And if ya wanna take a virtual tour through a modern ammunition manufacturing facility to see just how impossible this law will be to comply with, go here: [http://66.221.79.203/RIMFIRE\_CENTERFIRE.wmv](http://66.221.79.203/RIMFIRE_CENTERFIRE.wmv) I’d also note that the half-cent per cartridge tax would add $2.50 to the bricks (500 rounds) of the type of .22LR ammo that I usually buy. Bricks that now cost me $9.99 would suddenly be 25% more. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-new-ca-gun-law/301550/91 "2005-06-07T15:01:23Z")
:mad: I’ll be sending in an extra check to the NRA ILA to help fight this one. > [@](#): > > Anti-gun legislation, Senate Bill 357, was voted out of the Senate and is to be considered in the Assembly. This bill would establish a program requiring serialization of handgun ammunition to be enforced by the Department of Justice. The manufacture, transfer, **and possession** of non-serialized handgun ammunition after July 1, 2007, **would be considered a crime**. SB 357 would also require ammunition vendors and manufacturers to register with the Department of Justice. [Cite](http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=1628), bolding mine. All lawful gun owners in California: You are about to be legislated into being criminals. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-new-ca-gun-law/301550/92 "2005-06-07T15:36:38Z")
Thanks for the extra info, Debaser. Much as I feared when I didn’t see a specific exclusion for extant ammunition. Even more appalling is a bill recently passed by the California Assembly which will goes much, much, much farther than the CA Senate bill prososes. AB 352 requires, beginning in Jan '07, outlaws all semi-automatic handguns which do not carry a unique microscopic indentification number **and which will transmit that unique identifier to each cartridge when fired**. It does this by expanding California’s definition of “unsafe guns” and adding any such semi-automatic handgun to California’s list of “unsafe guns.” All guns on that list are banned from sale in California. Text of AB 352 here in HTML format: [http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab\_0351-0400/ab\_352\_bill\_20050516\_amended\_asm.html](http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0351-0400/ab_352_bill_20050516_amended_asm.html) > [@](#): > > Existing law defines unsafe handguns as failing to pass certain > tests, or lacking certain features, as specified. > This bill would, commencing January 1, 2007, expand the definition > of unsafe handgun to include semiautomatic pistols that are not > designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters, that > identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched > into the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, > and which are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when > the firearm is fired. This bill also requires that beginning Jan '06, all center-fire semi-automatic handguns offered for sale in CA must have both a “loaded chamber” indicator and a “magazine disconnect.” Californians, your constitutionally guaranteed rights are under attack in a most despicable, gutless and heinous manner by your elected officials. If you oppose this legislation, which could very easily result in backdoor bans of ammuntion and a very large class of firearms, please write or call your representatives. Don’t let them continue to apply grease to the slippery slope. [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html) ---
**Author:** ![sewalk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@sewalk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sewalk)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-new-ca-gun-law/301550/93 "2005-06-07T19:46:28Z")
Slippery slope, my ass. They’re tipping the damn thing vertical. Has a single member of the California legislature that has voted for these bills ever even seen a spent bullet? For all those posters who were wearing blinders a month ago, have a look at Figure 5 on [this](http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html) page. Then tell me where you’d put the serial numbers. :wally ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-new-ca-gun-law/301550/94 "2005-06-07T20:59:41Z")
Wow. I used to say “…cold dead fingers.” as a joke. Now I’m starting to mean it. NRA membership renewed for another three years. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-new-ca-gun-law/301550/95 "2005-06-08T02:08:27Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > Even more appalling is a bill recently passed by the California Assembly which will goes much, much, much farther than the CA Senate bill prososes. AB 352 requires, beginning in Jan '07, outlaws all semi-automatic handguns which do not carry a unique microscopic indentification number **and which will transmit that unique identifier to each cartridge when fired**. It does this by expanding California’s definition of “unsafe guns” and adding any such semi-automatic handgun to California’s list of “unsafe guns.” All guns on that list are banned from sale in California. Does such a gun actually exist? ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-new-ca-gun-law/301550/96 "2005-06-08T02:15:11Z")
According to the latest “Knox Report,” this bill will cost California law enforcement, who **are not** exempt from the requirements of the bill, an additional $2.5 million a year just in basic firearms training costs. Betcha Lockyer isn’t mentioning that little fact to anybody. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-new-ca-gun-law/301550/97 "2005-06-08T03:07:37Z")
And here to think I was being called paranoid just a few short years ago. Undoubtedly someone from the PC Left will be along to tell us all how we are just being paranoid “gun nuts” and crying “slippery slope.” How many gun control laws are enough? Always at least one more. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-new-ca-gun-law/301550/98 "2005-06-08T03:39:34Z")
So… Cali Cops now need the new guns and the new ammo. And the ammo has to be… I can’t wait to see what happens. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-new-ca-gun-law/301550/99 "2005-06-08T03:44:00Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > So… Cali Cops now need the new guns and the new ammo. And the ammo has to be… > > I can’t wait to see what happens. Actually, now that I think about it a bit, that part of the bill is pretty slick. Considering the size of California, and the numerous municipal, county and state police it has, this gives both firearm and cartridge manufacturers some financial incentive to play ball. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-new-ca-gun-law/301550/100 "2005-06-08T10:26:33Z")
Yes, but remember, it has to be legible _after_ firing. That should be highly entertaining, and possibly the source for lawsuits against the state when it is not, for firing illegal ammunition. There’s enough professional shit-stirrers down there I’m _sure_ someone’ll try to disarm the cops that way. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-new-ca-gun-law/301550.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-new-ca-gun-law/301550.md?page=6)