NFR: HB3359 seeks to serialize handgun ammo

#31
Jon, I know full well what the courts have said. I was only alluding to what I see as the intent of the framers. I haven't read any of the court decisions word for word, so I can't speak to specific arguments. But it seems pretty clear that the main intent of the second amendment was to provide for a "well regulated militia."
Like I said, already been debated ad nauseum. I won't bore you or myself with re-hashing the issue. But, if you're interested in constitutional history and semantics.....by all means, carry on!:rolleyes:

JonB
 

Old Man

Just an Old Man
#32
Since I'm on the lazy side and don't want to read the whole bill. What are they going to mark the lead or the casing.

Most pick up the brass and the lead would be so misformed after going thru a body that you couldn't read the numbers if you wanted to.

Don't pay me no never mind as I'm just babbling on about what I know nothing about.

Jim
 

Chris Puma

hates waking up early
#33
changed my quote before anyone else replied quoting it. i didn't change my quote after people replied. as long as you quote it before i change it, you can still respond with my original quote.

i didn't go back after people started quoting to change my original quote so i wouldn't get flack. i thought what i posted sounded crazy. big deal. you called me a spineless pussy. congragulations.

i royally f*cked up that sentence you quoted me on. i also pmed you about it.
 

PT

Physhicist
#34
Chris, no big deal. You don't seem fanatical to me. Hell, I crap leather and laces with the amount of shoe I eat on this site.:clown:
 

o mykiss

Active Member
#36
Like I said, already been debated ad nauseum. I won't bore you or myself with re-hashing the issue. But, if you're interested in constitutional history and semantics.....by all means, carry on!:rolleyes:

JonB
Actually, Jon, maybe you should brush up on your history. Every time the Supreme Court has weighed in on the issue, beginning in the late 1800s and I think most recently in the late 1970s, they've made clear the second amendment is an issue of states' rights, not individual rights. Now, that may change when they finally hand down their opinion on Parker v. D.C., which was heard last fall. But for now, the Supreme Court has never ruled it's an individual right.
 
#37
OMJ, I didn't read the entire bill either. I've heard "both casing and projectile" from some and "only casing" from others. It doesn't really matter though as both would be equally useless in preventing or solving crimes. The bill, if it ever got enacted, would actually create a black market for unmarked ammunition so it would cause more crime than it prevented.
Just another hairbrained scheme from the Brady Bunch.:rolleyes:

JonB
 
#38
Thanks for the heads up Roper, hopefully this is a dead issue for now. And for those of you who can't see things like this as another attempt by the Brady Bunch and other anti gun fanatics to put yet another "chink in the armor" of responsible gun ownership. Just keep your heads buried in the sand. At least I know what side of the line I stand on, and I'm proud to see and say I'm not alone over here. :thumb:
 
#39
Actually, Jon, maybe you should brush up on your history. Every time the Supreme Court has weighed in on the issue, beginning in the late 1800s and I think most recently in the late 1970s, they've made clear the second amendment is an issue of states' rights, not individual rights. Now, that may change when they finally hand down their opinion on Parker v. D.C., which was heard last fall. But for now, the Supreme Court has never ruled it's an individual right.
I will concede that I was over-reaching when I stated that the "Supreme Court has sided with those who believe that firearms ownership is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT."
Let's look at what the Supremos have actually said:

From US vs. Cruickshank (1876):
The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called..."internal police."
Apparently you interpret this to mean that the RKBA CAN be infringed by other govt. entities? I would say that this means that the RIGHT exists independant of govt. and the 2nd ammendment is there to prevent Congress from infringing.

I think this is the most salient passage from this portion of the opinion:
"This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
At any rate, I stand corrected as to the SCOTUS ruling on the individual right issue. In my eyes the SCOTUS has acknowledged that the right exists independant of any govt. body as it was, like other freedoms, pre-existing and granted by our creator.

In Presser vs. People of Illinois (1886):

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government.
In U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990):

" '[T]he people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by 'the people of the United States.' The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,' and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to 'the people.' See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ('Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble') (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ('The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States') (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. "
In this case the SCOTUS takes a stab at clarifying the meaning of "the People"
We live in interesting times. It may well be a defining moment in our history when the court hands down the DC decision.
Keep your powder dry boys!

JonB
 

Jim Wallace

Smells like low tide.
#40
Whew! For a moment there, having mis-read Roper's initial post, I was afeared that they were gonna take away my right to arm and keep bears! :clown:
Then, realizing my mistake, i again misread it and thought they were gonna try to take away my right arm that hoists beers!:beer1:

Seriously folks, it wouldn't even take 2 seconds for a black market to develop in ammo. There would be van loads coming in daily from out of state, completely under the radar. This was one of the stupidist pieces of proposed legislation that i have ever heard... a complete and idiotic waste of tax dollars, and have absolutely zero effect on preventing criminals from obtaining ammo.
Glad to hear it died in committee!
 

Josh

dead in the water
#41
So would it be equally stupid if it were a national law? Despite my earlier ribbing of Roper, I'm asking a serious question here.

I have no idea if an honest working law enforcement agent would say "hell no, this wouldn't help us at all" or "Yes, this would be a great piece of information in our arsenal". I know all I'm likely to get by asking this question is hot-air propaganda from both sides of the line. But that's how you learn, by asking.

I tend to try and gather as much information on a subject as I can before I make up my mind one way or the other.
 

alpinetrout

Banned or Parked
#42
So would it be equally stupid if it were a national law?
It might make it worthwhile enough for domestic ammunition manufacturers to retool to be able to do the etching. It would most certainly drive up the prices as well. As for foreign manufacturers, who knows how many would go through the trouble. At any rate, there would still be billions of rounds produced around the world every year without any serial numbers that would most certainly make their way into the US one way or another. Look at the amount of drugs that make it into this country. Smuggling serial-free ammo wouldn't have nearly the monetary loss (both actual and future) to smugglers when caught and confiscated, pound for pound, as cocaine or heroin.

Let's also not ignore the issue of theft. Once stolen without serial numbers being recorded at the dealer, the system is worthless. Even worse, if it were stolen from an end user without their knowledge and was subsequently used in a crime, an innocent victim could be linked to a crime they had nothing to do with. Along those same lines, it would be easy for a black market to develop around ammunition reported as lost or stolen by criminals who then resell the ammunition as part of a larger black market network.

Meanwhile, there's still the the fact that ammunition is very low tech and reloading is very easy for most anyone to do. An etched number could easily be removed from a spent casing and reloaded with a serial-free bullet. At that point, the only way to tell if the round was "legal" or not would be to either fire it or dismantle it. There is no possible way to effectively enforce this system, which basically renders it an incredibly expensive bureaucratic waste of resources.
 
#44
So would it be equally stupid if it were a national law? Despite my earlier ribbing of Roper, I'm asking a serious question here.

I have no idea if an honest working law enforcement agent would say "hell no, this wouldn't help us at all" or "Yes, this would be a great piece of information in our arsenal". I know all I'm likely to get by asking this question is hot-air propaganda from both sides of the line. But that's how you learn, by asking.

I tend to try and gather as much information on a subject as I can before I make up my mind one way or the other.
OK, fair enough, here's my hot air propoganda.:)
I know exactly what an "honest working law enforcement agent " would say because I have one in the family and I asked him.
He said it was absolutely ridiculous, stating all the reasons that were given by alpine and others earlier in this thread.
I would ask you to think about how govt. spends so much of OUR resources trying to correct problems that were initiated by govt.
Now imagine that the serialized ammo law was passed and then a large black market for unmarked ammo developed. This then prompts govt. to enact a ban on posession of unmarked ammo.
Now any collector who has old ammo is a criminal.
Any hunter, shooter, reloader who has unmarked ammo is a criminal.
Any 77 year old granny who has an old box of 30.06 that grandad left in his sock drawer is a criminal.
Now, what do we do about muzzleloaders?
What do we do about shotguns?
As a person who has watched the erosion of the 2nd ammendment for decades I can tell you that the gun ban lobby works incrementaly with "common sense solutions" that always appear, on the surface, to be aimed at protecting the public. This kind of legislation is just that. It appears to be for public safety but, it's really about driving one more nail in the coffin of the RKBA.

ctyazfan, the answer to your question is NO.

JonB
 

David Prutsman

All men are equal before fish
#45
Exactly! Why bother with legislation which will have no impact on law abiding gun owners? If somone is going to rob a seven 11, I doubt they are concerned enough about gun laws to first register the ammunition. Legistaion such as this just tippy toes closer and closer to "that" line and if a stand is not made and a line not clearly drawn, precedent upon precedent will be set eventually leading to the amputation of our rights. Today it's coding ammunition, tomorrow it will be the sale of firearms with out a firing pin, c'mon now!

I'm not apposed to gun legislation but some common sense is in order. I would much rather see legislation regarding firearm education. Perhaps, like other states, Washington should require proof of a safety course before a concealed lisence is issued. Who can argue with education and safety?

David