Alphecca

Weekly Report on Media Gun Stories

Welcome to the October 11th edition of this almost weekly thing I do here, the Weekly Check of media on guns and the Second Amendment. Some things never change. Just as every so often Mount Saint Helens will erupt, so too in California, more and more gun-control proposals waft their way through the Sacremento Statehouse with alarming regularity. Here's the latest:

Yes, it's the latest redux of "ballistic fingerprinting" and it involves requiring all ammunition bought in or brought into California to be "laser-etched" with a serial number. Unlike my crude Photoshop picture, the code would be nearly invisible. Unlike what proponents of the bill claim, it would add a huge expense and bureaucracy to residents of California and probably the rest of the country. First some background. From Reuters:

Under the plan, all ammunition sold in California would have a serial number etched by laser on the bullet and casing. Bullets without such micro-markings, including those from outside the state, would be barred by law, with some exceptions for sport shooters who make their own ammunition.

No other U.S. state requires microscopic identification numbers to be etched on bullets, although similar technology is used to brand airplane and auto parts, backers of the proposal said.

"We think this is a very valid idea that could solve crimes quickly," said Hallye Jordan, a spokeswoman for Lockyer, one of the state's leading Democrats.

"It's something that the cops going to a crime scene involving shooting victims, once they recover the spent cartridge or bullets they can look at it right there," she said. "We have a database where they can put the number right in and then drive to the person's house whose bullets they were."

It certainly sounds reasonable but here are some thoughts that strike me about it:

(1.) A lobbyist for the company that markets the technology used to etch the bullets says it would only add about one cent to the cost of each bullet. What he fails to say is that in order for the system to work, gun and ammo dealers (or anyone for that matter, such as Wal-Mart) who sells ammo would have to record those serial numbers and the purchasers of each box of bullets. This adds up to time and paperwork for the dealer.

And what good is it if those codes and customer names aren't given to "the state"? So California will, of course, have a whole new regulatory bureaucracy in place to record and store such data. That means red-tape and regulations on all this information. All of that costs money and sure bears do it in the woods, all these costs will be passed on to the consumer; you and me. For competition shooters, practical shooters, or anyone who just likes to practice and run through a lot of ammo each week, the cost is starting to add up.

(2.) It is unlikely that most bullet manufacturers are going to do "a seperate run" of ammo just for the good folks of California. Instead, they will have two choices: Stop distributing in the state or else mark ALL bullets made with the code. The latter means that all of us will pay more for our ammo. In addition, many foreign makers of ammo such as Wolf are unlikely to adopt the laser etching so they (and others) might stop selling in the US. Less sources means less competition means higher prices. We all lose in the wallet. If by some chance they do produce seperate, etched runs for California, anyone can just hop into their car and cross into any of several border states to buy unmarked ammo.

(3.) Given condition #2 above that all ammo will be coded, gun-control loving states such as NY, IL, MD, MA, et al will quickly adopt the same bullet-purchase registration scheme, adding to the aggrevation of the already beleaguered gun owners there.

(4.) Most important though is probably (to you readers) the most obvious. If criminals have no problem getting weapons illegally, why would there be any challenge to them to obtain ammo illegally? So now, when they break into your home they'll not only steal your guns but your ammo too. Or smuggle it across the border. As with all registration schemes, the only ones who are hurt or inconvenienced or otherwise hit in the wallet are the law-abiding citizens. Criminals don't obey laws. And even if they did, they'll use the same phony ID they use for everything else to also buy their ammo in California.

(5.) One minor point: How will these etchings affect the ballistics, or accuracy of the bullet?

So all of this is just one more useless abuse of the Second Amendment by California liberals intent on intimidating anyone who owns a firearm.

The Reuters story made it all sound like a rosy idea and only had one small quote from opponents. To me it was biased in favor of the new gun-control idea. Better was this one from the AP:

The proposed system immediately drew skepticism from representatives of gun and ammunition manufacturers as well as gun owners.

"It's another proposal designed to make it more difficult for those who make ammunition and people who enjoy firearms," said Gary Mehalik, spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Officials were still determining how the system might affect ammunition dealers. Many of the 1,600 gun retail outlets already have the electronic equipment needed to record information about gun buyers.

However, thousands of stores that sell ammunition but not handguns might need new identification card scanning equipment, Rossi said.

In Vermont, many local "general stores" sell ammo along with milk and eggs and cigarettes. I assume it's the same in California, so if those "thousands of stores" that don't have the necessary scanning equipment have to buy one out of their own pocket, they might just as soon stop selling ammo, thereby requiring the hunter or sportsman or enthusiast to travel much greater distances to find someone who does.

Neither news story mentioned any of the objections I raised above.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reporter Don Hopey penned a "news" story about how most sportsmen will be voting for President Bush, even if it means "holding their noses" because of the "gun issue". Mostly, this story was rather even in pro-Kerry and pro-Bush quotes and that's all we can ask for from reporters. I think some of the quotes he found from various people decrying Bush's environmental policies are exaggerated. Thanks to an uncooperative Congress, most of his proposals haven't been passed. But it did contain one remarkable boner quote from someone who should know better:

"In 2000 Gore stayed out of the gun control issue and Rendell was very proactive in support of sportsmen when he ran. But Kerry is making an issue out of gun control and I think that's foolish," said Mike Slavonic, a member of the Carrick Sportsmen's Club and the Allegheny County Sportsmen's League board of directors.

Er, Mike? Even former President Bill Clinton states in his book that Gore's anti-gun stance probably cost him at least five states in 2000. Gore even wanted a national handgun license!

One news story (that Yahoo strangely classified as an editorial) has no bearing on anything to do with gun-control, unless you consider it gun-control for cops. From the LA Times:

HOOPER BAY, Alaska — This Eskimo village sits on the edge of the continent, part shantytown, part suburb, part Wild West. One can't go farther west without stepping into the Bering Sea — and just beyond, onto the frosty eastern tip of Siberia.

No roads lead to Hooper Bay, which is why the modern world has taken its time coming here, and then only in spots. Clusters of plywood shacks stand a short distance from subdivisions of lookalike modular homes. There's no running water, but lots of VCRs and satellite dishes, and computers hooked up to the Internet.

One of the more curious aspects of life here has to do with firearms. Every household has an assortment of rifles and shotguns. When people are hungry, they go out and shoot something, like a walrus in the surf.

Every adult has legal access to guns — except the police.

This is an interesting story of life in an extreme environment and of life on the edge of survival. A story (some unstated but anyone living in the far North climes will will understand) about desperation and the retreat into alcoholism.

I live in a town with about 950 residents and we have one part-time policeman who has never been shot. This town of 1500 has nine cops and many have been shot. One, 4 times. The elders of the town need to allow their police to carry firearms. Period. It's not just the ability to defend oneself although that would be simple justice (or fairness if you like). Rather, it's the confidence that radiates from someone in a supposed position of authority that carrying provides. Just as criminals possess more respect (or fear) of an armed populace, so they also will respect (or fear) law enforcement that is armed.

This next story is a perfect example of how, once you get away from urban areas, politicians are much more likely to support gun rights. And I will confess that sometimes I'm guilty of painting all Democrats as being anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment. In Vermont, state representatives (other than from the Burlington Area) are -- including Democrats -- almost all pro-gun and pro-2A. Here's an example from Northern New York State, From the Star-Gazette:

Two candidates for the 29th Congressional District seat Thursday described themselves as friends of gun owners in the region and acknowledged the long tradition of hunting.

Republican John R. Kuhl Jr. and Democrat Samara Barend addressed the issue of Second Amendment rights before about 80 people at a candidates' forum sponsored by the Yates County Chapter of Shooters Committee on Political Education (SCOPE)...

...In brief opening remarks, both candidates asserted their respect for gun owners and hunters in the state.

Kuhl acknowledged that he owns several guns and hunted rabbits and squirrels with his father as a child. He later said that the National Rifle Association endorsed his candidacy and donated $3,500 to his campaign.

Barend is not a gun owner but said her father is a hunter and that as representative, she would work to preserve the district's natural resources so that sportsmen may continue to enjoy them...

...[Republican] Kuhl said he does not favor an extension of the assault weapons ban or in holding gun manufacturers criminally responsible for the actions of individuals.

For her part, [Democrat] Barend said she wants to see background checks at gun shows that are as efficient as possible without being inconvenient.

"I honestly believe the Second Amendment is as important as the first," she said.

Okay, I really don't know what Barend is really like since I don't follow the news there but at least she makes the attempt and she acknowleges what I've been saying all along, that ALL of the Bill of Rights are important. I welcome comments from area residents. I wish this gig paid me a full time salery so I could JUST blog all day and cover elections and gun issues from everywhere in the country. Fortunately there's a list of great bloggers from all over the place over on the right-hand sidebar who represent almost every state in the nation.

Speaking of which, here's what some of them are writing about:

Say Uncle reports that some states with the strictest gun-control laws are receiving the lowest marks in prosecuting gun crimes. The report he cites also shows that some states with "relaxed gun laws" are quite vigilant in enforcement. A pattern starts to emerge...

Song of the Suburbs (like many) answered my question about nightstand firearms with this post about living in an anti-gun town in the outskirts of Chicago.

Backroad Blog reports on one gunshop's outrageous transfer fee. Would you believe $50 dollars? As an aside, the gunshop where I do most of my shopping (for the last 12 years or so) didn't charge me ANYTHING to receive the .45 a kind reader recently sent me. I think that is his policy with long-standing customers. Alas, he doesn't have a web page or I would link to it here but you Vermonters can find him in East Burke. A good man and wife team to deal with.

Pervasive Light on the VP debate and plastic guns. So Dave? How do you really feel?

Publicola offers his own thoughts on the story I reported above about the Alaskan town with unarmed police. I disagree with him but I'll defend his right to his opinions.

Kevin at the Smallest Minority has the latest on British gun control. In rural areas here in America, the response time of calls to 911 is equally slow. Unlike the Brits, we CAN (well, most of us) arm and protect ourselves.

Triggerfinger will only support a candidate who supports gun rights. I agree. He also links to the GOA candidate ratings. GOA has ignored me over the years but their ratings do provide a service.

Most true firearm aficionados love the old guns. Head's Bunker has a wonderful post about old rifles. I can attest to this; you hold an antique rifle and can almost feel and hear the history it has participated in. Great post!

Anyway folks, this is going up a few hours early so I can get a decent amount of sleep before a very early (job related) meeting tomorrow morning. I'm dating it for just after midnight tomorrow but actually it's about 8 PM on Sunday... While not the "meatiest" of my Weekly Checks, I hope you've enjoyed it and as always: Thanks for stopping by!

Posted by Jeff Soyer at October 11, 2004 12:01 AM