An ignorant, ill-informed, uneducated, and just plain stupid editorial writer causes illegal and unconstitutional requirement for ammunition sales in the communist state of California
You can count on most newspaper editorial writers to come down on the side of gun control and restrictions on ammunition sales because they don’t own guns, don’t understand guns and have a wonderful penchant for confusing apples and oranges.
Sometimes, it also seems like they were raised on a planet where no one takes any personal responsibility for their actions.
An editorial in a fading major daily this week encouraged Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign the ill-conceived and poorly written AB 962, the bill that would require gun shops to have ammunition buyers fill out a form and leave a thumbprint. The stated intent is to keep ammunition out of the wrong hands and help law enforcement agencies put crooks behind bars when they do something wrong.
Common sense and nearly 20 years of a similar federal law have proven the bill can’t and won’t do either thing, but the anti-gunners press on, ignoring the facts.
The editorial used the sterling example of a driver’s license, which it said combats identity theft, helps track criminals and keeps unsafe driver’s off the road. Are you laughing yet?
All we get from a driver’s license is an ID card that says we’ve paid our dues at the Department of Motor Vehicles and supported a bureaucracy that the public uses only when forced.
It spoke about meth labs and how we now have to present our ID when we buy cold medicines. But it didn’t point out that meth production is not down and that the requirement has had little or no positive impact in catching meth makers.
It’s just a pain for the rest of us. My wife, who’s had a nasty cold, had to take an extra five minutes to buy her cold medicine this week. A big deal? No, but she’d much rather have had those five minutes to have her feet propped up at home.
The editorial pointed out that we’re all carded when we buy booze to keep it out of the hands of minors. The writer apparently didn’t know we have to do that now with ammunition already, just like with booze. Of course, this doesn’t make much sense because kids can legally hunt, target shoot, or use a gun to defend themselves in their home, but you already have to be 21 to buy handgun ammunition.
So what was their point? The editorial said the registration only affects handgun ammunition, but the reality is that all metallic ammunition is affected because there are handguns that can shoot any and all sporting and military rounds.
So the “no mail-order” clause effectively puts out of business custom loaders who reload ammunition for the hunting marketplace. Or sure, they can ship the ammo to a licensed dealer who will do the paperwork for a customer – and add a surcharge for providing the service, just like they do now with firearms. It will effectively end the activity, in spite of what bill supporters say.
The editorial said the law would help law enforcement investigate gang shootings by allowing them to see who bought the ammunition used in the criminal activity. It can’t and won’t do that. There is no way to trace ammunition back to its purchase box.
A 9mm is a 9mm is a 9mm. You might identify the manufacturer by the casing or slug, but there’s no way to draw a line from a round, to a box of ammo, to a store, to a purchaser, back to a shooter. Everything about this bill is based on false premises and warped thinking.
My point is that the editorial writers get everything wrong, half-wrong, or use analogies that don’t apply. But what can we expect? They constantly use the word “bullets” when they actually mean “ammunition.” You only hear that usage from six-year-olds and newspaper writers.
As you know, a bullet is a component of a loaded round of ammunition. It’s the part that exits the end of the barrel when a gun is fired. “Bullets” and “ammunition” are not interchangeable words.
We don’t say “engine” when we mean “automobile.” If they can’t even get the word usage correct, can we really expect them to do any real research to back up their commentary?
The bill and those who support it are interested in discriminating against legal gun owners. These are people who are afraid of guns and people who own and use them, and they are terrified of the Second Amendment of the Constitution. They also don’t particularly like the First Amendment when someone like you or I point out the fallacy of their arguments in support of legislation like AB 962.
Amazingly, that bill passed through both houses of our state government and awaits the signature or veto of the Governor. If it will waste time and effort writing and passing laws like this, is it any wonder our state government is mired in dysfunctionality?
