Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog A blog for and by Guns and Ammo Enthusiast's

Idaho State lawmakers to introduce bill to ATF and the federal government to go stick it

Idaho has been a strong supporter of the right to bear arms — even attracting firearms manufacturers from other states to spur its economy.

But is it willing to take on the federal government to defend that right?

Rep. R.J. “Dick” Harwood, R-St. Maries, will ask that question when he introduces a bill to the Idaho Legislature in January that could make it cheaper and easier to buy a firearm that’s made and sold in Idaho.

The bill, which is circulating among a small group of Republican lawmakers, will mirror the Montana Firearms Freedom Act — the now famous bill that pit Montana against the federal government in a pending legal battle.

Harwood said the bill is a shot across the bow of the federal government.

“This is a way that we can tell the federal government that they can’t take away states’ rights,”he said. “I know the feds are going to have a problem with it — they already say we would be superceding their authority.”

He said the bill would mirror one that was passed in Montana in 2009.

Montana was the first state to pass a bill that slapped the federal government’s hands off of in-state firearms sales.

Montana House Bill 426 — also dubbed the Montana Firearms Freedom Act — says all firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition made and sold within Montana is exempt from federal regulation.

The Montana Shooting Sports Association filed a complaint against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in federal court in October to validate the bill’s passage.

The case is pending in court and officials say they don’t know how long — or how costly — the case may be.

But there is more behind the act than its title conveys. And it has more to do with dollars and cents than states’ rights.

Manufacturers and state lawmakers say Montana’s Firearms Freedom Act is also a valuable tool to attract gun makers from states that are imposing more rigid gun laws.

Something that hasn’t been lost on Idaho lawmakers.

“This is an opportunity to create jobs and help spur the economy by bringing manufactures to Idaho,” said Representative Marc Gibbs, a Republican legislator from Grace. “I’m a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, but right now our state’s economy is my biggest concern.”

Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter announced an initiative earlier this year that markets Idaho to firearms manufacturers in other states that are looking to move or expand.

The initiative, known as Project 60, has already seen some success when Advanced Precision, which makes shotguns for Legacy Sports, opened manufacturing facility in Meridian.

However, Gibbs said Idaho should wait to see what the outcome will be of the case between Montana and the federal government.

Even firearms manufacturers in Idaho — those who would benefit the most from the bill — say it’s not a fight they want to pick right now.

“As a freedom loving American, I think the bill is a great idea,” said Jay Quilligan, who manufactures firearm accessories in south-central Idaho. “But as a business owner, it doesn’t really change anything.”

Quilligan said he would still be required to pay all federal taxes and fees because he is licensed by the federal government — something he needs to continue doing business with military and law enforcement.

“Most manufacturers in Idaho and other states are not going to take that risk of losing their business,” said Matt Dogali, Idaho liaison with the National Rifle Association. “The bill sounds good, but in practice these guys would be spending a ton of capital just to make a statement.”

And some Idaho lawmakers aren’t willing to put the state’s firearms and ammunition manufacturers in the federal government’s crosshairs.

Idaho is home to ATK CCISpears, one of the largest manufacturers of ammunition for law enforcement and civilian use. The state also fosters small businesses such as Tactical Solutions, Primary Weapons Systems, CheyTac and several others that build high-grade firearms and accessories for military and civilians.

Representative Marv Hagedorn, R-Meridian, said the cost and risk would be placed primarily on the manufacturers.

“The state can pass the Firearms Freedom Act, but ultimately it will have to be tested in court,”he said. “That means one of (the manufacturers) would have to be the guinea pig.”

Harwood said he still plans to submit the bill in January, and lawmakers appear poised to support it.

However, whether it will receive support from those who would have to risk their businesses to test the validity of the bill remains to be seen.

obama violates federal law again as far as the cdc doing guns and ammo research, violating a law passed by congress decades ago

For a decade, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been forbidden by Congress from doing research on gun-control issues. Such piddling hurdles as federal law don’t matter to the Obama administration.

With a wave of a hand, the CDC has simply redefined gun-control research so the ban no longer applies. They’re not researching guns; they’re researching alcohol sales and their impact on gun violence, or researching how teens carrying guns affect the rates of non-gun injuries. “These particular grants do not address gun control; rather they deal with the surrounding web of circumstances,” wrote National Institutes of Health (NIH) spokesman Don Ralbovsky.

Gun-control advocates claim that banning the CDC from examining gun control amounts to a gag order on science. After all, what can be wrong with further scientific inquiry? But the issue isn’t about scientific inquiry. It is whether government resources should be used to promote an ideological agenda.

Take the Obama administration’s justification for its new gun research. “Gun-related violence is a public health problem – it diverts considerable health care resources away from other problems and, therefore, is of interest to NIH,” wrote the agency spokesman in an e-mail responding to questions from Republican members of Congress about new grants the CDC is giving out. The statement assumes the conclusion of the research before the first study is done.

The research on right-to-carry laws illustrates the problem with the CDC. Dozens of refereed academic studies by economists and criminologists using national data have been published in journals. While the vast majority of those studies find that right-to-carry laws save lives and reduce harm to victims, some studies claim that the laws have no statistically significant effect. But most tellingly, there is not a single published refereed academic study by a criminologist or economist showing a bad effect from these laws.

Look at the refereed academic research on laws that require people to lock up their guns in their homes. The number of accidental gun deaths and suicides of children remain unchanged, but the number of murders and other crimes rises. This is not too surprising as the locks make it more difficult for potential victims to quickly obtain a gun for protection, hence criminals are less likely to be deterred. Accidental gun deaths aren’t affected because most involve guns fired by adults with criminal records.

The research on guns that the CDC conducted before the ban – and that “public health” advocates continue to produce – is a joke. The statistical methods to research people’s behavior, such as criminal activity, are different from methods used to evaluate drug efficacy, where controlled experiments can be done.

In drug studies, patients don’t determine who gets the real drug and who gets the placebo. In real life, gun ownership isn’t assigned randomly. People who are more likely to be victims are more likely to own guns. They may still be more likely to be victims even after getting a gun, but are much less likely to be a victim than they would have been if they had never gotten one.

The CDC’s brazen end run around restrictions on gun-control research is hardly surprising given that when President Obama served on the board of the Joyce Foundation, it was the largest private funder of gun-ban research in the country. Now he has the resources of the whole federal government.

First we’ll get the half-baked studies followed by fawning press coverage. Then Democratic politicians and activists will pretend the gun restrictions they’ve always wanted were spurred by the new government research.

Some States launch boycott of ‘unconstitutional’ federal laws

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Tennessee is urging 49 other states to come together and create a “joint working group between the states” to combat unconstitutional federal legislation and assert state rights.

Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen signed HJR 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution on June 23. According to the Tenth Amendment Center, the resolution created a committee to form a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and seek repeal of imposed mandates.

State Rep. Susan Lynn recently wrote a letter to the other 49 state legislatures, inviting them to join the group and warning that the role of the federal government has been “blurred, bent and breached.”

“The national government has become a complex system of programs whose purposes lie outside of the responsibilities of the enumerated powers and of securing our natural rights; programs that benefit some while others must pay,” Lynn wrote. “Today, the federal government seeks to control the salaries of those employed by private business, to change the provisions of private of contracts, to nationalize banks, insurers and auto manufacturers, and to dictate to every person in the land what his or her medical choices will be.”

She continued, “Forcing property from employers to provide healthcare, legislating what individuals are and are not entitled to, and using the labor of some so that others can receive money that they did not earn goes far beyond securing natural rights, and the enumerated powers in the Constitution.”

Lynn said that the people created the federal government to be their agent only for certain enumerated purposes.

“The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States,” she wrote. “The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves.”

She noted that the Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws, nor does it give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. Attempts to include such provisions in the Constitution were rejected by the Founding Fathers.

“With this in mind,” she wrote, “any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty – and unconstitutional. Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. The people of a state know what is best for them; authorities, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives is opposed to the very notion of freedom.”

(Story continues below)

In one example of Tennessee’s battle against federal government policies, federal gun regulators wrote to gun dealers around Tennessee in July, dropping the hammer on a state law that exempts weapons made, sold and used inside the state from interstate regulations.

The letter was distributed to holders of Federal Firearms Licenses.

In it, Carson W. Carroll, the assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, told dealers the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act, adopted this year, “purports to exempt personal firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition manufactured in the state, and which remain in the state, from most federal firearms laws and regulations.”

The exemption is not right, the federal agency letter contends.

More recently, the state of Montana filed a lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder seeking a court order that the federal government stay out of the way of Montana’s management
of its own firearms.

As WND reported, the action was filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Montana Shooting Sports Association in U.S. District Court in Missoula, Mont., to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which took effect Oct. 3.

The law provides guns and ammo made, sold and used in Montana would not require any federal forms; silencers made and sold in Montana would be fully legal and not registered; and there would be no firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check, waiting periods or paperwork required.

The idea is spreading quickly. Similar plans have been introduced in many other states.

Montana’s plan is called “An Act exempting from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained in Montana.”

The law cites the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time it was admitted to statehood in 1889.

“The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889,” the law states.

The lead attorney for the plaintiffs’ litigation team is Quentin Rhodes of the Missoula firm of Sullivan, Tabaracci & Rhoades, PC. The team includes other attorneys working in Montana, New York, Florida, Arizona and Washington.

“We’re happy to join this lawsuit,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the SAF, “because we believe this issue should be decided by the courts.

“We feel very strongly that the federal government has gone way too far in attempting to regulate a lot of activity that occurs only in-state,” added MSSA President Gary Marbut. “The Montana Legislature and governor agreed with us by enacting the MFFA. We welcome the support of many other states that are stepping up to the plate with their own firearms freedom acts.”

In case you didn’t know the govenanter Arnold Schwarzenegger has violated the constitution

Well it happened good old Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the illegal and unconstitutional bill. Now in the soviet republic of California now has it so that all ammunition sales made in California have to have a fingerprint along with it. So basically if you want to purchase ammunition in California now, you must be fingerprinted to obtain it. This is supposedly to reduce crime. The outright insanity of that is pathetic. Criminals do not follow the law, that is what makes them criminals. So those same criminals are now not going to commit crimes with firearms because they need to provide fingerprints to buy the ammo? It is more likely that they will steal the ammo they need. I dare any bleeding heart liberal to show me where in the constitution this is legal. This is communism end of statement. The last thing to say is Thank God that this communist Arnold Schwarzenegger can not be president. I saw the rest of us Americans should take a saw, cut out California from the continent and send it adrift. Gun owners in that communist state should sue this one to the Supreme Court.

450 Mayors from Bloomberg’s Group Petition Obama To Violate the Second Amendment

A new report from a national coalition of mayors urges President Obama to adopt dozens of reforms to help curb gun violence, including steps to crack down on problems at gun shows and the creation of a federal interstate firearms trafficking unit.


The “Blueprint for Federal Action on Illegal Guns,” a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post, presents 40 recommendations that “would dramatically improve law enforcement’s ability to keep guns out of the hands of criminals — and, in doing so, save innocent lives.”
The strategies outlined by the Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a bipartisan group of about 450 mayors nationwide, focus on the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The agency, which has been sent a copy of the report, declined to comment.


“Implementing these recommendations would achieve a goal that all participants in the gun debate support: enforcing laws already on the books,” says an accompanying letter signed by the coalition’s co-chairmen, Mayors Thomas M. Menino (D) of Boston and Michael R. Bloomberg (I) of New York.


According to the report, hard work by ATF field agents has “been undermined by congressional restrictions, inadequate resources, and a lack of leadership from federal officials in Washington.”


The proposed changes could be accomplished within existing laws through agency reforms, regulatory moves and better funding, the report said. The strategies grew out of academic and government research, an analysis of firearms prosecutions and talks with government and law enforcement officials.


The mayor’s coalition created this document for policy discussion,” said Jason Post, a spokesman for Bloomberg’s office. There are no plans for public release of the document, which is being distributed to key members of Obama’s administration and agencies affected by the recommendations.


The 51-page document suggests a handful of strategies that would tighten ATF oversight of thousands of gun shows held annually. The study noted that a 2007 inspector general’s probe concluded the “ATF does not have a formal gun show enforcement program.”


ATF agents should have greater discretion to conduct criminal investigations at gun shows identified as sources of firearms later seized in crimes, the report states, noting that “criminal activity endemic to some gun shows goes unchecked.”
Agents at gun shows should “develop undercover integrity tests” to determine whether felons or out-of-state residents are making illegal purchases.


The report also calls for a better approach to crime gun tracing, the process that tracks a seized weapon back to its first retail sale. The ATF lacks the structure or resources to “fully realize its power,” the report says, and information is not regularly shared with field offices, and state and local law enforcement.


To this end, the study wants ATF to be funded to create a new “Office of Tactical Trace Analysis,” which would replace the current crime gun analysis branch.

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?

Gun Groups File Lawsuit to Validate Montana Firearms Freedom Act

MISSOULA – The Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed a lawsuit in federal court in Missoula today to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA).

The MFFA was enacted by the 2009 Montana Legislature, signed by Governor Schweitzer, and becomes effective today, Oct. 1.

Lead attorney for the plaintiffs’ litigation team is Quentin Rhoades of the Missoula firm of Sullivan, Tabaracci & Rhoades, PC.  The MFFA litigation team also includes other attorneys located in Montana, New York, Florida, Arizona and Washington.

“We feel very strongly that the federal government has gone way too far in attempting to regulate a lot of activity that occurs only in-state,” explained MSSA President Gary Marbut. “The Montana Legislature and governor agreed with us by enacting the MFFA.  It’s time for Montana and her sister states to take a stand against the bullying federal government, which the Legislature and Governor have done and we are doing with this lawsuit. We welcome the support of many other states that are stepping up to the plate with their own firearms freedom acts.”

“We’re happy to join this lawsuit,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “because we believe this issue should be decided by the courts.”

The MFFA declares that any firearms made and retained in Montana are not subject to any federal authority under the power given to Congress in the U.S. Constitution to regulate “commerce … among the several states.” The MFFA relies on the Tenth Amendment and other principles to challenge Congress’ commerce clause power to regulate a wide spectrum of in-state activities. This is a states’ rights effort, using firearms as the object of the exercise. The MFFA exempts Montana-made and retained firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition from federal power, saying that if these items do not cross state lines, they are strictly INTRAstate commerce, not INTERstate commerce, and not subject to federal authority.

MSSA continues to strongly urge that no Montana citizen attempt to manufacture an MFFA-covered item, even after the law takes effect today, until MSSA can prove the principles of the MFFA in court. Until the courts rule in support of the MFFA, any such manufacturer could be subject to federal criminal prosecution.

This concept has caught national attention. Tennessee has passed a clone of the MFFA.  Other clones have been introduced in Alaska, Texas, Florida, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Minnesota. Legislators in 20 other states have indicated that they will introduce MFFA clones in their states once their legislatures reconvene, Marbut said. Information about the Firearms Freedom Act movement is being accumulated and made publicly available at firearmsfreedomact.com.

This movement follows multi-state rejection of Washington-mandated Real ID, a law passed by Congress requiring state drivers licenses to conform to federal identification standards. The FFA movement also works in tandem with resolutions introduced or passed in many states asserting state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. As is the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are limitations on federal power. The Ninth Amendment says:  “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”  The Tenth Amendment declares:  “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Under our federated system of government in the U.S., Marbut noted, states and the federal government are widely recognized to share power and authority, with definite limits placed on federal power by the states, the creators of the federal government. The MFFA lawsuit is designed to test and define those limits, to assert states’ authority, and to limit what many see as overbearing authority assumed by Congress and the federal government.

Beginning during the New Deal, federal courts have generally upheld federal commerce clause authority, initially in the 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn and continuing recently with the 2005 case of Gonzales v. Raich.  Raich was the Supreme Court case allowing federal regulation of medical marijuana in California.  However, other cases such as the 1995 case of US v. Lopez suggest that federal commerce power is not infinitely elastic, that there are limits to federal commerce power, and that it has just not yet been determined what those limits may be. The MFFA litigation is structured to clarify and affirm those limits.

The modern era of dramatically-expanded federal commerce clause power was ushered in with the Wickard decision. The Supreme Court allowed this considerable expansion of federal commerce power under Wickard only after President Roosevelt threatened to pack the Court with cronies if the Court didn’t cease declaring Roosevelt’s New Deal programs to be unconstitutional and beyond federal reach. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_clause)

MSSA is the primary political advocate for Montana gun owners. SAF is a national organization headquartered in Bellevue, WA that works nationally to advance the interests of gun owners.

Can we the citizens of the USA vote California OUT of the union, before their communist insanity spreads to the rest of the country?

From Sacramento

Guns don’t kill people, it’s true. Bullets do.

“Without ammo, a handgun is only good for pistol-whipping someone,” notes Assemblyman Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles). “Ammo is the lifeblood of a handgun.”

On Sept. 11, the last day of this year’s regular legislative session, De Leon narrowly won final passage of a bill to regulate sales of handgun ammunition.

The assemblyman has a long list of gang shooting horror stories from his district, which stretches from Hollywood to the Alhambra city line and includes Echo Park, Lincoln Heights and part of East Los Angeles.

Stray bullets from gang crossfire have killed a 9-year-old girl playing in the kitchen, a 14-year-old girl as she sat in the back seat of her family’s SUV and a 4-year-old boy while walking with his sister outside their home. Plus there has been a barrel-load of gangbanger assassinations.

De Leon’s bill, AB 962, would make it illegal to knowingly sell handgun ammunition to criminals. Strangely, De Leon says, it’s against the law for criminals to possess ammo but not for someone to sell it to them knowing they are criminals. The bill also would prohibit hard-core gang members — those under court injunction restrictions — from possessing handgun bullets.

And — the more controversial part — it would require:

* Ammunition dealers to keep bullets out of easy reach of potential shoplifters, similar to cigarettes.

* Dealers to check a purchaser’s identification, take a thumbprint and make the records available to local law enforcement. There’d be no waiting period before delivery of the ammo, as there is with firearms.

* Handgun owners to buy their bullets face-to-face from a licensed dealer. They could order through the Internet or by mail, but they’d have to pick up the ammo at a store, just as they now must when buying a gun.

Opponents — Republican legislators and the gun lobby — complained about inconveniencing law-abiding citizens.

“I’d rather be inconvenienced and alive than have criminals convenienced and be dead,” says Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, one of many law enforcement officials who support De Leon’s bill.

“The problem is the criminals’ easy access to ammunition because of the overemphasis on not inconveniencing law-abiding citizens,” the sheriff adds. “The price we all pay is random violence. A safer society will also be a somewhat more inconvenienced society. . . . Those of us in the crime-fighting business need more solutions to control criminal violence.”

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not signaled a position on the bill. But he vetoed another version by a different author five years ago. In the veto message, Schwarzenegger pointed out that the federal government once had a similar law and concluded it “was simply unworkable and offered no public safety benefit.”

The federal law existed from shortly after Robert F. Kennedy’s assassination in 1968 until President Reagan signed the repealer in 1986 — a prehistoric era before the Internet and high-tech databases.

Since then — and since Schwarzenegger’s veto — several California cities have proved that, with modern technology, they can use dealers’ records as a crime-fighting weapon. They’re able to track down felons and other people — spousal abusers, the criminally insane — who have violated the law by obtaining ammunition.

Los Angeles, Sacramento and 12 other cities — including Beverly Hills, Carson, Inglewood, Pomona, Santa Ana, Santa Monica and West Hollywood — have adopted ordinances requiring dealer record-keeping of ammo purchases.

In a 17-month period, L.A. police arrested 25 people; confiscated 20 weapons, including a machine gun; and seized more than 2,900 rounds of ammunition, according to Deputy Chief Charlie Beck.

Sacramento has California’s most comprehensive ammo-control program. In less than 20 months, it found that ammunition had been illegally purchased by 229 people, including 173 felons. The district attorney filed charges against 190, trial was set for 136 and all but eight pleaded guilty. Seized were 160 firearms, including seven assault weapons and eight explosive devices.

Police Capt. James Maccoun, who heads the Sacramento gun detail, says dealers file their information to the department electronically. Every transaction is checked against a database of people prohibited from possessing weapons.

The dilemma for Sacramento, L.A. and the other cities is that when criminals learn about the dealer record-keeping, they can drive into another community and load up on bullets.

“We don’t catch the smart ones,” Maccoun says.

Beck says L.A.’s law “would be 10 times more effective if it were statewide.”

The L.A. ordinance covers all ammunition, including shotgun shells.

De Leon’s bill would cover only handgun bullets, a concession to hunters.

But that still didn’t attract any Republican legislative support. The measure passed each house with no votes to spare.

“This bill is going after rural communities like no other gun bill has,” declared Assemblyman Joel Anderson (R-San Diego), whose district covers rural areas. “So all I ask is: Why can’t you just let my people go?”

That drew some chuckles. But most of the half-hour Assembly debate produced predictable opposition verbiage with seemingly little real passion. Republicans complained about infringing on 2nd Amendment rights, which Democrats vehemently denied.

“As a law-abiding citizen, staunch supporter of 2nd Amendment rights, a Little League coach who is required to have a thumbprint to coach and required to provide a thumbprint for a driver’s license, I rise to support this bill,” said new Assemblyman Steve Bradford (D-Gardena).

Schwarzenegger should sign the measure. Sheriffs and police chiefs want it. It’s a crime-fighting tool that doesn’t stomp on the rights of lawful gun owners. And it would keep loaded weapons out of the hands of some criminals and gangbangers.

Target the bullets.

Well it looks like micro stamping is back AGAIN with a vengeance

We will GUARANTEE this WILL raise the cost of ammunition.

During his presidential campaign, Barack Hussein Obama said that he did not support gun control? However, it seems that the new President’s minions and allies in the anti-gun world — including ACORN – have no problem with taking control of ammunition sales.

Bills being pushed in Washington, DC and several states (including Tennessee, Illinois and Indiana ) require all ammunition to be encoded by the manufacturer and a data base of all ammunition sales be created, so they will know how much and what calibers a gunowner buys

“Gun control fanatics, frustrated in their attempts to impose severely restrictive regulations on the gun rights of law-abiding American citizens, apparently think that if they push severe restrictions on ammunition acquisition and possession, they’ll come closer to their objective of restricting if not eliminating the individual Second Amendment civil right to keep and bear arms,” says John M. Snyder, named Washington’s senior gun rights activist.

With a liberal Democrat now sitting in the Oval Office and both houses of the US Congress boasting Democrat majorities, lawmakers in Washington, DC and around the country are displaying renewed interest in gun control legislation, according to sources within both law enforcement and gun owner rights communities.

“Ever since the so-called ‘Beltway Sniper’ case in 2001, there’s been talk about not just gun registration, but ammo registration. This will make it mandatory for manufacturers of firearms ammunition to number every cartridge they make and to keep records of those cartridges,” said Lt. Steven Rodgers, a cop in New Jersey. “Can’t control guns? Well, they’ll control the ammunition,” he added during an interview with NewswithViews.com.

While a federal law is being considered by proponents of such laws, gun owners in individual states are witnessing what’s referred to as Ammunition Accountability Acts being pushed through they’re state legislatures by impatient lawmakers. Ammunition Accountability, a liberal gun control organization, has developed sample legislation to achieve its purposes and reports that versions of it have been introduced in the legislatures of Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee and Washington, according to John Snyder. While state legislatures differ in the wording of their proposed laws, basically they all require that any and all ammunition be encoded by the manufacturer and they will maintain a mandatory data base of all ammunition sales. “We of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms oppose this backdoor approach to gun control,” stated Snyder, an official with that gun rights group. The sample legislation would stipulate that, “each year in the United States, more than 30 percent of all homicides that involve a gun go unsolved; handgun ammunition accounts for 80 percent of all ammunition sold in the United States; current technology for matching a bullet used in a crime to the gun that fired it has worked moderately well for years, but presupposes that the weapon was recovered by law enforcement;” and “bullet coding is a new and effective way for law enforcement to quickly identify persons of interest in gun crime investigations.” It would provide that, after a specific date, all handgun and “assault weapon” ammunition manufactured or sold in the state shall be coded by the manufacturer, and would include a list of all calibers covered by the coding requirement. It would mandate the disposal by a certain date of all non-coded ammunition listed, whether owned by private citizens or retail outlets. “If this new proposed Ammo Accountability Act legislation is only another attempt to chip away at the 2nd Amendment, it is just plain wrong. Since the 2nd Amendment defines a citizens ”right” to defend themselves, with a gun, it clearly does not address ammunition. What a novel way to “back door” the issue” said Josephine County, Oregon’s Sheriff Gil Gilbertson.

“It is clearly no secret, many in our government would like to see America disarmed. Our government has authored books mapping out a strategy on how to do just that. Simply look back in history to see what happened after people lost their arms and ability to defend themselves,” he told NewswithViews.com.

“Our government leaders slash funding in support of law enforcement throughout America, leaving our citizens more vulnerable – but on the other hand feel compelled to send hundreds of millions of dollars, each year, to enhance police in foreign Countries. Weaker law enforcement coupled with escalating crime is a receipt for disaster,” said the career lawman.
Ammunition coding technology works by laser etching the back of each bullet with an alpha-numeric serial number. Then when a customer purchases a box of, for example, 9mm cartridges, the box of ammunition and the bullets’ coding numbers would be connected to the purchaser in a statewide or national database. The code on the bullet can be read with a simple magnifying glass and then be run through a statewide or national database to determine who purchased the ammunition and where. The rationale being used by proponents of such laws is that cartridges can be used to trace a gun owner who committed a crime such as murder or assault with a deadly weapon, according to the National Association for Gun Rights’ Executive Director Dudley Brown. But opponents of ammo registration laws counter that this will only increase the incidents of criminals collecting spent cartridges and depriving police of other evidence such as fingerprints on a cartridge left at the crime scene. “NAGR’s strategy is simple: make the enemies of our firearms freedoms pay for every inch. While many so-called “gun rights groups” work to curry favor with politicians and the media, NAGR is working aggressively to hold politicians accountable and to put a stop to gun control,” said Brown. At the federal level, H.R. 408 introduced by Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) a new law would require firearms manufacturers to provide ballistics information on all new firearms to BATF, which would retain the information in a National Firearms Ballistics Database. Critics claim part of this bill will be used to mandate encoding ammunition, which is part and parcel of “ballistics” information. “[Lawmakers] should ignore the media hype on the firearms issue and pay attention to what the public – their constituents – are saying on the matter,” gun rights expert John M. Snyder stated.

“According to an August poll conducted by Zogby International for Associated Television News, the American public rejects the notion that new gun control laws are needed by a two-to-one margin,” Snyder continued.

“Maybe the House of Representatives should have taken a reading of public opinion on this issue before rushing headlong without a roll call vote to pass a bill before the recess,” said Snyder, who is a firearms advisor for the National Association of Chiefs of Police.

If this doesn’t scar you nothing will. The communist state of California well soon be demanding finger prints every time you buy ammo.

AB962 requires individuals purchasing ammunition be fingerprinted and registered at the time of sale, mandates that dealers keep these records and make them available for inspection by the California Department of Justice. Ammunition retailers would also have to store ammunition in such a manner that it would be inaccessible to purchasers. Finally, mail order ammunition sales are prohibited under AB962. Over twenty years ago, Congress abolished similar requirements because ammunition sales records were found to be useless for solving crimes. AB962 is a dire threat to our Second Amendment rights in the Golden State.

SB585 would prohibit the sale of firearms and ammunition on the property or inside the buildings that comprise the Cow Palace in Daly City, just outside of San Francisco. Simply put, SB585 is a stepping-stone to banning gun shows on all publicly-owned property in California.