RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL LOCKYER'S PRESS CONFERENCE
AND TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF SB 357 (SEN. DUNN) BULLET SERIALIZATIONQuestion: Was Attorney General Lockyer correct when he claimed today that it would only cost manufacturers "one quarter of one cent" in additional cost in order to laser engrave a serial number on the base and side of a bullet of "handgun ammunition", as required by SB 357?
Was the Attorney General's office accurate when it stated other costs (i.e. handling) would bring the increase to approximately one half of one cent.
Was the bill sponsor, Sen. Dunn, correct when he claimed that the "cost is negligible" and that it was "easy to implement" bullet serialization into the ammunition manufacturing process?
Answer: No. The Attorney General and Senator Dunn's cost estimates are seriously WRONG and without any basis in fact. Unfortunately, the Attorney General's office and Sen. Dunn are willfully uninformed about modern ammunition manufacturing processes.
Had the Attorney General's office, Sen. Dunn or the sole-sourced, skateboard company with this technology, Ravensforge, bothered to contact the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, Inc. (SAAMI), the technical trade association of the nation's leading manufacturers of sporting firearms and ammunition, or any of the major ammunition manufacturers, they would have learned that it would cost each ammunition manufacturer tens of millions of dollars to manufacture serialized ammunition. In order to comply, ammunition manufacturers would need to build a new factory.
The cost of ammunition would increase from pennies now to several dollars per cartridge. It is sheer, uninformed fantasy to suggest that costs would only increase by half a cent.
The ammunition industry is a high-volume, low-profit margin business. The three largest ammunition manufacturers (Federal Cartridge, Winchester and Remington Arms) produce more than 15 million cartridges a day! Even if it took just a fraction of a second to laser engrave a bullet with a serial number, ammunition production would be slowed down dramatically. SAAMI estimates that it would take as much as three weeks to make what is now manufactured in a single day! No manufacturer can withstand such a massive slow-done in production. They would cease to be profitable. Instead manufacturers would have no alternative but to abandon the California market. This is because the tens of millions of dollars needed to comply with SB 357 far exceeds the reasonable profit a manufacturer could ever hope to make selling ammunition in the California market. The cost to comply would bankrupt any manufacturer that tried. Even abandoning the California market comes at a cost. Manufacturers will suffer lost sales and profits; but the lesser of two evils remains to abandon the market.
SAAMI offered to take members of the Legislature, including Sen. Dunn, and the Attorney General's office, on a tour of an ammunition manufacturing plant. Regrettably, neither Sen. Dunn, nor the Attorney General's office availed themselves of this opportunity to learn first-hand why this proposal is infeasible.
Question: Is it accurate, as the Attorney General's office argued today, that putting serial numbers on bullets is no different than what other product manufacturers, like drug companies, do in putting a serial number on the product packaging?
Answer: No. Drug companies, for example, may put a lot number or other identifying code on their product packaging, but they do not put a unique serial number on individual aspirin tablets. Placing lot numbers on product packaging is not done to identify and record in a government-run database the identity of law-abiding consumers. Major ammunition manufacturers, like other product manufacturers, already put lot numbers on their product packaging to identify when the product was made. Imagine what would happen to the price of a bottle of aspirin if drug companies had to place a unique serial number on each aspirin tablet?
Question: Was it accurate when the Attorney General's office said "industry" test fired bullets to determine whether the technology worked?
Answer: No. The Attorney General's office was misleading if it was trying to suggest that any major ammunition or firearm manufacturer assisted in conducting any testing of this technology. Certainly the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, Inc. was never contacted by the California Department of Justice or the sole-source vendor of this technology, Ravensforge, which primarily manufactures products to protect property from skateboards.
SAAMI remains concerned that there has been insufficient objective, independent testing of this technology on the hundreds of different types of ammunition that exist. We have significant questions about whether a micro-laser engraved serial number placed on the side of a bullet (projectile) would still be readable after the bullet has traveled down the rifled-surface length of a barrel at a very high velocity (1,200 feet per second) while at the same time rotating at a high RPM rate. The Legislature should require more testing than the extremely limited, non-scientific testing done by the sole-sourced vendor, Ravensforge.
SAAMI, as it has in the past with other technologies like "ballistic imaging," supports further independent, objective, peer-reviewed testing of this technology.
Question: Was the Attorney General's office accurate when it said this bill would not impact rifles?
Answer: No. The bill applies to so-called "handgun ammunition," which the bill fails to define. The bill would apply, for example, to .22 caliber rimfire ammunition because there are handguns chambered in that caliber. However, there are tens of millions of rifles that are also chambered in .22 caliber, which is the single must common caliber ammunition for target shooting.
There are many, many other examples of rifles that are chambered in calibers that are also common for handguns. This has become increasingly common as Cowboy Action Shooting has become very popular, including in California.
Question: Was the Attorney Generals office correct in stating that this bill would not impact non-serialized ammunition owned by consumers after the effective date of the bill.
Answer: No. In fact, this bill, when coupled with the certain abandonment of the California market place by ammunition manufacturers, becomes a de facto ammunition ban and confiscation. Consumers may possess non-serialized ammunition in their home, but the moment they walk outside their house to drive to their local shooting range for an afternoon of target shooting they become a criminal. The only realistic option for consumers is to turn over to local enforcement any non-serialized ammunition in their possession. We agree with the Attorney General's office that hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition are purchased each year by consumers in California. A conservative estimate would be that law enforcement would confiscate at least 500 million rounds of non-serialized ammunition from law-abiding Californians, but not a single cartridge from a criminal.
Question: Was Senator Dunn's comparison of bullet serialization to a DNA database valid?
Answer: No. California does not fingerprint or take DNA samples of every person residing or visiting California, although it is technically feasible to do so and many more crimes would be solved. This is because the vast, overwhelming majority of citizens are not committing crimes. Similarly, the vast, overwhelming majority of gun owners are, as even the Attorney General's office acknowledged today, law-abiding. Collecting the identity of law-abiding consumers when they legally purchase ammunition for lawful purposes will not, SAAMI believes, materially assist law enforcement. This is because criminals do not and will not walk into a firearm dealer and provide identification when they purchase ammunition. They acquire ammunition the same place they obtain firearms; they steal them or they get them on the illegal black market. This bill will simply create overnight an illegal black market for non-serialized ammunition.
Question: Is it accurate that this bill will not impact law enforcement?
Answer: No. This bill will have a substantial adverse impact on law enforcement and municipal budgets.
The bill does not exempt law enforcement from its requirements. Therefore, state and local law enforcement will not be able to purchase non-serialized ammunition from manufacturers. As explained above, manufacturers cannot incur the massive costs to make serialized ammunition. Therefore, it remains unclear from whom law enforcement will purchase ammunition for training and use in the field. If they are able to secure serialized ammunition, the price of such ammunition will be substantially higher than current prices. This will likely lead to deleterious consequences, like a marked decline in law enforcement training to improve and retain officers' marksmanship because a municipality or the state will not be able to afford the price of training ammunition.
http://www.nssf.org/news/PR_idx.cfm?PRloc=common/PR/&PR=042605.cfm *FW Note:Do you mean to say that the government has been less than forthcoming with the truth regarding the economic and social impact of one of it's hair-brained schemes to further enslave the people of CA?
Tell me it ain't so...
:shock:
