Can someone more knowledgeable about gun law explain why this is a problem? Is it too expensive, or so infeasible as to ban many weapons? I’m a firm believer in the 2nd amendment. I’m also a firm believer in giving law enforcement the tools it needs to fight crime.
Easy. The point is to make ammo prohibitively expensive and it's also a step to registering ammo like they do in Europe. Since they can't ban guns they'll try to ban ammo.
Yes. The lasers required to do this would require a massive retooling and run at _LEAST_ 150k per Yag marker. Automation costs could be way more than that.
I’m also a firm believer in giving law enforcement the tools it needs to fight crime.
What makes you believe this will help solve any crime? It will be exactly as effective as ballistic fingerprinting. Look that up if you need to know just how effective that has been.
This is a blatant violation of the 2nd amendment and 5th amendment. When taxes were laid on ink for printing presses, it was deemed an infringement on the 1st amendment. The tax was overturned. Forcing people to destroy existing ammunition stock WITHOUT COMPENSATION is a direct violation of the 5th amendment "takings" clause.
Government has no business using the legislative process to further the commercial aims of this company nor to trample on Constitutionally protected rights.
Making possession of unencoded ammunition a crime isn't giving law enforcement a tool to fight crime. It's giving them a means of entrapment of law abiding citizens.
My first thought was it would make ammo very expensive. Secondly, it would limit the freedom of ammo manufactures to run their business the way they see fit. My next thought was, why isn’t someone sponsoring legislation to limit the speech of the press? Because “shall not be infringed” is still in the constitution.
It sounds very good on the surface, but once you dig deeper it is BS. This is just another backdoor way around the Constitution.
If you want to give law enforcement the tools, look at consequences, not intent.
Expensive, in the first place. Many of us also make our own bullets and reload cases. This would become next to impossible if not illegal.
you for real?
This is not a crime fighting measure, it is as others have said, a defacto ban against lawful gun ownership. This is the left's way of doing an end run around this past summer's Heller decision. They can't ban the guns so they will effectively make them useless by making it next to impossible to buy ammunition for them.
Your homepage says "the currency of democracy is blood." Do you really know what that means?
you gonna mico-engrave every piece of shot in a shotgun shell?
what happens when the bullet deforms (as it is supposed to) and you can't read the micro stamp?
all sorts of issues with this type of law despite the fact it is just stupid
” Is it too expensive, or so infeasible as to ban many weapons? I’m a firm believer in the 2nd amendment. I’m also a firm believer in giving law enforcement the tools it needs to fight crime.
“
Yes, it is too expensive. It is not in any way a means for LE to fight crime. It is only a means to ban weapons by banning their ammunition.
... and then you figured out why this is a silly idea without me finishing the example for you.
It's not a "crime fighting" tool. Criminals will simply bypass whatever paper trail would lead to them in the first place. Much like how they don't go through legal means to acquire the firearms.
Bull serialization is simply a step to prevent legitimate shooters from enjoying their sport.
Commercial ammo is already expensive. Implementing the technology to mark each round would make it prohibitively so.
Uhhhm...because it'll only hamper law-abiding gun-owners and not criminals? Criminals can make their own bullets or file the serial number away.
Is it too expensive, or so infeasible as to ban many weapons?
Didn't you read the article? The technology really isn't there right now for this. What ammunition manufacturer is going to spend millions of dollars upgrading their facilities to meet the law's requirements only to pass it onto consumers anyway?
I’m a firm believer in the 2nd amendment.
"I've been a Republican for 20 years BUT...." Rrrriiiiggghhhtt.
I’m also a firm believer in giving law enforcement the tools it needs to fight crime.
What about the firm belief in the gun owner to be left alone?
Just outlaw crime,,works every time. Criminals hate it.