Armorer-at-Law
New member
Herein lies the problem. Make what's good for the goose, good for the gander and we'll see the end of this kind of absurdity.
IL Ammunition Serialization
- Thread starter steve4102
- Start date
You can breathe (though not deeply), it HAS happened before, and curiously, with one of the most odious of gun control "punishment" laws, the Lautenberg Act!!!
The ONE feature of that law that I consider a worthwhile concept is that it applies, in full measure, to everyone. NO exemption for the police, OR the military, ON or OFF Duty!
That law, permanently making people guilty of misdemeanor domestic violence into prohibited persons, took hundreds, possibly thousands of police and military personnel off "active" status because when it went into effect, they were not exempted.
Either Congress wanted to teach the police a lesson, or most likely, simply didn't THINK through what the crap that they were making into law would actually DO.
The rest of the law seems, to me, to fly in the face of both logic and legal precedent, but, to date it has not been found unconstitutional. I don't even know if it has been seriously challenged, but it ought to be.
62coltnavy
New member
There are literally billions of rounds of ammunition produced int he US every year. and since wit would not be economical to set up a production facility solely to cater to residents of Illinois (and any other state that wanted to jump on the band wagon), manufacturers would have to serialize ALL ammo and ALL reloadable bullets. Before long, bullets wold be literally covered with microstamped numbers fifteen characters long.
Frankly though, this is a backdoor ban of any and all firearms except shotguns, and I have a feeling it would be considered a MASSIVE infringement on the Second Amendment, even if Posner seems to have gone over to the other side.
Frankly though, this is a backdoor ban of any and all firearms except shotguns, and I have a feeling it would be considered a MASSIVE infringement on the Second Amendment, even if Posner seems to have gone over to the other side.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Not ignorance at all. They know exactly what they're doing.CedarGrove357 said:
HiBC said:
Last edited:
The proposal has absolute clarity, cloaked as ignorance.
One reads the requirements and thinks, "boy, the guys that wrote this are really ignorant about ammo, NOBODY can do what they want to require.."
But they aren't.
They know quite well, and deliberately wrote something that could NOT be complied with, if made law.
I suspect they would be more than a little upset if someone could make something that DID meet their requirements.
The point is to pass a law that makes a requirement no one can reach the ONLY LEGAL choice. The fact that it doesn't, and won't ever exist only impacts US the shooting community. Do note that it seems (so far) that the police are not going to under the same requirements about their ammunition.
This is part of the same strategy to reduce gun availability (and hence ownership) as the microstamping requirement for guns, and the California "safe" handgun approval list. The same for making laws requiring so called "smart gun" technology that does not exist.
The strategy is two pronged, 1) making it law you have to have something that does not, possibly cannot exist, and 2) making everything else ILLEGAL!
Can you imagine the whining if you turn the idea around, and instead of having the public required to comply, ONLY the police were??
Suppose ONLY the police were required to have serialized ammunition??
The crime fighting benefit is tangible (wink, wink
), being able to tell if the police fired a given bullet or not could seriously improve the investigation of officer involved shootings.
What do you think the police would say if they were going to be required to only carry and use ammo that met ALL the requirements of the proposed law??
I'm guessing a good part of it would not be postable under our forum rules...
One reads the requirements and thinks, "boy, the guys that wrote this are really ignorant about ammo, NOBODY can do what they want to require.."
But they aren't.
They know quite well, and deliberately wrote something that could NOT be complied with, if made law.
I suspect they would be more than a little upset if someone could make something that DID meet their requirements.
The point is to pass a law that makes a requirement no one can reach the ONLY LEGAL choice. The fact that it doesn't, and won't ever exist only impacts US the shooting community. Do note that it seems (so far) that the police are not going to under the same requirements about their ammunition.
This is part of the same strategy to reduce gun availability (and hence ownership) as the microstamping requirement for guns, and the California "safe" handgun approval list. The same for making laws requiring so called "smart gun" technology that does not exist.
The strategy is two pronged, 1) making it law you have to have something that does not, possibly cannot exist, and 2) making everything else ILLEGAL!
Can you imagine the whining if you turn the idea around, and instead of having the public required to comply, ONLY the police were??
Suppose ONLY the police were required to have serialized ammunition??
The crime fighting benefit is tangible (wink, wink
), being able to tell if the police fired a given bullet or not could seriously improve the investigation of officer involved shootings. What do you think the police would say if they were going to be required to only carry and use ammo that met ALL the requirements of the proposed law??
I'm guessing a good part of it would not be postable under our forum rules...
kilimanjaro
New member
The feds just published model rules for "smart gun" technology. They're moving full steam on all fronts. Look for state initiatives once the media conditions the public some more.
The Fed changes the third week of January. Sure, not all of them, but enough important ones, who so far, haven't shown any interest in more gun control, and have, in fact, promised to try and get rid of some of it.
They surely will try, but the current administration only has two months left, and that's not much time to get done what they failed to do in the previous seven years and 10 months.
Plus, anything they DO manage to get done is going to be seen as a cheap, petty parting shot, and there will be an effort to repeal it, I'm sure.
Another thing is that confidence in the major media telling the truth, about anything, is if not at, close to an all time low.
They'll keep on trying to condition us, but fewer of us are listening these days...
Aguila Blanca
Staff
On the face of it, home-cast bullets would be exempt because they are not "contained within a package provided for retail sale." But ... they added that proviso "or as otherwise specified by the Department," so the state police can still ban home-cast projectiles.
Armed_Chicagoan
New member
It's in committee, it hasn't been voted on. Likely never will be as it wouldn't have a chance of passing. This is just Crook County/Chicago Dems doing what they love most, stringing along deep pockets for campaign cash and tossing red meat to their anti-gun base.Texas45 said:
And they’re succeeding at what they’re doing: making gun owners and advocates of the Second Amendment appear ridiculous, delusional, and paranoid – propagators of inane conspiracy theories about ‘the government’ and ‘the media’ attempting to ‘take away’ our guns; the evidence of which can be found in this very thread.
Such measures as the one proposed in the OP should be opposed with facts and evidence, not hyperbolic nonsense and conspiracy theories.
Care to be specific??
I didn't really see that, but then I might not recognize things the way you do.
All I saw was people agreeing that either the people who wrote the bill don't know what they are talking about, or they do, and deliberately wrote a (proposed) law that cannot be complied with.
What other possibility could there be? If you have a plausible explanation of how this bill isn't what it looks like, I'm listening...