April 25, 2005

"...And afterward Moses and Aaron went in, and told Pharaoh,

Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Let my people go, that they

may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness. And Pharaoh said,

Who [is] the LORD, that I should obey his voice to let Israel

go? I know not the LORD, neither will I let Israel go.

 

    And they said, the God of the Hebrews hath met with us: let us

go, we pray thee, three days' journey into the desert, and sacrifice

unto the LORD our God; lest he fall upon us with pestilence, or

with the sword. And the king of Egypt said unto them, Wherefore

do ye, Moses and Aaron, let the people from their works? Get

you unto your burdens. And Pharaoh said, Behold, the people of

the land now [are] many, and ye make them rest from their

burdens. And Pharaoh commanded the same day the taskmasters

of the people, and their officers, saying, Ye shall no more give the

people straw to make brick, as heretofore: let them go and gather

straw for themselves. And the tale of the bricks, which they did

make heretofore, ye shall lay upon them; ye shall not diminish

[ought] thereof: for they [be] idle; therefore they cry, saying, Let us

go [and] sacrifice to our God. Let there more work laid upon the

men, that they may labour therein; and let them not regard vain

words.

 

     And the taskmasters of the people went out, and their officers,

and they spake to the people, saying, Thus saith Pharaoh, I will

not give you straw. Go ye, get you straw where ye can find it: yet

not ought of your work shall be diminished. So the people were

scattered abroad throughout all the land of Egypt to gather stubble

instead of straw. And the taskmasters hasted [them], saying,

Fulfil your works, [your] daily tasks, as when there was straw.

And the officers of the children of Israel, which Pharaoh's

taskmasters had set over them, were beaten, [and] demanded,

Wherefore have ye not fulfilled your task in making brick both

yesterday and to day, as heretofore?..."

 

 

                    -Exodus 5:1-14, The Bible,

                     King James Version

 

 

 

To All,

     The cyclic nature of history is just a bit too scary at times:

 

 

How Many Bureaucrats Does It Take To......?:

     When ammunition bans were last covered as an issue, firearms activists were confronted with the specter last Christmas of a stealth end-run, courtesy of environmentalists and that bird-of-paradise known as the California Condor.

 

     But hardly has the Official State Pet been plucked, trussed, and put in the freezer as an issue when the Workplace Safety For Criminals Lobby has come up with another little "gem" of an idea. This time the presentation of the zirconia is courtesy of Garden Groves' own Joseph Dunn, a Democrat with apparently somewhat close ties to an Attorney General with illusions of Governorhood. (Of course, Dunn does not deserve all of the credit. Kudos are also due to Don Perata, an old and dear friend of gun-owners in the Fool's Golden State. Hayward Assemblycritter Johan Klehs also deserves "honorable" mention. And, of course, perennial favorite Mark Ridley-Thomas gets a nod, given this latest demonstration of the skills that served him so well when he was instrumental in negotiating for a new NFL franchise for the Coliseum in Los Angeles.).

 

    In this case, Dunn has performed a time-honored "gut-and-amend" on SB 357 (Boy, is that one is going to be hard for firearms activists to remember.). The new version calls for each and every bullet sold, loaned, transferred, or even assembled by hand-loaders after July 1, 2007 to have it's very own unique serial identifier, using a method readily identifiable both before and after discharge/impact of the projectile.

 

     Now, it will most likely be left to law enforcement managers to determine whether the language in Paragraph 12314 (g) of the proposed bill will protect law enforcement budgets from having to buy the more expensive serialized ammunition. (Given the construction of the millions of rounds of police practice ammunition, many of which use an "open" base design, it is hard to imagine any embossing, micro-engraving, or marking method on exposed lead that will survive the firearms discharge process intact without expensive modifications.).

 

     And it will most likely have to be left to manufacturing engineers to determine whether modern ammunition can be manufactured to the requirements of Paragraphs 12314 (d) (4), 12314 (d) (5), and 12315.2 while still meeting Federal, State, and City law enforcement standards for expansion performance and against over-penetration.

 

     Also, it will most likely have to be left to environmental engineers and the folks at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds to figure out the effects of any ban on frangible or "green" ammunition this early in that class of product's development and marketing cycle. (The folks that make the Corbon Glaser Safety Slug might need help as well on this one.).

 

     Finally, it will have to be left up to constitutional scholars as to the "unintended" consequences of inserting SB 357 in Title 2, Chapter 2.5 of the California Penal Code (Destructive Devices), rather than Chapter 2.6 (Ammunition).

 

    But it is not "beyond the ken" of the average citizen-cum-gun-owner to figure out that a 1/2 cent tax per bullet/assembled cartridge is bad news all around. Given the inclusion of .22 caliber rimfire rounds under the requirements of Paragraph 12314 (c) (B), the extra $ 0.25 per box of "long rifle" means a 15% or more price increase "out the door", when one takes local and state sales taxes into account.

 

    Add in to that the record-keeping burden for ammunition sellers across the Fool's Golden State (from the small-town hardware store to various Wal-Marts and Big Five's from here to Klamath), and one is looking at one of the biggest hits to business since politicians decided that they needed a way around the limiting effect of Prop 13.

 

     In fact, it should not surprise anyone that the wishful thinking of the State's Department of Justice "budgeteers", through their lackeys in the Legislature, would produce the astoundingly novel concept of yet another type of sales tax to drop onto the heads of the citizenry. But it also begs the question as to how soon it will take to "discover" that a 5 mil tax is insufficient in the long run to perform all the requirements from the added-on rulemaking should SB 357 be enacted into law (Given the costs of fuel to fly out law enforcement alone to the four corners of the globe to "inspect" the records of pistol ammunition makers, this might be as early as 2008). The DOJ is going to have to hire more than a few new personnel to handle the daily traffic from every ammunition vendor in the state that SB 357 is going to mandate.

 

     In other words, given the nature of administrative rulemaking, it is not out of the realm of possibilities for the proposed half-cent sales tax to eventually turn into a penny, nickel, or dime per round in relatively short order. Given the numerous attempts in the past to tack on additional taxes on ammunition (an old favorite of such pols as the now-deceased Pat Moynihan and other tax-and-spenders), the true age (not to mention the "originality") of a SB 357 is evident. Since taxation is often used as social policy to "discourage" the targeted activity, and given recent experiences with such products as liquor and tobacco, it is not hard to see the possible effects of the author's actions this time around.

 

     Now, ammunition bans masquerading as sales tax increases have been defeated in the past in California. And it is possible that certain DOJ and Legislative types had thought that it would be easier to obtain passage this time if the "teaser" rate was small. But the memories of gun-owners are long when someone attempts disarmament of the people by any means necessary. Whether it be 5 mils or some "Back-to-the-Future" buck-a-throw, any punitive tax on ammunition will be fought with all the skill and assets available to an enraged pool of likely voters. Stay tuned.

 

 

Story basis may be found at:

 

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/
sb_357_bill_20050418_amended_sen.html

 

http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=pen
&codebody=&hits=20&site=sen