Give me your opinion.
http://ammunitionaccountability.org/Legislation.htm

Going to end up being largely pointless, I'd imagine, although many of those aren't written with an accounting for people that reload ammunition. The principle problem is simply the volume and movement of such small items makes it practically impossible to seriously prevent obfuscation on the part of someone trying to hide something, and it's been long established that since the vast majority of gun uses are legal, you're really just adding overhead.

I suppose the basic premise is to track who goes out, buys a box of 9mm, and pumps it into their neighbor, but that's essentially nobody. It's not as bad as wiretapping random calls to try to find teh terroristz but futile in the same fashion. With no direct link between the person who purchased and allegedly fired any given bullet, I can't see this convicting many people.

I don't see how they think that's going to pass in those Southeastern states. Introducing this in Alabama is about as realistic as introducing a gay marriage bill there.

Take the legality of convicting people who do not use tagged ammunition out of the equation. What will this do to manufacturer costs? Retail cost to the consumer? It states on the website it would abolish in home reloading. All ammo not used by a certain time frame would become illegal... Then is it a back door gun control measure if ammunition becomes so expensive no one can really afford it legally?

Not all the bills abolish reloading, some of them ignore it, the WA one IIRC had a note in there about it.

I was not referring to convicting people for using ammunition, I was referring to getting a conviction on a crime committed with a weapon by saying "Person X bought this ammunition" because there is no immediate corollary that the same person fired it. It's comparable to prescription medication in that regard. If there is any evidence that the purchaser was not the shooter, I doubt this would make a difference.

As such the legislation is a waste of time and money.

I largely agree but still think this is small shots over the bow.

People want to make guns illegal, others want to make not owning a gun illegal. Some people want to make flag burning illegal. Some want to make stupid posts on the internet illegal. Some want it to be legal to mate with sheep.

Luckily people's desires don't mean jack shit unless a law is passed and it holds up in court. Its quite the non issue like Malse said, someone wasting money without any hope of results.

It's a ridiculous law to even let on the books, for all of the reasons as was stated by others here. Guns will never be outlawed in the US, the crime statistics don't support the anti-gun ownership rhetoric.

We *need* guns, because if the LHC opens some trans-dimensional gateway and suddenly our day job shifts from Engineer to leader of some anti-alien revolution, we'll be able to raid the cupboards of our neighbors!

We *need* guns, because if the LHC opens some trans-dimensional gateway and suddenly our day job shifts from Engineer to leader of some anti-alien revolution, we'll be able to raid the cupboards of our neighbors!


/truth



I am fully ready for the zombie alien agenda.. BRING IT!

Friends of mine who enjoy assembling old Western era guns from kits make all of their own ball and cap ammunition.

But I will again bring up Chris Rock and his proposal as being a valid argument: charge $5k for each bullet. People will give a lot more thought to how badly they want to shoot at someone if it costs them $5 per shot.

Except the Chris Rock plan would prevent anyone from practicing, so when they finally did drop some of those $5k shots, who knows who they'd actually end up shooting.

Except the Chris Rock plan would prevent anyone from practicing, .

http://www.gamefreex.com/images/DuckHunt.jpg

I always shot at the dog for laughing.

Everyone did. Thankfully there's a few flash versions on the net now where when you shoot the dog, he finally dies.