ammunition regulation proposal (politics)
Mar. 27th, 2008 06:38 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
drewkittyI am writing to you regarding AB 2062, a proposal by Assembly Member Kevin De Leon of Los Angeles to heavily regulate the sale of handgun ammunition.
This proposal is severely flawed for a number of pivotal reasons. The most important is simply this: law-abiding citizens need much more ammunition to practice with, than criminals need to commit crimes.
1) Imperils public safety. Law-abiding handgun owners need to practice to remain competent and accurate. In my employment (whom I do not represent in this letter), I am responsible for training compliance for a number of armed security guards. This measure would make it much more difficult and expensive for them to purchase the handgun ammunition they need to remain competent in the use of firearms. In some cases my employees would have to choose between competence in life and death situations, and health benefits for their children.
As an NRA firearms instructor, I am aware that handgun accuracy is a skill that requires frequent practice to acquire and as importantly, maintain. Responsible private security companies and law enforcement agencies require their employees to qualify frequently on the range, and in fact encourage civilians to do the same.
This onerous legislation simply makes it more difficult and expensive to practice on the range, which translates directly to less practice, less accuracy, less firearms safety and more accidents from unsafe firearms handling.
In a typical one hour range session, a gun owner can be expected to expend one box of 50 rounds, costing about $10-$15 per box. This is on top of range fees from $7 to $18 per use / hour. For the law-abiding citizen who wishes to maintain basic handgun competency, this means an ammunition budget of $120 to $180 per year out of what is often discretionary income.
Less practice, less exposure to informal and formal instruction, and more firearms sitting rusting in drawers instead of being responsibly used and stored, can only mean more firearms accidents.
I do not believe that a person unwilling to train with a handgun should choose to own a handgun. This population who owns firearms but does not know how to safely use or store them, is disproportionately responsible for misuse of firearms and theft of firearms, especially through burglary from unoccupied homes. Why grow this population through unnecessary and expensive legislation?
Another hazard is expired ammunition. Ammunition should be replaced yearly, typically through firearms practice. (Most police agencies rotate every three to six months.) This bill would increase the temptation to hold on to "old" ammunition and then rely on it for self-defense. Do we want the law-abiding public to have to use old ammunition that may jam or misfire exactly when needed most, while the criminal is equipped with freshly smuggled or stolen ammunition?
Last but not least, in many rural areas of California, firearms are essential for home defense. For example, the Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office has adopted policies that mean a considerably delayed response time to my residence, as much as one hour or more in response to an emergency call for assistance. As a NRA Personal Protection In The Home Instructor, I teach the general public to defend themselves in their bedroom as a last resort when faced with overwhelming criminal attack. The simple fact is that the police cannot be everywhere, even in an overwhelmingly urban county such as Los Angeles. This legislation is simply impractical in much of rural California where ammunition is still sold in general stores many miles apart.
2) Infringes the rights of law-abiding citizens. The apparent goal of this legislation is to prevent ammunition from being obtained by persons who may not lawfully possess ammunition. This could be accomplished in a number of narrowly targeted ways: enhanced penalties for unlawful possession being chief among these. By burdening the purchase of ammunition, the clear goal is to interfere with a Constitutional right to bear firearms for defense of self and others.
3) Creates an extraordinary regulatory burden on California businesses. For example, my employer would have to obtain an ammunition permit and carefully track its ammunition as issued to our armed guards. This regulation would increase our operating costs, which already come from a limited pool of resources dictated to us by market conditions. The burden on retailers and firearms dealers would be even greater. Many retailers who sell ammunition but not firearms would be compelled for economic reasons to abandon ammunition sales, driving up ammunition costs. Not only private citizens but ranges and instructors would be severely burdened. Increased sales by private firearms dealers (already heavily regulated) would be offset by additional labor costs in implementing these regulations.
Further, I am aware through dealings with them that the California Department of Justice is a heavily overburdened agency struggling to cope with many unfunded mandates, including very short-sighted and complex assault weapons legislation which is also easily evaded by criminals (parts assembly of "receivers") and the need to track handgun ownership records through the Automated Firearms System. This tracking system is essential to public safety in accounting for stolen firearms. DoJ Firearms Division is already overworked in keeping this database running and maintained.
How much attention and resources shall we take from AFS, which is a proven crime fighting tool, to devote to a new ammunition purchaser database which now must be populated and maintained? Those states, cities and agencies elsewhere who have attempted ammunition purchase tracking as a crime-fighting tool have abandoned it as expensive, unworkable and in some cases completely useless.
Paradoxically, this legislation would in fact detract DoJ attention from existing firearms regulations, some of which are important to public safety, in favor of new and unproven regulations which have minor effects at best on crime while burdening the law-abiding citizen and business.
4) Ineffectiveness. Even if this legislation were to be enacted, it would be simple to "unlawfully" import ammunition into California by private vehicle or by commercial shipping service. No technology exists to effectively screen all of California's incoming commerce. Consider that China is a major manufacturer of ammunition and that one crate of 9mm ammo would be sufficient to meet a criminal venture's need for ammunition for a year. The same crate would last only a few hours at a single firing range used by the public. A criminal could carry on a lucrative criminal career with a single box of ammunition; the homeowner would expend that box at minimum yearly, if not monthly.
The proponent of this measure concedes this point by implementing only civil fines for violation of this measure. Criminals need not fear civil actions when they already face strong criminal sanction. The only target of this measure is the law-abiding citizen and business owner who will follow the law and sits still to be subpoenaed and sanctioned.
If the goal is to ban handguns, perhaps the proponent of this measure should act with the courage of his convictions and propose that measure instead. This measure, even in the context of heavy regulation of handguns, is unwieldy and dangerous to the law-abiding public.
I should also add that prior legislation has already been proposed to ask the Department of Justice to study this issue and provide a report by January 2009. Perhaps the Legislature should wait for this report and legislate based on the facts as prepared by the agency who will have to enforce these measures, instead of blind imposition of unfunded mandates which will make an already complex firearms law situation in California even more unworkable.
Nothing in this letter is intended to represent the opinions of my employer, the National Rifle Association or any other group or entity.
Thank you for your time and attention.
This proposal is severely flawed for a number of pivotal reasons. The most important is simply this: law-abiding citizens need much more ammunition to practice with, than criminals need to commit crimes.
1) Imperils public safety. Law-abiding handgun owners need to practice to remain competent and accurate. In my employment (whom I do not represent in this letter), I am responsible for training compliance for a number of armed security guards. This measure would make it much more difficult and expensive for them to purchase the handgun ammunition they need to remain competent in the use of firearms. In some cases my employees would have to choose between competence in life and death situations, and health benefits for their children.
As an NRA firearms instructor, I am aware that handgun accuracy is a skill that requires frequent practice to acquire and as importantly, maintain. Responsible private security companies and law enforcement agencies require their employees to qualify frequently on the range, and in fact encourage civilians to do the same.
This onerous legislation simply makes it more difficult and expensive to practice on the range, which translates directly to less practice, less accuracy, less firearms safety and more accidents from unsafe firearms handling.
In a typical one hour range session, a gun owner can be expected to expend one box of 50 rounds, costing about $10-$15 per box. This is on top of range fees from $7 to $18 per use / hour. For the law-abiding citizen who wishes to maintain basic handgun competency, this means an ammunition budget of $120 to $180 per year out of what is often discretionary income.
Less practice, less exposure to informal and formal instruction, and more firearms sitting rusting in drawers instead of being responsibly used and stored, can only mean more firearms accidents.
I do not believe that a person unwilling to train with a handgun should choose to own a handgun. This population who owns firearms but does not know how to safely use or store them, is disproportionately responsible for misuse of firearms and theft of firearms, especially through burglary from unoccupied homes. Why grow this population through unnecessary and expensive legislation?
Another hazard is expired ammunition. Ammunition should be replaced yearly, typically through firearms practice. (Most police agencies rotate every three to six months.) This bill would increase the temptation to hold on to "old" ammunition and then rely on it for self-defense. Do we want the law-abiding public to have to use old ammunition that may jam or misfire exactly when needed most, while the criminal is equipped with freshly smuggled or stolen ammunition?
Last but not least, in many rural areas of California, firearms are essential for home defense. For example, the Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office has adopted policies that mean a considerably delayed response time to my residence, as much as one hour or more in response to an emergency call for assistance. As a NRA Personal Protection In The Home Instructor, I teach the general public to defend themselves in their bedroom as a last resort when faced with overwhelming criminal attack. The simple fact is that the police cannot be everywhere, even in an overwhelmingly urban county such as Los Angeles. This legislation is simply impractical in much of rural California where ammunition is still sold in general stores many miles apart.
2) Infringes the rights of law-abiding citizens. The apparent goal of this legislation is to prevent ammunition from being obtained by persons who may not lawfully possess ammunition. This could be accomplished in a number of narrowly targeted ways: enhanced penalties for unlawful possession being chief among these. By burdening the purchase of ammunition, the clear goal is to interfere with a Constitutional right to bear firearms for defense of self and others.
3) Creates an extraordinary regulatory burden on California businesses. For example, my employer would have to obtain an ammunition permit and carefully track its ammunition as issued to our armed guards. This regulation would increase our operating costs, which already come from a limited pool of resources dictated to us by market conditions. The burden on retailers and firearms dealers would be even greater. Many retailers who sell ammunition but not firearms would be compelled for economic reasons to abandon ammunition sales, driving up ammunition costs. Not only private citizens but ranges and instructors would be severely burdened. Increased sales by private firearms dealers (already heavily regulated) would be offset by additional labor costs in implementing these regulations.
Further, I am aware through dealings with them that the California Department of Justice is a heavily overburdened agency struggling to cope with many unfunded mandates, including very short-sighted and complex assault weapons legislation which is also easily evaded by criminals (parts assembly of "receivers") and the need to track handgun ownership records through the Automated Firearms System. This tracking system is essential to public safety in accounting for stolen firearms. DoJ Firearms Division is already overworked in keeping this database running and maintained.
How much attention and resources shall we take from AFS, which is a proven crime fighting tool, to devote to a new ammunition purchaser database which now must be populated and maintained? Those states, cities and agencies elsewhere who have attempted ammunition purchase tracking as a crime-fighting tool have abandoned it as expensive, unworkable and in some cases completely useless.
Paradoxically, this legislation would in fact detract DoJ attention from existing firearms regulations, some of which are important to public safety, in favor of new and unproven regulations which have minor effects at best on crime while burdening the law-abiding citizen and business.
4) Ineffectiveness. Even if this legislation were to be enacted, it would be simple to "unlawfully" import ammunition into California by private vehicle or by commercial shipping service. No technology exists to effectively screen all of California's incoming commerce. Consider that China is a major manufacturer of ammunition and that one crate of 9mm ammo would be sufficient to meet a criminal venture's need for ammunition for a year. The same crate would last only a few hours at a single firing range used by the public. A criminal could carry on a lucrative criminal career with a single box of ammunition; the homeowner would expend that box at minimum yearly, if not monthly.
The proponent of this measure concedes this point by implementing only civil fines for violation of this measure. Criminals need not fear civil actions when they already face strong criminal sanction. The only target of this measure is the law-abiding citizen and business owner who will follow the law and sits still to be subpoenaed and sanctioned.
If the goal is to ban handguns, perhaps the proponent of this measure should act with the courage of his convictions and propose that measure instead. This measure, even in the context of heavy regulation of handguns, is unwieldy and dangerous to the law-abiding public.
I should also add that prior legislation has already been proposed to ask the Department of Justice to study this issue and provide a report by January 2009. Perhaps the Legislature should wait for this report and legislate based on the facts as prepared by the agency who will have to enforce these measures, instead of blind imposition of unfunded mandates which will make an already complex firearms law situation in California even more unworkable.
Nothing in this letter is intended to represent the opinions of my employer, the National Rifle Association or any other group or entity.
Thank you for your time and attention.
