Lockyer Shelves Ammo-Coding Plan with Long White Whiskers
September 10, 2005

by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor

There was some good news in an Aug. 24 Copley News Service story by reporter James P. Sweeney filed from Sacramento, CA. Although Sweeney’s report is full of common errors such as the use of the words “novel” and “landmark” to suggest a new—possibly original—idea in the gun control arena, it also indicated some limited movement of the brain cells in the heads of those who have been pushing the idea of serializing every round of ammunition.

Before I begin quoting extensively from the Copley News Service story, I should stress that the serialized bullet concept is so old it’s got a stovepipe hat and long white whiskers. With the help of Robert Kukla’s 1973 book Gun Control, I’ll give you some citations that go back as far as the 1930s. Even New York State Attorney General Elliot Spitzer was pushing the idea almost 20 years ago.

Novel the idea is not. Landmark it may become if it is ever adopted.

Serializing every individual bullet is far from as simple as some folks make it sound, especially those who would profit from the scheme. Giving each individual bullet a unique number and keeping track of each bullet or cartridge’s number as it moves through the distribution pipelines is a lot harder than it sounds. Even if you confine the idea to handgun ammunition, you are dealing with billions of rounds each year.

Here is most of Sweeney’s story as syndicated by Copley.

“Attorney General Bill Lockyer has shelved a novel gun-control measure that would have required manufacturers to stamp microscopic serial numbers on all handgun ammunition sold in California,” Sweeney began.

State Sen. Dunn
“Sen. Joe Dunn (D-Garden Grove), who is carrying the legislation for the attorney general, said he needed more time to resolve a heated debate over how much the potentially landmark tracking system would cost and who would pay for it,” Sweeney continued.

“The bill, SB-357, has passed the Senate and is pending in an Assembly fiscal committee as the legislature pushes through its final three weeks of this year’s session. The measure may be taken up next year, the second in the two-year session.

“The legislation would require manufacturers to imprint or etch a serial number on the end of each slug or bullet starting in 2009. Boxes of cartridges bearing the same number could then be linked to buyers’ driver license recorded at the time of sale.”

Needless to say, the driver’s license link to an ammo purchase is, of course, part of a continuum of contemporary California attempts to harass the law-abiding gunowner.

“Lockyer said coding handgun ammunition could help identify suspects in many of the murders and other violent crimes that go unsolved every year,” Sweeney reported. “But, while many other consumer products are tagged with tracking numbers during manufacturing, no other state or country has attempted to set up such a system for ammunition.

“Aides to Lockyer said the proposal would add less than a penny to the cost of a cartridge. Representatives of the firearms industry warned it would be prohibitively expensive.

“A similar measure, AB-352, would require gunmakers to equip semi-automatic handguns with components that leave an identifying code on spent shell casings. That bill has passed the Assembly and is awaiting what figures to be a close vote on the Senate floor,” Sweeney noted.

“Dunn said he will work during the coming months to resolve fears that his bill could pose a financial burden on some law enforcement personnel who are required to buy ammunition for training.

“ ‘It’s a legitimate question that we will respond to,’ Dunn said.

“He was less optimistic about bringing manufacturers together with companies that have developed methods to code ammunition. Regardless, he predicted the measure will be delivered to the governor next year.”

Of course “the companies that have developed methods to code ammunition” that Dunn refers to would profit from passage of such a law and are probably holding Lockyer’s and Dunn’s coats as they sweat passage of the windfall proposal. Neither these entrepreneurs, nor Lockyer, nor Dunn really care what this will do to gunowners and the ammunition manufacturing industry. I suspect they really don’t care about how it will affect law enforcement personnel either.

Support Lacking
In his Aug. 24 report, Sweeney notes that there is opposition in the police community.

“Opponents say Lockyer and Dunn have yet to sell the proposal to much of the state’s law enforcement community,” Sweeney writes.

“Prominent organizations, such as those representing the state’s district attorneys and police chiefs, have declined to endorse the bill, noted Lawrence Keane, general counsel of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute, an industry trade group known as SAAMI.

“ ‘I think it’s pretty clear that law enforcement by and large is not supporting this effort,’ Keane said.

“Manufacturers say the proposal would force expensive changes on a high-volume, low-margin business. Keane and others have warned the required manufacturing modifications would either drive companies out of business or result in steep price increases,” Sweeney concluded.

Apparently, Lockyer, Dunn and the rest of the anti-gun chorus in California have no problem brushing aside reasoned opposition from law enforcement, the ammunition industry and law-abiding gunowners. Dunn promised the bill will be on Gov. Schwarzenegger’s desk in 2006.

Spitzer, who is expected to run as the Democratic Party’s candidate for governor of New York next year, never got anywhere with his scheme. It was introduced years ago in the New York legislature by Spitzer’s allies, but got nowhere. In fact, it has been so long that Spitzer’s political ambitions have carried him though many unsuccessful and successful political campaigns for various offices since the idea of serialized ammunition died in Albany.

The serialized ammunition concept died many deaths even before Spitzer professed it to be a “novel” and “landmark” proposal.

1935 Proposal
Kukla has several references to the “bullet fingerprinting” idea in Gun Control. Chronologically, the first recommendation for “fingerprinting bullets” came in 1935 during the Copeland Committee hearings on proposed handgun legislation in the US Senate. That’s when a man named Hector Pocoroba suggested placing serial numbers inscribed upon small metal tape inside every bullet manufactured in the United States. The idea in 1935 was the same as that of the gun controllers in 2005; identify the person firing a crime bullet.

Law enforcement professionals pretty well shot down Pocoroba’s idea and “bullet fingerprinting” as a gun control agenda item went dormant for over 30 years. It surfaced again in the 1969 Staff Report of the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence.

The staff report noted: “Another suggested method of tracing firearms is to implant an identifying capsule with a distinctive number in each bullet and require firearms dealers who sell the ammunition to maintain records of the persons who buy such numbered ammunition.”

The idea never flew in the 1930s, or the 1960s, because no one ever figured out just how to cope with the billions of rounds factories manufactured in the US or imported each year.

New technology eventually may solve some of the manufacturing and recordkeeping problems associated with uniquely serializing all factory ammo and handloads, but the police are still skeptical and the firearms industry has warned that it would not just raise the cost of ammunition, it might end up taking ammunition out of the marketplace.

Of course, that may be what Lockyer, Dunn and Spitzer want to accomplish but are afraid of saying publicly.
Return to Archive Index