"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:59:12 GMT, the inscrutable Gunner
spake:

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 06:20:10 GMT, "DeepDiver"
wrote:

"Tom" wrote in message
...
California proposes requiring bullet ID numbers

By Adam Tanner

"SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California's attorney general
introduced pioneering legislation on Tuesday that would require all
bullets sold in the nation's most populous state to bear tiny
identification numbers.

The bill, aimed at helping investigators solve crime
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^

B.S.!!!
This bill is aimed at circumventing the Second Amendment and disarming
law-abiding citizens.


- Michael

Yes indeed. When you make regulations so onerous that they cannot be
met, it is a de facto ban.

Here in Oregon, we have two bills coming up which would limit law
abiding gun owners. From the JCSA Sporter Vol. 05-04:

--snip--
SB 335 would allow local school districts to gut the state firearms
peemption law and ban the possession of all firearms by Concealed
Handgun Licensees for any reason on school property, or where any
school-sponsored event is taking place.

SB 954 is a gun-tax bill, which aims to make up shortfalls in parts of
the state budted on the backs of law abiding gun owners. It increases
the fees for fingerprinting a Concealed Handgun License applicant
(from $15 to $22) and for transferring a firearm under Oregon's
instant-check system (from $10 to $25). Please contact your State
Senators and urge them to oppose SB 335 and SB 954.
--snip--

You can bet I will.

--
Don't forget the 7 P's:
Proper Prior Planning Prevents ****-Poor Performance
----------------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Website Application Programming

i can't find a link to the original story at reuters.com. can anyone verify
this isn't a troll?