IL Ammunition Serialization

steve4102 · October 27, 2016, 04:46 AM

IL House Bill 6615 proposes registration and serial numbers on all handgun ammunition.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2016...sues-and-costs

The actual Bill can be seen here.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/full...Sess=&Session=

The article on the NRA web site seems to be confused on the difference between a "Cartridge Case" and a "Bullet".

Then again the Bill does mention "Bullet".

Quote:

"Serialized" means:
15 (1) the handgun ammunition has been identified in a
16 manner prescribed by the Department of State Police so that
17 all assembled handgun ammunition contained within a
18 package provided for retail sale, or as otherwise specified
19 by the Department, is uniquely identified;
20 (2) bullets used for reloading or handloading
21 contained within a package provided for retail sale, or as
22 otherwise specified by the Department, are uniquely
23 identified;
24 (3) identification of the manufacturer of the items
25 described in subdivisions (1) and (2) of this definition;
26 (4) identification on the exterior of the items

HB6615 - 3 - LRB099 23410 RLC 50874 b

1 described in subdivisions (1) and (2) of this definition in
2 a manner that permits visual inspection for the purpose of
3 determining if the assembled handgun ammunition or bullet
4 is serialized;
5 (5) identification on the exterior of the items
6 described in subdivisions (1) and (2) of this definition in
7 a manner that is maintained subsequent to the discharge of
8 the handgun ammunition and subsequent to the impact of the
9 bullet, based on standards prescribed by the Department;
10 and
11 (6) identification on the exterior of every package or
12 container of serialized handgun ammunition, as prescribed
13 by the Department, with the same unique identifiers used on
14 the assembled handgun ammunition or bullets contained
15 within the packaging or container.

If I am reading this correctly, ammunition must be contain serial numbers that can be seen on visual inspection,
also "bullets" used for handloading must also contain serial numbers, and these #'s must hold up after the round is fired and the bullet itself makes contact.

How's that gunna work?

JimPage · October 27, 2016, 07:38 AM

Typically these bills are written by ignorant people when it comes to anything to do with firearms. Such a bill would not pass the laugh test of an honest judge's assessment of a competent expert's opinion. But, that is irrelevant to anti gun politicians.

2ndsojourn · October 27, 2016, 08:31 AM

From the bill:
""Serialized handgun ammunition" means any of the
19 following, which are subject to serialization under this
20 Article:
21 (1) handgun ammunition;
22 (2) .22 caliber rimfire ammunition; ....."

How is a serial number going to fit on a .22, that won't become illegible after shooting it?

HiBC · October 27, 2016, 08:42 AM

It seems obvious.Its not supposed to be workable.
Its designed to regulate the product out of existence.
Its one of those "common sense safety regulations" meant to make the ammo mfgr's throw in the towel.

CedarGrove357 · October 27, 2016, 08:42 AM

Chicago/Springfield Ignorance at its best.

I'm not with them - I just occupy some backwoods property within the fence.

BarryLee · October 27, 2016, 10:13 AM

Quote:

It seems obvious.Its not supposed to be workable.
Its designed to regulate the product out of existence.

Yes, this is simply part of the “death by a thousand cuts” strategy that many of the anti-gun crowd are employing. While they still hope for an outright ban even without it they hope by making gun ownership so expensive and burdensome that people will never even consider the shooting sports.

**44 AMP** · October 27, 2016, 11:23 AM

Having read the bulk of the proposed bill, it does a LOT more than just require "handgun ammunition serialization".

In addition to what has already been mentioned, among other things, the bill also requires creation of a registry of ammo sellers, and PURCHASERS. Ammo 'transfers" would require ID, and records must be kept by vendors for 3 years. And a fee to maintain said registry, up to $.05 per round of ammo.

The bill specifically excludes shotshells in one section, and then, two pages later, includes shotshells and RIFLE ammo as "non-serialized handgun ammo" IF the ammo "is made for" any firearm with a barrel less than 16" (rifle) 18" (shotgun) or 26" overall. It does not require you to possess such a firearm, only that if the ammo is made for such an arm, you may not possess it.

IT also covers the Contender/Encore type of firearm by including language that says if the firearm is made to "accept" a barrel shorter than 18"....

Their definition of handgun is "pistol, revolver, or any concealable firearm.."

Unserialized ammo would be illegal to possess "in any public place" after 1/1/18.

There are exceptions, of course, virtually all govt. employees, and licensed private security, armored car drivers, etc. Private citizens with a CCW permit or an FOID card may keep ammo made before 1/1/18, but only for a maximum of 15 years.

So, if you have ammo that fits in a gun that has less than a 16" rifle or 18" shotgun barrel, made anywhere, by anyone, ever, it could be considered "unserialized handgun ammo" under the bill.

Since there ARE short barrel versions of virtually EVERY caliber gun ever made, this bill could be interpreted to cover ALL ammo, not just "traditional" handgun rounds.

Oh, and yes, the bill does specifically state that EACH ROUND that violates the law is a separate charge.

Find a box of .22LR that's been buried in the back of a closet since 1966? Sorry, after 1/1/18 (if the law passes), that's 50 counts of criminal charges...

Also, I saw no explanation of any reason for the law. NO claim is made about how it will aid police in their duties, or how it will reduce crime, or anything.

Simply put, they say "these are the changes to the law", without giving any reason WHY they are changing the law. This is actually a smart move on their part (though it seems arrogant), if they don't claim something the law is supposed to do, one cannot fault the law when it doesn't DO it.

This ISN'T "ignorance" it is a carefully thought out and wordsmithed attack on firearms ownership, through ammunition restrictions, deliberately ignoring certain facets of reality. (such as what happens to bullets after they hit things, among others...)

JWT · October 27, 2016, 12:34 PM

It seems as if Illinois, CA, CT, NY, NJ, and MA are in a race to see which state can dream up the goofiest restrictions o gun ownership.

**Aguila Blanca** · October 27, 2016, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve4102

How's that gunna work?

Poorly.

lefteye · October 27, 2016, 06:19 PM

Stupid beyond (almost) belief!

steve4102 · October 27, 2016, 07:36 PM

^^ Yeah, but it will pass.

lefteye · October 27, 2016, 08:58 PM

Toothpicks cause several thousand injuries each year in the United States. There is no Constitutional right (that I am aware of) to keep and bear toothpicks. To protect the people in Illinois toothpicks should have serial numbers.

Edited to add: I am not kidding about toothpick injuries. Just research it.

5whiskey · October 27, 2016, 10:30 PM

44 Amp hit on some good points. No need for reasoning such as "how do you ensure the s/n is still legible after it strikes its target." Or even "what major ammo company would bother to try and cater to this."

And as also mentioned it, there's the convenience of not even trying to rationalize how this might keep anyone at all safe or aid law enforcement. Obviously it could ^Possibly^ aid in solving murders, but most murders that would likely go unsolved involve stolen guns... Which also coincide with stolen ammo. Any time I have ever gotten a gun off a gang banger and found HP ammo inside, I could always track it back to being stolen. In many cases, the rounds were also stolen. Confirmed by interviews on many occasions. Anyone with "registered" ammo that is not stolen will likely not commit a crime, or if they do it is a crime of passion and using the gun/ammo as evidence is but a mere formality. There would be a mountain of other evidence, and registered ammo would matter exactly... Not at all.

In the end, its a "death by a thousand cuts" gun grabber law.

TXAZ · October 27, 2016, 10:36 PM

Easy solution for all: Just write a number on a really small yellow sticky and put it on the head of the bullet.

ballardw · October 27, 2016, 11:57 PM

For added fun:

Quote:

(b-5) Beginning January 1, 2018, any person who knowingly
8 destroys, obliterates, or otherwise renders unreadable, the
9 serialization required under Section 24-1.10 of this Code, on
10 any bullet or assembled handgun ammunition is guilty of a Class
11 A misdemeanor.

Since firing a round is likely to "destroy, obliterate or otherwise render unreadable" the serialization then actually firing each round seems likely to be a misdemeanor.

Or the projectiles would have to be made of a material unlikely to deform in anyway hitting almost any surface. Which would like make them "armor piercing" and go into yet another legal laugh-a-minute regulation.l

steve4102 · October 28, 2016, 08:11 AM

I highly doubt there would be any ammunition manufacturer that would be willing to supply serialized ammunition to the residents of IL, thus rendering their firearms useless.

Which of course, is the intent of this bill.

wizrd · October 29, 2016, 08:12 PM

It just means adjacent states will be selling a lot more ammo.

jbarbourtrim · October 30, 2016, 05:42 AM

Just move over here to missouri. We hate illinois. We have a club and everything. Cookies and milk are served at every meeting

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

Emerson Biggies · October 30, 2016, 11:06 AM

Simply pass a law making it a crime not to turn yourself in to the authorities after commit

ing a crime with a gun! That would be easier to enforce!

**44 AMP** · October 30, 2016, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Simply pass a law making it a crime not to turn yourself in to the authorities after commiting a crime with a gun! That would be easier to enforce!

Sorry, no, I don't think so.

Second, I don't see how it would be any easier to enforce than any other law,

and FIRST, it would be rather Unconstitutional. (5th Amendment)

I know it's sarcasm, the above are the reasons why it can only be sarcasm.

Armorer-at-Law · November 2, 2016, 10:04 AM

Quote:

There are exceptions, of course, virtually all govt. employees, and licensed private security, armored car drivers, etc.

Herein lies the problem. Make what's good for the goose, good for the gander and we'll see the end of this kind of absurdity.

ATN082268 · November 2, 2016, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

There are exceptions, of course, virtually all govt. employees, and licensed private security, armored car drivers, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armorer-at-Law

Herein lies the problem. Make what's good for the goose, good for the gander and we'll see the end of this kind of absurdity.

It'd be nice but don't hold your breath

**44 AMP** · November 2, 2016, 05:09 PM

Quote:

It'd be nice but don't hold your breath

You can breathe (though not deeply), it HAS happened before, and curiously, with one of the most odious of gun control "punishment" laws, the Lautenberg Act!!!

The ONE feature of that law that I consider a worthwhile concept is that it applies, in full measure, to everyone. NO exemption for the police, OR the military, ON or OFF Duty!

That law, permanently making people guilty of misdemeanor domestic violence into prohibited persons, took hundreds, possibly thousands of police and military personnel off "active" status because when it went into effect, they were not exempted.

Either Congress wanted to teach the police a lesson, or most likely, simply didn't THINK through what the crap that they were making into law would actually DO.

The rest of the law seems, to me, to fly in the face of both logic and legal precedent, but, to date it has not been found unconstitutional. I don't even know if it has been seriously challenged, but it ought to be.

**Tom Servo** · November 4, 2016, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Second, I don't see how it would be any easier to enforce than any other law, and FIRST, it would be rather Unconstitutional. (5th Amendment)

It may not be enforceable in a consistent manner, but that's not the idea. All they have to do is nail someone for it now and then, and word gets out. The result is a chilling effect on ownership and use in general, which is the real endgame.

62coltnavy · November 18, 2016, 08:16 PM

There are literally billions of rounds of ammunition produced int he US every year. and since wit would not be economical to set up a production facility solely to cater to residents of Illinois (and any other state that wanted to jump on the band wagon), manufacturers would have to serialize ALL ammo and ALL reloadable bullets. Before long, bullets wold be literally covered with microstamped numbers fifteen characters long.

Frankly though, this is a backdoor ban of any and all firearms except shotguns, and I have a feeling it would be considered a MASSIVE infringement on the Second Amendment, even if Posner seems to have gone over to the other side.

October 27, 2016, 07:38 AM	#2
JimPage Senior Member Join Date: February 21, 2010 Location: Rome, NY Posts: 941	Typically these bills are written by ignorant people when it comes to anything to do with firearms. Such a bill would not pass the laugh test of an honest judge's assessment of a competent expert's opinion. But, that is irrelevant to anti gun politicians. __________________ Jim Page Cogito, ergo armatum sum

October 27, 2016, 08:42 AM	#5
CedarGrove357 Senior Member Join Date: September 12, 2016 Location: Southeastern Illinois Posts: 137	Chicago/Springfield Ignorance at its best. I'm not with them - I just occupy some backwoods property within the fence. __________________ "Though I send you out as sheep among wolves, therefore be as innocent as doves and as shrewd as snakes." Cedar Grove Farm and Arms

October 27, 2016, 11:23 AM	#7
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,871	Having read the bulk of the proposed bill, it does a LOT more than just require "handgun ammunition serialization". In addition to what has already been mentioned, among other things, the bill also requires creation of a registry of ammo sellers, and PURCHASERS. Ammo 'transfers" would require ID, and records must be kept by vendors for 3 years. And a fee to maintain said registry, up to $.05 per round of ammo. The bill specifically excludes shotshells in one section, and then, two pages later, includes shotshells and RIFLE ammo as "non-serialized handgun ammo" IF the ammo "is made for" any firearm with a barrel less than 16" (rifle) 18" (shotgun) or 26" overall. It does not require you to possess such a firearm, only that if the ammo is made for such an arm, you may not possess it. IT also covers the Contender/Encore type of firearm by including language that says if the firearm is made to "accept" a barrel shorter than 18".... Their definition of handgun is "pistol, revolver, or any concealable firearm.." Unserialized ammo would be illegal to possess "in any public place" after 1/1/18. There are exceptions, of course, virtually all govt. employees, and licensed private security, armored car drivers, etc. Private citizens with a CCW permit or an FOID card may keep ammo made before 1/1/18, but only for a maximum of 15 years. So, if you have ammo that fits in a gun that has less than a 16" rifle or 18" shotgun barrel, made anywhere, by anyone, ever, it could be considered "unserialized handgun ammo" under the bill. Since there ARE short barrel versions of virtually EVERY caliber gun ever made, this bill could be interpreted to cover ALL ammo, not just "traditional" handgun rounds. Oh, and yes, the bill does specifically state that EACH ROUND that violates the law is a separate charge. Find a box of .22LR that's been buried in the back of a closet since 1966? Sorry, after 1/1/18 (if the law passes), that's 50 counts of criminal charges... Also, I saw no explanation of any reason for the law. NO claim is made about how it will aid police in their duties, or how it will reduce crime, or anything. Simply put, they say "these are the changes to the law", without giving any reason WHY they are changing the law. This is actually a smart move on their part (though it seems arrogant), if they don't claim something the law is supposed to do, one cannot fault the law when it doesn't DO it. This ISN'T "ignorance" it is a carefully thought out and wordsmithed attack on firearms ownership, through ammunition restrictions, deliberately ignoring certain facets of reality. (such as what happens to bullets after they hit things, among others...) __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

October 27, 2016, 06:19 PM	#10
lefteye Senior Member Join Date: January 30, 2006 Posts: 1,433	Stupid beyond (almost) belief! __________________ Vietnam Veteran ('69-'70) NRA Life Member RMEF Life Member

October 27, 2016, 08:58 PM	#12
lefteye Senior Member Join Date: January 30, 2006 Posts: 1,433	Toothpicks cause several thousand injuries each year in the United States. There is no Constitutional right (that I am aware of) to keep and bear toothpicks. To protect the people in Illinois toothpicks should have serial numbers. Edited to add: I am not kidding about toothpick injuries. Just research it. __________________ Vietnam Veteran ('69-'70) NRA Life Member RMEF Life Member Last edited by lefteye; October 27, 2016 at 10:53 PM.

October 27, 2016, 08:31 AM	#3
2ndsojourn Senior Member Join Date: January 15, 2013 Location: South Jersey Posts: 1,416	From the bill: ""Serialized handgun ammunition" means any of the 19 following, which are subject to serialization under this 20 Article: 21 (1) handgun ammunition; 22 (2) .22 caliber rimfire ammunition; ....." How is a serial number going to fit on a .22, that won't become illegible after shooting it?

October 27, 2016, 08:42 AM	#4
HiBC Senior Member Join Date: November 13, 2006 Posts: 8,289	It seems obvious.Its not supposed to be workable. Its designed to regulate the product out of existence. Its one of those "common sense safety regulations" meant to make the ammo mfgr's throw in the towel.

October 27, 2016, 12:34 PM	#8
JWT Senior Member Join Date: March 16, 2007 Location: Southern Arizona Posts: 3,888	It seems as if Illinois, CA, CT, NY, NJ, and MA are in a race to see which state can dream up the goofiest restrictions o gun ownership.

October 27, 2016, 07:36 PM	#11
steve4102 Senior Member Join Date: December 23, 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 2,955	^^ Yeah, but it will pass.

October 27, 2016, 10:30 PM	#13
5whiskey Senior Member Join Date: October 23, 2005 Location: US Posts: 3,657	44 Amp hit on some good points. No need for reasoning such as "how do you ensure the s/n is still legible after it strikes its target." Or even "what major ammo company would bother to try and cater to this." And as also mentioned it, there's the convenience of not even trying to rationalize how this might keep anyone at all safe or aid law enforcement. Obviously it could ^Possibly^ aid in solving murders, but most murders that would likely go unsolved involve stolen guns... Which also coincide with stolen ammo. Any time I have ever gotten a gun off a gang banger and found HP ammo inside, I could always track it back to being stolen. In many cases, the rounds were also stolen. Confirmed by interviews on many occasions. Anyone with "registered" ammo that is not stolen will likely not commit a crime, or if they do it is a crime of passion and using the gun/ammo as evidence is but a mere formality. There would be a mountain of other evidence, and registered ammo would matter exactly... Not at all. In the end, its a "death by a thousand cuts" gun grabber law. Last edited by 5whiskey; October 27, 2016 at 10:36 PM.

October 27, 2016, 10:36 PM	#14
TXAZ Senior Member Join Date: September 5, 2010 Location: McMurdo Sound Texas Posts: 4,322	Easy solution for all: Just write a number on a really small yellow sticky and put it on the head of the bullet. __________________ Cave illos in guns et backhoes

October 28, 2016, 08:11 AM	#16
steve4102 Senior Member Join Date: December 23, 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 2,955	I highly doubt there would be any ammunition manufacturer that would be willing to supply serialized ammunition to the residents of IL, thus rendering their firearms useless. Which of course, is the intent of this bill.

October 29, 2016, 08:12 PM	#17
wizrd Senior Member Join Date: February 26, 2012 Posts: 232	It just means adjacent states will be selling a lot more ammo. __________________ Sumo magis ammo

October 30, 2016, 05:42 AM	#18
jbarbourtrim Member Join Date: July 24, 2016 Posts: 39	Just move over here to missouri. We hate illinois. We have a club and everything. Cookies and milk are served at every meeting Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

October 30, 2016, 11:06 AM	#19
Emerson Biggies Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2014 Posts: 163	Simply pass a law making it a crime not to turn yourself in to the authorities after commiting a crime with a gun! That would be easier to enforce! __________________ Keep your guns clean.... the kids may put them in their mouths!

November 18, 2016, 08:16 PM	#25
62coltnavy Senior Member Join Date: February 1, 2011 Posts: 356	There are literally billions of rounds of ammunition produced int he US every year. and since wit would not be economical to set up a production facility solely to cater to residents of Illinois (and any other state that wanted to jump on the band wagon), manufacturers would have to serialize ALL ammo and ALL reloadable bullets. Before long, bullets wold be literally covered with microstamped numbers fifteen characters long. Frankly though, this is a backdoor ban of any and all firearms except shotguns, and I have a feeling it would be considered a MASSIVE infringement on the Second Amendment, even if Posner seems to have gone over to the other side.