|
Gun Ammo Folly in California California (and Los Angeles in particular) did not get branded as the "land of nuts and flakes" without reason. It is here where the enlightened folk in the borough of Santa Monica attempted to pass an ordinance decreeing that all new homes built within that city's limits had to be made handicapped accessible (whether or not anyone in the house is actually handicapped) and attempted to install minimum wage laws for successful businesses while exempting those that did not do as well. Now the city council is doing something that would be equally laughable, if it weren't a danger to peaceful, law-abiding people who want nothing more than to protect their families, lives and property. In La-La Land we have an ordinance known as the holiday ammunition ban. Approximately a decade ago, the geniuses in the city council somehow determined that prohibiting merchants from selling ammunition from Christmas Day until January 2 would somehow save lives. Now those same brainiacs want to extend this ban within the city limits to cover the entire year. The problem with this line of thinking is that it is conceptually incorrect, therefore its entire premise is flawed. The basis for the ordinance, in part, came about due to the 300-500 individuals each year who wish to irresponsibly fire their guns into the air on New Year's Eve, thereby endangering a multitude of innocent bystanders with this stupid action. While this ban may stop a few in this group holding the lowest IQ's, since the knowledge of the ban is widespread, what is going to stop people from buying an ample supply of ammo to get them through the holidays? Nothing. If people don't normally keep a supply on hand, and replenish the stock periodically, they will simply obtain it earlier in the month. Another flaw in the process behind this ordinance is the belief that it has saved hundreds of children's lives in the city over the past ten years. First, let's look at how they come to this conclusion. While it is true that "children" (all the way up to age nineteen, by their definition) have been killed in the past ten years in L.A., once again the response of feel-good legislation does not hold up in the face of reality. Of the roughly 50 kids each year shot in the city, the majority are either gang members or innocent bystanders in neighborhoods with gang activity. While this second group is tragic, I doubt that any of them would have been saved by this ban. Do you really think that gang members and criminals walk into a Turner's Outdoorsman and plunk the Visa or MasterCard down on the counter to pay for bullets? For some of the weapons these individuals possess it is impossible to obtain ammunition through legitimate means, thanks to the city and state governments. Therefore, they get it from others who circumvent this ban. Just another nuisance to go around. They get what they want, while someone not participating in any nefarious activity whatsoever either cannot, or must decide to become a criminal themselves. I find it a highly specious argument that any lives have been saved by this ban in the last 10 years. People who want to operate outside the law will almost always develop methods to do so, and obtain what they want to perform their work. What would a city-wide, year round ban accomplish? Little at best, and most likely nothing. Despite the well known traffic problems in Los Angeles, it is pretty easy to get around the city. Second, the ban would only take place within the city limits of L.A. The majority of gun shops I have frequented are located in Pasadena and the San Fernando Valley. These are locales outside of the city of Los Angeles, yet easily within a half hour's drive for those who wish to make the trip. I would venture to guess the majority of gun owners are more than likely making the trip to these locations already if they happen to live within the city limits, as I do. So the effect would be to pass a law making an action illegal that a large number of gun owners probably perform outside of the jurisdiction anyway. So who would lose under this law? People in the inner city who wished to lawfully obtain a gun and ammunition to protect their family and property. Having all but eliminated cheaper handguns, now the city council wishes to take away the last chance for them to get bullets as well, unless they are willing to travel out of the city. Beats me how without having a gun they can accurately fire these projectiles anyway. As usual, the same group politicians propose to fight for are going to be the ones left to fend for themselves against the criminals who prey on their neighborhoods. "Just wait for the cops and everything will be okay." Sure. I would like to see how many lives that policy has cost. January 8, 2002 Duke Heberlein is a market analyst in Southern California. |