....the law that requires car dealers to disclose the true mileage on a car they sell you. While that does not guarantee that the car won't fall apart shortly after you drive it off the lot, it does guarantee that it only has 50,000 miles and not 150,000 miles. Personally, I think--from the consumer's standpoint--that's a good law. And just as a car with only 50,000 miles can be expected to have more "life" left in it than one with 150,000, so can a shotgun using ammunition appropriate to its level of proof be expected to have a longer life than one fed a steady diet of ammunition with a higher pressure than that for which the gun was built. So while it's not necessarily about danger to the shooter, there's still a very clear consumer protection element involved.
Wow, is there any justification that's unacceptable. What changed, now 'punched out' chamber may be ok and the danger threat level has subsided.
What a farce, by seeing a proof mark, the consumer is assured that the proper loads were used in a gun. Is it even slightly possible to see a problem with this reasoning.
Why confirm some of the biggest worries of the thread. You equivocate gun integrity with other government regulated areas. Does discharging a shotgun shell leave a carbon footprint. Are baby strollers required to support double the rated weight. Are school kids eating a proper diet.
Doesn't matter what the proof house article says, we now understand that you have other agendas. Not once have you addressed the concern that if you scan a gun for a proof mark and none shows up, we can conclude that no mods were done to the gun.
I suspect you prefer serial numbers to be shaken out of the woodwork.
