Microstamping
The California Senate on Thursday passed a bill that would require the “microstamping” of semi-automatic handguns — giving cartridges fired from those guns a unique imprint, which according to gun control advocates, would help police solve crimes.
Supporters say microstamping would turn spent cartridges into potential evidence in civil and criminal cases. According the California Million Mom March, “when the police retrieve the bullet casing at a crime scene, they can quickly track down the legal owner of the handgun that fired it.”
Well, any feature that can quickly be disabled with the use of a file isn’t going to be effective. And criminals will just use older guns. Meanwhile, what it seems to be about is:
Nonsense, say Second Amendment supporters, who view the bill as yet another attempt to burden gun manufacturers and further restrict gun sales in the state. They say that gun makers, faced with the added expense of microstamping semiautomatic weapons, would either stop selling their wares in California or drastically raise prices.
Via David.
August 25th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Empty case, valve gring compound, a wooden dowel, and a handril.
5 minutes later … no microstamp.
Just another barrier between potential victims and self-defence arms.
August 25th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Uhm, legal owners tend to stay at the crime scene.
Morons.
August 25th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
guess these boners never heard of a revolver ehh…
August 25th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
“guess these boners never heard of a revolver” or a soon to be chic brass catcher. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, after this it will become a crime to not leave your brass at a crime scene.
August 26th, 2006 at 1:27 am
How long would this idiocy last if firearm and ammo manufacturers refused, en masse, to sell to PRK law enforcement agencies?
Barrett has already done it. What will it take to get the rest on board?
August 26th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
At it very best, this proposal is nothing more than harassment of legal gun makers and legal gun owners, disguised as crime control. The whole premise rests on the notion that criminals will use guns traceable to them. If the gun is not traceable to the criminal, it wont matter how many cases he leaves behind, someone else will be questioned or accused. Someone other than the criminal.
Hence, it is a scheme to make legal gun ownership more expensive and more risky–
This is how the Left attacks their political opponents– by regulating them out of existence or by attempting to turn them into criminals. This is precisely why the Bill of Rights was written.
All we have to do is find someone who will get it enforced.
We all know that’s not going to be a Democrat.
Republicans? Any takers out there? Anyone ever going to run on the “I guarantee enforcement of the Bill of Rights against all enemies forign and domestic” platform?
Do you really think that would be a risky position? It would not unless you’re worried about getting popped by Democrats Gone Wild. That would be my concern.
August 28th, 2006 at 11:28 pm
What if I was a crook, and decided to whack someone. I buy a gun from one of my associates, empty the magazine into the victim, and toss the gun down the storm sewer, or into the weeds. The cops will eventually figure out from the microstamps on the brass, who the last registered owner was, and possibly even figure out what state he’s now living in. Big deal. If someone else finds the gun and gets caught with it, he’s likely got an alibi for the night in question, and the shooting remains unsolved.
All this does is make crime guns single-use items.
Even trading them to someone with a solid alibi would work.
Even if you don’t: “This gun was used to whack Joe two nights ago.”
“I wondered why that fellow gave me such a good deal on it last night.”
If all the legitimate gunmakers boycotted california, Norinco would produce something for them.