An example of a microstamp on a bullet case.
Herald Net
A California law that requires all semi-automatic handguns to be equipped with technology that stamps its identifying information on bullet casings is now in effect after years of delays.
Though signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2007, the law couldn't take effect as it was supposed to in 2010 because of patents on the technology, including at least one that had been bought up by a gun rights group to delay the law's implementation.
On Friday, Attorney General Kamala Harris officially certified and announced that patents were no longer an issue. Former state Assemblyman Mike Feuer, who authored the law, hailed it as a "monumental day for law enforcement" and said it was the first such law to go into effect in the nation. Other states, notably New York, have looked at such a law, but have had troubles getting it passed.
"This very important technology will help us as law enforcement in identifying and locating people who improperly and illegally use and discharge firearms," Harris said.
Critics say this is a de facto ban on new firearms. What's your opinion?
Please leave a comment.
Since no firearms manufacturer actually makes a firearm with a microstamped firing pin, then it is a de facto ban. At least for now. It will be interesting to see how many manufacturers actually decide to go to the expense of making these for a single state. Of course, police are exempt from this restriction.
ReplyDeleteWhy didn't the pass a law requiring all guns to have a pink pony painted on the barrel? The one would be as useful as the other.
ReplyDeleteThose guns that are already allowed in California are grandfathered, so all current models can still be shipped and sold there if my admittedly brief reading of Ms. Harris' memo was correct. This would mean that only new designs would be affected by this law.
ReplyDeleteWhile this sounds like a great new idea, there are plenty of ways that a criminal can circumvent a law like this--switching stamping parts, obliterating the stamps, using an older gun without the microstamping, etc. (Note this older gun itself may be just as new, but of an older model that was approved for sale in California before the microstamping requirement.)
Meanwhile, this promises to be a huge problem for owners: Your firing pin broke--normally you'd go to a gun store, buy a new one, and stick it in. Now, are you allowed to do that? If so, gone will be one of your microstamps. If you're not allowed to then you either commit a crime and do it anyway, or you send off to the manufacturer for an expensive, custom firing pin which will match your gun's microstamping. The same goes for all of the moving parts that are required to microstamp the casing under this law.
And so we have an expensive headache for the law abiding that is easily circumvented by criminals.
Tennessean: “This would mean that only new designs would be affected by this law.”
DeleteNot really. When a new design comes out, the older one will most likely be dropped off the approved list. Manufactures have to pay a yearly fee to keep it on. If it is a generation that is no longer manufactured, why would they? That is the current problem with CA’s safe list. It amounts to a ban on the retail sale of all discontinued handgun models (until they reach C&R status). With microstamping going into effect, it essentially closes the door on the new models as well, because right now there is no microstamping gun on the market and there is no indication that there will be. ONLY the manufacturer can pay the yearly fee, so it is not like a 2A advocacy group can step in and keep it going. Manufacturers could decide to eat the loss and keep it going just to help California residents buy their used products knowing that they can’t buy their new ones, and I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the big ones do just that.
The rules for what constitutes a new design are very strict as well. A manufacturer can certify that one minor change was done, such as changing the texture of the grip, or altering the bluing process, and keep it on the list- but only one change. If they alter the grip AND the bluing, it’s a new gun.
TS,
DeleteThanks for the clarification. I was just going off the memo as I haven't had any need to get into that much detail on the California Law--it looks like it's every bit as bad as the rumors indicate. Honestly, I don't know how y'all put up with the constant pain in the ass.
If every gun manufacturer were as principled as Ronnie Barrett, no California government agency, including any police force, would be able to buy a gun until the law was repealed.
ReplyDeletePolice need to lead the way and replace all of their firearms with these new weapons immediately. They need to remove all non microstamping weapons from the officers today!
ReplyDeletePerhaps I'm mistaken, but it would only ban guns not already on the list of approved guns. Then of course California officials could explain the law's failure to help solve crimes on the smuggling of standard,nonmicrostamped firing pins from states with lax gun laws. Or the sales of files used to remove the microstamping if the criminal doesnt want to shell out for a new firing pin.
ReplyDeleteYep, gun parts are interchangable. And of course we fall back to a consideration that it would require active gun registration so the police would be able to track the gun by the stampings. It would also make every brass casing a sensitive document so to speak.
Say you go to a range and miss a couple of spent casings when you police your brass. Then someone finds the brass after you leave and leaves it at a crime scene. Then guess who is having to try to prove their innocence.
Perhaps improving police departments' policing techniques would result in an improvement on the clearance rate,
“We’ve concluded that the major factor is the amount of resources police departments place on homicide clearances and the priority they give to homicide clearances,” said University of Maryland criminologist Charles Wellford, who led a landmark study into how police can improve their murder investigations."
http://www.timesrecordnews.com/news/2010/may/24/unsolved-homicides/
Yeah, how about revolvers? Those don't automatically eject spent shells, so no evidence left behind.
ReplyDeleteYou guys are so predictable. Everyone in favor of this is either a dummy or a trickster.
ReplyDeleteIn spite of your objections, this technology may evolve as far and as rapidly as that of the cell phone and personal computer.
Technology that's easily defeated by a bit a sandpaper.
DeleteBWAHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHA.
When the truth hurts, you should change your life, Mikeb. A metal file would scrape off the stamp, and firing pins are easily obtainable parts. Besides, as Texac Colt carry pointed out, unless you're Lee Harvey Oswald, you don't generally eject revolver cases at the scene.
DeleteThis is a stupid law, passed by stupid people who aren't smart enough to exercise the control that they lust for.
Does anyone know if the California Police Chiefs Association has dropped its objections to this ridiculous infringement of that which shall not be infringed?
ReplyDelete