To Stamp Or Not To Stamp New Guns?
by Christine Stuart | March 16, 2009 1:18 PM
Posted to General News
Gun manufacturers and sporting enthusiasts said Monday that microstamping technology — which uses a laser to engrave the breech face and firing pin of a gun with its make, model, and serial number — is not ready for prime time.
The group of manufacturers said at a public hearing on the bill that by forcing them to incorporate the microstamping process into their manufacturing process it would threaten the economic health of the industry by causing jobs to leave the state and make it more expensive for sportsmen to purchase a gun.
“This feel-good legislation will do more harm than good,” Carlton Chen, vice president and general counsel of Colt Firearms, said. “Let us not make a mistake with the unintended consequences of driving businesses and jobs out of Connecticut.”
Josh Horowitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said the process would cost between $3 and $6 per firearm. He said this is not as complicated as gun manufacturers would have you believe.
The inventor of the microstamping technology, Todd Lizotte, said the idea behind the technology is to provide law enforcement with more tools in finding gun traffickers.
Horowitz said the manufacturers already teach law enforcement about the unintentional tool marks their firearms make on shell cartridges. He said microstamping is just an intentional mark, which works more often than 75 percent of the time.
Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said the microstamped markings can be easily obliterated and the firing pin can be swapped out by criminals, who don’t want to be tracked.
“Criminals aren’t gun experts,” Horowitz said. “It’s also not so easy because there are redundant marks.”
Keane and the group of gun manufacturers said the markings can be erased with something as simple as an emery board.
In 2007 California passed a law requiring microstamping of all guns sold after 2010. Keane said manufacturers are not going to comply with California’s law. “They will abandon that market,” Keane said.
The Judiciary Committee held a public hearing Monday on a bill which would require all semiautomatic pistols sold in Connecticut after Jan. 1, 2011 to have a microstamp.
Not much of the debate on this bill has changed from last year. Click here to read last year’s story.
What is new is a bill which would prohibit the use of an assault weapon or machine gun to a person under 18 years of age.
The proposed bill is in response to the death of Christopher Bizilj, 8, who shot himself in the head last October with an Uzi during a gun fair in Westfield, Mass.
Rep. Craig Miner, R-Litchfield, said “I don’t think anyone is unconcerned about the death of anyone.” But he said he didn’t think it was necessary to carve out an age that someone can shoot a gun.
He said the legislation also doesn’t clearly define what it considers an assault weapon or machine gun.
Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield, said he saw both pieces of legislation as a direct assault on the Second Amendment.
Comments (15)
Posted by: iBlogWest Hartford | March 16, 2009 1:58 PM
We are in the midst of a state economic crisis. We are in the midst of a state health care crisis.
So we can't afford NOT to pass every common-sense gun control law, like this one.
The average costs for treating gunshot wounds are:
- $22,400 each for unintentional shootings
- $18,400 each for gun-assault injuries
- $ 5,400 each for suicides.
Over the course of the lives of gunshot victims in the United States, medical treatment alone will amount to $1.9 billion.
Over the course of one year, the medical and productivity costs of intentional firearm injury (murder and suicide) reach $34 billion.
And who pays? U. S. taxpayers pay roughly half of the billions of dollars in health care costs related to guns.
Chen talks about "This feel-good legislation . . ." Sure, it feels good to be alive. It feels good to be healthy. It will feel BEST when we are rid of machines designed to kill and kill and kill again.
Posted by: David Flanel | March 16, 2009 2:43 PM
I cannot understand why this Micro Stamping is even being considered. Besides the lack of common sence, and the many reasons almost too numerist to list, why micro stamping won't work, I am totally shocked that it is beng brought up after the failures in Ca. and Maryland. This law is not only harmful to businesses and law bidding gun owners, again allows criminals more ways to hide. Suppose a criminal picks up the fired gun casings of a law bidding gun owner and places those micro stamped casings at a crime? The law doesn't cover revolvers, rifles, shotguns, arrows, knives, airgun pelets, BBs, mase, sling shots, paintballs, rubber bullets, etc., I could go on... hammers, billy clubs, stun guns, on and on...Where will it end? Criminals will just sand it off or replace the firing pins with another. You will drive Gun companies out of CT. because a realistic cost will add some $150 or more to the cost of a gun. This micro stamping will only hurt CT. taxes, business, their employees nation wide, law bidding gun owners and the safety of all. Shame on you all for this attack on the Constitution if you support this Micro stamping, shame on you if you don't cry out against this attack. The only reason to support Micro Stamping is to start the slippery slope to banning all kinds of guns. What right will go next? I am stunned that educated people support this, they must have an agenda that is not in our best interest or they really need a proper education of the facts. History does repeat itself, this is how it started in Europe before WW11. This is so "knee jerk" I can't stand it. I live on a fixed income, I collect guns, even target shoot when my worn body lets me, I reload for quality and the money it saves me. Will this micro stamping affect cost of reloading? Of cource it will, because the cost of micro stamping will infiltrate the whole industry. Enough, wasted time an a ignorant law, spend time on the economy or why our 401 is worth half or on terror, war, why I can't sell my house, help for people like us that pays all their bills on time. To those who support this Miro stamping, get a LIFE!
Posted by: James D. | March 16, 2009 2:54 PM
"He who transplanted still sustains" is our state motto.
But what do we produce of value, what do we do that sustains life?
> Guns
> Gambling
> Helicopter and jet parts for the military
> Submarines that carry universal death
> Insurance, including health insurance that tries to make a commodity and profits out of our personal health
As a state, it's never the wrong time to do the right thing. Let's embrace our motto and turn to work that sustains life.
Posted by: James D. | March 16, 2009 3:24 PM
Methinks the gun lobby doth protest too much.
The mental gymnastics they must perform to demonstrate that EVERY new law and ANY new regulation of ANY sort would:
> be ineffective
> would only help the criminals
> would mean lost jobs (ooh - that trump card!!!), and
> is already being done anyway
are worthy of the Ringling Brothers center ring.
"Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said the microstamped markings can be easily obliterated . . ."
Then, LAW-rence, if this concerns you so much, why don't you and your gun experts come up with a way to PREVENT these "obliterations"??
Better yet, why don't the gun-lovers just say what they are really thinking:
"We want to shoot anything, anytime, anywhere with anything we want, and we DON'T want any government passing ANY laws that have ANYthing to do with our shooting! Get in our way and we'll blast you to Kingdom Come!"
Posted by: Charles | March 16, 2009 4:43 PM
I guess gun enthusiasts will just have to move to Oklahoma.
http://norwoodtownship.blogspot.com/2009/03/oklahoma-is-okay.html
Posted by: John | March 16, 2009 8:35 PM
Microstamping technology is appealing on first glance though anything more than a cursory examination shows that it is impractical, easil
Posted by: iBlogWestHartford | March 16, 2009 10:02 PM
With Oklahoma's average of 460 gun deaths a year - nearly 30% higher than the U.S. rate - Bahgdad might be a safer for our gun enthusiasts to raise their kids.
Posted by: iBlogWestHartford | March 16, 2009 10:20 PM
John,
Your compelling argument that "anything more than a cursory examination shows that it is impractical" is, well, bullet-proof!
I can only defer to the Gubernator himself:
"While I appreciate and understand that this technology is not without limitations, I am signing this bill to provide law enforcement with an additional tool for solving crimes committed with semi-automatic handguns in California."
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Posted by: Ian S. | March 16, 2009 11:33 PM
IBlogwestHartford, your initial comment is illogical. You quote "average costs for treating gunshot wounds" (source?), but nothing in the proposed bill would make such wounds more or less likely.
The microstamping technology, if successful, would only provide information on which particular semiautomatic pistol (the only class of firearms covered in the bill) fired a specific cartridge. If a legally owned gun causes an injury, the authorities will already know this information since the law requires such incidents to be reported, and legal gun owners have already proven themselves to be law-abiding.
Criminals, on the other hand, acquire their guns illegally, leaving no link from a fired cartridge back to them. They are free to deface the microstamps, swap firing pins, scatter fired cartridges cases picked up from a shooting range, and otherwise circumvent any attempt to identify them from the microstamping that this bill proposes.
Once again we see a law proposed that offers no real hope of making anyone safer, while adding to the burden already borne by legal businesses and consumers. That's "feel-good legislation."
Like it or not (and I gather from your comments that you do not), law-abiding citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. This right is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. You might want to brush up on District of Columbia v. Heller wherein the Supreme Court held that this is indeed an individual right. You might also want to take a look at the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, Article 1, Section 15.
Posted by: John | March 17, 2009 7:25 AM
Microstamping technology is appealing on first glance though anything more than a cursory examination shows that it is impractical, easily defeated, and prone to abuse.
1) Impractical
Placing a microscopic label on the end of a firing pin is akin to locating the license plate of a car on the tread of a tire.
A firing pin works by forcing metal against metal. It is a high wear part that changes incrementally every time it is used. Common sense and metallurgical testing (not the reports of the interested party owning the patent) show that the imprinted identifying information will wear away with time.
Are we next going to set up an inspection agency and call for replacement of an otherwise functional part in guns across the state when the stamp wears off after a thousand rounds? Who pays for this as well?
2) Easily Defeated
Because the firing pin is a high wear area, the part is easily changed in most firearms. This action DOES NOT require a gunsmith. Criminals may not be accomplished academics, but they surely can figure out how to conduct this simple operation.
If not, they can take a household file or piece of sand paper and accomplish the same objective by removing just a few thousands of an inch from the front surface of the existing pin.
Should a crook be too lazy to remove the stamp through either of these means, all they have to do is obtain a revolver, which doesn't expel the shell casing when fired.
Problem solved - oops, millions of dollars of industry money and jobs sacrificed for nothing.
3) Prone to Abuse
Go to a firing range and look at the floor - you will see hundreds of shell casings strewn about, mixed with those of other shooters, and buckets full of thousands more. Semi-auto pistols, by design, expel a cartridge case with each pull of the trigger - exactly the reason why this technology is proposed.
If implemented, all a criminal will have to do is obtain another shooter's shell casings and sprinkle them at the crime scene.
Think polygraphs cause issues of credibility when offered as evidence? Just wait until a law enforcement agency attempts to introduce a fired shell casing that could have been retrieved in any public range across the country.
If you believe this can easily be solved by the shooter somehow controlling the random distribution of brass across the range floor to protect their personal identity from abuse, I encourage you to actually go to a gun range and see for yourself how impractical that would be. Shooting a handgun with a large bag attached is unwieldy and in some cases dangerous.
Yet again, this is a well intended idea that fails miserably, and at a potentially serious cost to this state and the industry at large, that is if gun makers from Connecticut to Austria (think Glock) even decided to take a shot at compliance.
Think again...
Posted by: James D. | March 17, 2009 9:23 AM
The only way you'll get my medium-range tactical nuclear weapon is when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Posted by: iBlogWestHartford | March 17, 2009 9:33 AM
Ian Fleming and John Wayne,
You make such compelling arguments. . . so I suppose that the entire California house, senate, and Governor Schwarzenegger must have been high on gun powder when they passed their microstamping law.
Or perhaps they had a real hard time imagining things like - as you insist - large numbers of criminals gathering another shooter's shell casings in their Easter Egg baskets and then sprinkling them at crime scenes.
Hmm . . . Too much CSI Everywhere??
Posted by: John | March 17, 2009 10:43 AM
Blogmaster from West Hartford,
When engaging in rational debate, it is advisable beyond the eight-grade to avoid making blatant appeals to authority in place of an actual argument. Asserting that because X believes Y, Y must be true doesn't hold weight amidst thinking people.
Try instead directly addressing the points at issue, but then again, that would require that you substantiate your statements - something that so far you seem unable to do.
Even stepping into your realm, your argument still fails. If we treat state legislatures as "experts" on this issue, the "experts" across the nation have resoundingly expressed a view, vote by vote, that microstamping is a flawed technology and bad policy. CA is the anomaly on this, and many other failed policy choices - hardly an example to go by.
Posted by: iBlogWestHartford | March 17, 2009 11:47 AM
John,
Let's see -
You have insulted:
- my 7th grade son
- the entire state of California
- the Terminator himself (and believe me: He'll Be Back!)
- all people named "X"
- "blogmasters" (whatever they are - do the hang out in dungeons?)
- West Hartford (by inference and tone)
- and the concept of "rational debate" (which runs for cover any time the NRA comes within shooting distance of it)
And we still don't have any videotape of bad guys sprinkling "good guy" bullets around the bodies of their bloody, bullet-ridden victims.
But which statements of mine to believe are unsubstantiated? The cost numbers? They're from that notorious left-wing purveyor of lies and distortions, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. The Oklahoma numbers come from Oklahoma state government web sites. The stuff that Schwarzenegger said? That came out of his mouth. The part about Californians being high when they signed their law? Now THAT - I made up.
So - Happy hunting!
And by all means, you may have the last word on this.
Posted by: Brian McKeon | March 29, 2009 9:03 AM
Criminal's aren't gun experts???? Are you insane? A carparenter knows how to swing a hammer pretty well, a plumber can use a torch pretty good too, a criminal knows how to take down and strip a firearm, not to mention figure out which parts are stamped (it would be codified by law, not more then a trip to the library and some internet time) and will render them useless.
The over achievers will seek out the same side arms as the police, obtain police gun parts, and have some REAL fun with law enforcement.
To those that don't particular care to commit crimes it will just add cost, take away availability of choices at the gun store, and take away even more of our liberty.
The Right to bear arms shall not be infringed. I also have a Right not to self incriminate. I also have a Right of protection from unlawful search and seizure.
Laws like this don't stop criminals, or crime. Criminals by definition BREAK laws. So now you want all my brass to be serialized, possibly the bullet as well. And for what? My prints are already Registered with the FBI, ATFE, and State Police, and Hartford Police. This is a requirement of getting a permit in the first place. My Right to bear arms was already infringed upon just in getting the Permit. I was made to surrender my prints without committing any crime.
Sorry you cowards who think government is your friend and we can be happy squirel like critters frolicing around if we can just get all the potentially harmful things around banned by government. This disillusional mindset took Englands guns away, and while gun crime went down VIOLENT crime went up. I guess when criminals think less people have guns its a much easier day in the office. Japan wouldn't invade the US in WWII because 28% of the citizens were armed. Where gun control laws are most strict gun crime is high, where most lax it is low. This mindset is also the breading ground of dictatorships.
With 30 million guns or so owned by private individuals the way you folks talk we should be in a war zone. Dodging ricochets left and right. But we don't, things are relatively calm, except where criminals own the streets. Leave us alone. YOUR lack of desire or fear to own a gun is not MY problem. Don't own one, don't tell me what I can own. Colt, Marlin, Stag employee CT residents. Colt already said they would go. Marlin would have to change the design of rifles that come from 1875, in modern material.
one of the major reason the 2nd amendment exists is through out ALL of recorded history: those who were fully vested members of society were allowed to hold weapons, those that were slaves could not. Citizens Bear Arms, Subjects Do Not.
And yes I suggest and affirm "progressive" European nations that have banned guns are not free. Those Subjects have lost their right of self-defense, their right of survival. They've lost the right to question the actions of their governments. They've become good little sheep ripe for the slaughter. At the very least Laws like these that prove ineffective should be repealed.
Speaking of Laws: Ask a police officer about gun carry laws when you see one. Ask them specifically where, how, transport provisions. Don't even look them up yourself till you get answers. I don't think you will like the lack of answers they offer. Why is the burden of enforcement on the owner???