pistol cartridge micro stamping

[Ranb]

The CA Gov signed AB 1471 into law a little while back. This modifies the definition of an unsafe firearm to include semi-automatic pistols that lack a means of micro-stamping the cartridge case in two places upon firing.

AB1471 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/...chaptered.html

PENAL CODE SECTION 12125 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacode...125-12133.html

This new addition to the CA penal code does not apply to the police and some other state and federal agencies operating in California. Knowing that the police are involved in shootings (legal and illegal) in California, I wonder why they are not required to take advantage of this new technology? Perhaps it is because micro stamping is unproven in the real world and may not work well? Or maybe it comes at a cost that the state is unwilling to bear? Probably the sponsors of this bill do not actually believe it will help reduce or prevent crime. Not surprising since some gun control laws in CA are not based on reducing crime but actually are based on merely preventing gun ownership.

Ranb

[The Central Scrutinizer]

This is a very good law.

[DouglasL]

This Law is in no way about a "safe" or "unsafe" firearm (despite the title). This is simply another way for the Police to trace a firearm. I suspect that this will be used primarily to track down the perpetrators of shootings and tack on the extra charge of "using an unsafe firearm." All firearms are inherently unsafe if you are looking down into the barrel. IMHO this law will in know way prevent or slow down criminal activity using firearms, because it has the same logical flaw as so many of the anti-gun laws, it presumes that criminals will obey the law. Criminal do not obey laws, that is why they are called criminals.

[Fnord]

Am I the only one who has ever heard of a "Shot Sock"? I first heard of it in Michigan about 20 years ago.

It's essentially a bag, tailored to the type of firearm, and made of strong, high-temperature fibers. It fits over the breach of the firearm, and captures the spent cartridges, thus neutralizing the benefits of cartridge stamping.

[Normal Dude]

Originally Posted by Ranb

Not surprising since some gun control laws in CA are not based on reducing crime but actually are based on merely preventing gun ownership.

Ranb

Some? When are they going to figure out that most of the recent gun laws only affect legal, responsible gun owners?

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by Fnord

Am I the only one who has ever heard of a "Shot Sock"? I first heard of it in Michigan about 20 years ago.

I have one for my ar-15. I rarely use it because it is cumbersome, it blocks ready access to the mag release. I rarely hear praise for those brass catchers for pistols either.

Ranb

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Fnord

Am I the only one who has ever heard of a "Shot Sock"? I first heard of it in Michigan about 20 years ago.

It's essentially a bag, tailored to the type of firearm, and made of strong, high-temperature fibers. It fits over the breach of the firearm, and captures the spent cartridges, thus neutralizing the benefits of cartridge stamping.

Now how often are they used ciminaly?

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by Normal Dude

Some? When are they going to figure out that most of the recent gun laws only affect legal, responsible gun owners?

By some I meant those laws that are merely on the books to prohibit ownership, not to reduce crime. Such as CA's AB50 which added 50 BMG rifles to the list of banned assault weapons, or the San Franciso ban which prohibited handgun ownership within the city limits except for the police, security guards and criminals.

Ranb

[Fnord]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Now how often are they used ciminaly?

How often do police fail to find spent cartridges at the scene of a shooting?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Now how often are they used ciminaly?

Probably as often as a criminal legally purchases a weapon and registers it.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Fnord

How often do police fail to find spent cartridges at the scene of a shooting?

Nope, no good enough. As not all weapons eject spent cartidges.

[Beerina]

How often will crooks not bother spending 30 seconds to file down the unique stamping ID? Or not bother to since the gun is stolen?

Like most anti-gun laws, it seems like it would only affect those who bother to follow laws in the first place.

[Michael Redman]

The law obviously needs no cooperation from criminals to be effective. Criminals do not manufacture their own guns.

The stated motive is a perfectly simple and reasonable explanation for the law. Absent some clear evidence to the contrary, inventing an ulterior motive to explain it is irrational.

[Michael Redman]

Originally Posted by Beerina

How often will crooks not bother spending 30 seconds to file down the unique stamping ID?

Do you know where to find the micro stamps, or how to file them?

Quote:

Or not bother to since the gun is stolen?

Let's hope. Knowing where and when a gun was obtained by the criminal is a great piece of evidence to help identify the criminal.

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by Michael Redman

.....Criminals do not manufacture their own guns.

The stated motive is a perfectly simple and reasonable explanation for the law. Absent some clear evidence to the contrary, inventing an ulterior motive to explain it is irrational.

Some criminals do manufacture guns. Can you explain the motives behind exempting the police from this law?

Ranb

[Normal Dude]

That's Red. Because we should take everything at face value. Especially what comes from our lawmakers.

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by Michael Redman

Do you know where to find the micro stamps, or how to file them?

Yes. The only parts of the pistol that contact the cartridge case are the barrel chamber, firing pin, extractor, ejector and slide face. All can be removed and examined. The chamber is unlikely to be used to stamp as the brass slides out of it while expanded for a gas seal. The ejector, extractor and firing pin would have the stamping component on the protruding surface and be easy to identify and modify if so desired.

The extractors and slides in some pistols are likely to be fouled with gunpowder residue after prolonged use if not cleaned. The firing pin is the best bet for stamping as it can be made with a square face and raised stamps. A grinding wheel will make quick work of smoothing down any stamping surface.

Ranb

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Michael Redman

Do you know where to find the micro stamps, or how to file them?
Let's hope. Knowing where and when a gun was obtained by the criminal is a great piece of evidence to help identify the criminal.

I don't know why but my psychic eye is telling me you are anti-gun!!

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Beerina

How often will crooks not bother spending 30 seconds to file down the unique stamping ID? Or not bother to since the gun is stolen?

Like most anti-gun laws, it seems like it would only affect those who bother to follow laws in the first place.

I agree it might not work as well as expected,but as a Gun Owner I have no problem with this law.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Beerina

Like most anti-gun laws, it seems like it would only affect those who bother to follow laws in the first place.

Not to mention promoting a rush to stockpile firearms whenever there's gun-controliness in the air, to get while the gettin's good, and gain pre-ban status. I distinctly remember this happening in the early 90's, when the impending (and entirely irrational) assault-weapons ban was looming. Is that really what gun-control advocates want?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

Is that really what gun-control advocates want?

What they want is a ban, which they realize they can't get immediately so they whittle away at gun rights little by little instead.

After the stamping requirement fails to lower the murder rate they'll call for something else. And so on and so on.

[Michael Redman]

Originally Posted by fuelair

I don't know why but my psychic eye is telling me you are anti-gun!!

My psychic eye is telling me that you are anti rational, dispassionate analysis of gun related issues.

Whether or not I think people should have guns is irrelevant to whether or not this law has any utility toward its intended purpose.

Originally Posted by Ranb

Can you explain the motives behind exempting the police from this law?

Ranb

No idea. If I were in CA, I would want an explanation.

The arguments made above about how the law would not function perfectly are not very compelling reasons why the law would not be useful.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

How will this truly prevent crime?

What about revolvers?

What about law abiding citizens who are essentially unarmed sheep to the criminal wolves?

[Michael Redman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkeyZero

How will this truly prevent crime?

Some crime scenes will contain additional forensic evidence which might lead to more arrests of criminals.

Quote:

What about revolvers?

Won't work on revolvers (unless they're reloaded carelessly at the crime scene, I suppose).

The fact that it wouldn't work perfectly is not evidence that its utility wouldn't be worth its cost.

Quote:

What about law abiding citizens who are essentially unarmed sheep to the criminal wolves?

I have no idea what you're getting at here.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Michael Redman

Do you know where to find the micro stamps, or how to file them?

I absolutely don't know.

I also don't know how to hotwire a car, or what cable to snip so it can't call home with its GPS location.

The car thieves do.

[Fnord]

I find it strange that the Oath of Citizenship given to immigrants includes the line emboldened below, while the laws of the land are becoming more restrictive in their definition of legal gun ownership.

This is exactly as I've heard the oath as given by judges in court. The Wikipedia link above gives a little more detail.

The Oath of Citizenship

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature."

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by Beerina

....Like most anti-gun laws, it seems like it would only affect those who bother to follow laws in the first place.

Like all felony laws, like all anti-murder laws, like all laws really, laws only "affect" those who follow them in the first place.

Or do you want to pretend that criminals never get charged and imprisoned under "anti-gun" laws?

Crissakes, I like your posts. It's few other times I get such marvellous opportunities.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Fnord

I find it strange that the Oath of Citizenship given to immigrants includes the line emboldened below, while the laws of the land are becoming more restrictive in their definition of legal gun ownership.

This is exactly as I've heard the oath as given by judges in court. The Wikipedia link above gives a little more detail.

The Oath of Citizenship

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature."

Um that line has nothing to do with civilian gun ownership, it seems pretty clear that the only time you would be required to bear arms on behalf of the United States would be as a soldier in a war.

Otherwise it would be more "I am required to bear arms and use them when ever anyone fails to show me sufficient respect" that would be more about civilian fire arms ownership.

[Michael Redman]

Originally Posted by Beerina

I absolutely don't know.

I also don't know how to hotwire a car, or what cable to snip so it can't call home with its GPS location.

The car thieves do.

Most recovered stolen cars are found with VINs intact.

In both cases, the criminals know how to obtain and use the stolen good, but usually fail to cover their tracks, even though the methods of doing so are widely known.

That's a great analogy.

[Michael Redman]

I will say that, while microstamping seems like a good idea to me, this law doesn't just require microstamping in new guns, it reclassifies currently OK guns as unsafe, and makes it a crime to sell them. They won't take the gun away, but it's now dead as an item of commerce. That doesn't seem fair.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I agree it might not work as well as expected,but as a Gun Owner I have no problem with this law.

What? Then you are not a real gun owner. Real men...errr....I mean gun owners oppose any law that might limit access to their precious guns!

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

What? Then you are not a real gun owner. Real men...errr....I mean gun owners oppose any law that might limit access to their precious guns!

That's my sense of it also at times. I think the basic idea is that any law that increases the cost or inconvenience of gun ownership in the slightest is bad because it won't be 100% effective and it is all part of the slippery slope intended to lead to the complete ban of all civilian ownership of guns.

There's a corollary of sorts also that all laws that increase the cost or inconvenience of gun ownership at all are completely ineffective at reducing gun crime because they are designed by cynical politicians pandering to the mindless masses that don't know anything about guns.

After this corollary is invoked it is usually followed up by a long, esoteric discussion of firearm minutia.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkeyZero

How will this truly prevent crime?

What about revolvers?

What about law abiding citizens who are essentially unarmed sheep to the criminal wolves?

Anti-gun advocates give the appearance of believing either A) at some point they will hit a tilting point of gun law that will disarm everyone or B)that the lives of the law abiding are not worth those of the law violators because accidents will happen with guns - so it is better to let law abiders die.

I consider both points to be irrational and unproductive. In answer to your (possibly rhetorical) questions: It won't (can't). Excellent choice (much less likely to fail, don't leave a cartridge trail, available in more high calibers {love the .454 and .460 - nothing like them in auto}). Anti-gun persons give no indication of any worries about/for them.

For Anti-gun apologists, fear-mongers and crybabies, I hope you noted I did not say you do not care about unarmed innocents - just (and it is clearly correct) that nothing any of you has written - that I have seen (and I have seen a lot of it) - has indicated any point directly related to the dangers to the unarmed {like the data in FL - where we can be legally armed - that shows violence turned from locals to tourists in many areas because tourists can frequently be identified by use of rental cars - to the extent that rental cars have begun reducing/removing identifying items making it fairly easy to spot them. Tourists, of course, are much less likely to be armed - you can't tell with a native.} that shows any concern for them.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Michael Redman

I will say that, while microstamping seems like a good idea to me, this law doesn't just require microstamping in new guns, it reclassifies currently OK guns as unsafe, and makes it a crime to sell them. They won't take the gun away, but it's now dead as an item of commerce. That doesn't seem fair.

Must give you points on that, I had assumed that was what they meant - and that it was actually a scheme to get around the federal rules. This means I was right and it is wrong. (If only new guns, I would have less problem - except that it is unlikely that there is a functional way to get two stamps without a change in design - beyond microstamping the firing pin. I assume the requirement for a second is to make the guns more difficult to manufacture and more expensive. i.e. a further step to illegally outlawing guns.
So glad I don't live in uncivilized California or New York.

[Dan O.]

Who holds the patents on microstamping?

[Michael Redman]

I'll say it again: The stated purpose of this law is simple and reasonable (regardless of whether it is wise or effective). To assume that the intent is something complex, sinister, and hidden, without any evidence to support such a claim, is irrational.

[ponderingturtle]

And if they succeded in disarming the populace where would we get the laughs of watching a police officer shoot themselves in the foot on video or people shooting themselves in the head at gun shows.

Funny funny stuff.

[Dan O.]

To not question the intent of an unwise or ineffective law when no evidence is provided is irrational.

[Michael Redman]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

To not question the intent of an unwise or ineffective law when no evidence is provided is irrational.

I questioned the intent. I looked at the evidence. I reached my own conclusion.

For some reason, that seems beyond many people when the issue is guns.

There is evidence that the stated intent of this law is, in fact, the intent of this law. There is no evidence that the intent of this law is anything other than the stated intent. There are conspiracy theories and paranoid speculation, but those don't actually count as evidence.

[Michael Redman]

Originally Posted by fuelair

If only new guns, I would have less problem - except that it is unlikely that there is a functional way to get two stamps without a change in design - beyond microstamping the firing pin. I assume the requirement for a second is to make the guns more difficult to manufacture and more expensive. i.e. a further step to illegally outlawing guns.

If you're going to assume, wouldn't it be simpler to assume that law enforcement has determined that two stamps make it significantly more likely that at least one stamp will be usable?

I have done no research, but I would think that two raised sets of characters on opposite sides of the chamber surrounding the casing would effectively transfer the marks when the casing expanded against them. That would make two sets only marginally more difficult or expensive than one. Of course, there may be many other clever ideas out there. I'm sure the lawmakers didn't come up with this idea themselves.

But why assume at all? Laws aren't made in secret. There exists a record of what evidence was presented, what ideas were raised, what issues were debated, in the creation of this law. Documents created in the process are public records, available for the asking.

Is it reasonable to assume that they all somehow knew that the second stamp was going to be a killer for manufacturers, conspired in secret to conceal that motivation, and publicly proclaimed a more simple, mundane, but false explanation? It's not impossible, of course, but where is the evidence?