pistol cartridge micro stamping

[WildCat]

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]

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.

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]

How will this truly prevent crime?

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

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.

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]

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]

....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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?