pistol cartridge micro stamping

Why does the law require stamping in two places? I looked into the patent aspects and noted that the primary patent holder is offering the technology royalty free.

The basic concept is based on the tool marks transfered from one object to another upon striking and gives as an example the firing pin striking a cartridge. Some scum-bag without doing any work of their own has filed subsequent patents listing all the other ways tool marks have been transfered to cartridges from a firearm and used to forensically match a cartridge to the gun it was fired from.

The law requires microtagging in two places. One will be the firing pin that gets all the attention and is royalty free. The other slips under the radar until the law takes effect and then the phony patent holder extorts millions from the gun manufacturers for licensing rights.
 
Maybe someone should investigate who they consulted when drafting the law, and why 2 stamps were determined to be the proper method.

The technology interests me.

Marking reusable casings could cause obvious problems (though I doubt many criminals are reloading), but firing pin marking on the primer might be unreliable.

Maybe marking both is a compromise? We really can't judge without knowing what they knew when they decided on it.

Wiki has some info (about the only thing not completely biased I could find): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_microstamping

I'm guessing the legislators don't really understand the state of the technology, or perhaps believe the law will drive innovation.

I do not think it is reasonable to conclude that the legislators know that the effect of the law will be to create an untenable burden on manufacture, and thereby end the gun trade in California. This would be a conspiracy, and without evidence for it, I don't think it's a reasonable conclusion.

Perhaps there was non-secret talk in the legislature about using the law to restrict gun availability. But wouldn't you expect the opponents to be publicizing that?
 
I initially was neutral on the law and only skeptical on the greed of whatever force was the push behind the law. But now I've thought of another problem that swings me totally against this kind of law.

Years ago while watching the development of some crime investigation, the thought occurred "what would happen if somebody gathered some bullets and casings at a public shooting range and scattered them at a crime scene before the police arrived". The conclusion at the time was that it might slow down the investigation some but it would be very unlikely that the police would identify the random firearms involved.

Now replay the scenario with microstamping. The random firearm will be identified, traced to the owner, and if the owner isn't killed in the subsequent no-knock raid he will be arrested probably held without bail and forced to defend himself for a crime he had absolutely nothing to do with all for legally owning a firearm and using it responsibly.
 
Dan O. said:
I initially was neutral on the law and only skeptical on the greed of whatever force was the push behind the law. But now I've thought of another problem that swings me totally against this kind of law.

Years ago while watching the development of some crime investigation, the thought occurred "what would happen if somebody gathered some bullets and casings at a public shooting range and scattered them at a crime scene before the police arrived". The conclusion at the time was that it might slow down the investigation some but it would be very unlikely that the police would identify the random firearms involved.

Now replay the scenario with microstamping. The random firearm will be identified, traced to the owner, and if the owner isn't killed in the subsequent no-knock raid he will be arrested probably held without bail and forced to defend himself for a crime he had absolutely nothing to do with all for legally owning a firearm and using it responsibly.
Click to expand...

Right, because it would never occur to the police that the last registered legal owner of the gun might not be the shooter.

This scenario is supported by the fact that, today, when a gun used in a crime is recovered, the police assume that the last registered legal owner of the gun was the shooter, and if he isn't killed in the subsequent no-knock raid he is arrested held without bail and forced to defend himself for a crime he had absolutely nothing to do with all for legally owning a firearm and using it responsibly.

Since that is how it works now, it is reasonable to think your scenario would result from this law.
 
Michael Redman said:
Right, because it would never occur to the police that the last registered legal owner of the gun might not be the shooter.
Click to expand...

You sarcasm is noted. No-knock warrants are only used for small time drug crimes and would never be used for instance when the police are tracking down a firearm linked to the scene of a serial cop killing.

The police would simply knock on the door of the registered owner of the firearm and ask if the weapon in question is still there. And when the owner produces the weapon in question and the police are able to examine it to see that the marking do indeed match, it will be immediately realized that there has simply been a mistake and the police will bid the owner a good day.
 
Anyone know how many criminal cases were solved by tracing the original firearm owner from spent shell casing 'microstamps' - or more significantly - what percentage of handgun related crimes could be solved by tracing the original owner from the spent shell? Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought that criminals primarily use stolen handguns, which seems to make eliminate the ability to find perpetrator from a spent shell casing record.

Since I believe 2002, the Maryland Police been collecting spent shell casings for all new handgun purchases. Has even on crime been solved?
 
I'm as gun-control as they come, but this won't do anything but identify which gun a cartridge supposedly was ejected from.

It does not confirm where or when that happened, if the trigger was pulled (round fired), or if it was simply ejected manually. It certainly doesn't tie a person to the shot or even to the gun. Any thoughts the technology may be used to achieve these ends is very foolish.

Re: shot sock / shell catcher. I understood it has been long-time practice for crims to catch ejected shells by simply holding a loose plastic bag over both hand and gun. Supposed to reduce GSR spread as well.
 
First they introduced driving licenses. And I did not speak out, because I could see the sense in my learning to drive a car before doing so on a public highway.

Then they made drunk driving illegal, and I did not speak out, because I didn't see why other people should die for my self-indulgence.

Then they introduced mandatory selt-belt laws, and I did not speak out, because there are things higher on my To Do list then flying through my windscreen and breaking my neck.

And then they made it illegal to own an automobile, and they had to pry my steering wheel from my cold, dead hands, because although it is evident to anyone not actually insane that every regulation making driving safer is an argument for allowing law-abiding citizens to drive, it turns out that the "anti-car" people were sliding us down a slippery slope towards the abolition of driving.

Heck, they didn't even have to repeal an article of the Bill of Rights in order to do so.

And now the same bunch of Evil Liberals want to take my gun away by making it slightly harder to use it for criminal purposes, which is something that I have absolutely no intention of doing.

If anyone wants me, I'll be in a shack in Montana, using my gun to defend my car from Them.
 
Last edited:
Dan O. said:
I initially was neutral on the law and only skeptical on the greed of whatever force was the push behind the law. But now I've thought of another problem that swings me totally against this kind of law.

Years ago while watching the development of some crime investigation, the thought occurred "what would happen if somebody gathered some bullets and casings at a public shooting range and scattered them at a crime scene before the police arrived". The conclusion at the time was that it might slow down the investigation some but it would be very unlikely that the police would identify the random firearms involved.

Now replay the scenario with microstamping. The random firearm will be identified, traced to the owner, and if the owner isn't killed in the subsequent no-knock raid he will be arrested probably held without bail and forced to defend himself for a crime he had absolutely nothing to do with all for legally owning a firearm and using it responsibly.
Click to expand...

This is one of the least well thought out arguments that I have seen in this forum by a poster that isn't obviously a few cards short of a full deck.

The possibility that an investigative procedure might lead to misleading results is not a sufficient argument that the investigative procedure should be abandoned.

For instance, semen can be planted. So should DNA testing be abandoned in rape cases? Finger prints can both be planted and they provide only limited information about when they were left. So should the collection of finger print evidence at crime scenes be abandoned? Even now bullets not fired at the crime scene can be planted. Should forensic testing of bullets be abandoned because of that possibility?

The arguments for and against micro stamping need to include quantitative ideas about how often there is a benefit and how often the procedure is detrimental and how significant the effect of the benefit or detriment is.

On the issue of the planting of shell casings the relevant questions would include how likely this is to occur and how likely is it that the misleading evidence will harm an innocent individual. Then these answers together with other evidence for and against micro stamping need to be considered to determine on balance whether society benefits from the practice.

My guess is that the planting of shell casings is way down on the list of significant issues associated with the question of whether or not micro stamping is a net benefit. It seems to offer little benefit to the perpetrator and it requires the perpetrator to intentionally leave behind evidence that, while misleading, could still provide evidence against himself. For example, finger prints on the casings, and a connection to a location where he might have obtained the casings from.
 
Dave, You seam to undervalue the benefit of leaving false clues. Do you know that there are cases which were dropped because there was DNA evidence that did not belong to the victim or suspect and could not be explained. I know of at least 2 high profile cases where the extraneous DNA was a major factor in the case not going to trial. There are undoubtedly more if I were to search for them.

Can someone be held tried and convicted solely on the basis of DNA evidence found on cigarette butts at the scene of a crime? That appears to be what happened to Gary Greatrex.

Microstamping is not just the imprinting of a code on the shell casing when a bullet is fired. There is also the database that will inevitably exist to link each serial number to the owner. Without the database, there is no benefit to microstamping because tool marks would give the same information. Your comparison of microstamping to other forms of forensic evidence is false because those other forms don't include a universal database that guarantees finding a specific suspect. Planting a false fingerprint or a spent shell casing now only works if there is a specific target to be implicated that will either already be registered in the police files or be a suspect for other reasons.

You want to find casings that are untraceable to you? I know of several areas in the back woods that are used as shooting ranges. Just wear gloves and store them in an oxygen free container so they won't age. You could pick up cartridges years before using them to let time erase the trail.


The threat of microstamping and the registry database is that it will reverse the burden of proof. Finding a cartridge at a crime scene with your serial number that links to the database showing your name and address where a subsequent search will find your firearm that will match not only the microstamp serial number but other tool marks. You will be arrested pending further investigation.

ETA: But maybe you'll be able to write a song about it afterwards...
"Kid! We found your name on an envelope at the bottom of half a ton of garbage..."
 
Last edited:
joe1347 said:
Anyone know how many criminal cases were solved by tracing the original firearm owner from spent shell casing 'microstamps' - or more significantly - what percentage of handgun related crimes could be solved by tracing the original owner from the spent shell? Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought that criminals primarily use stolen handguns, which seems to make eliminate the ability to find perpetrator from a spent shell casing record.

Since I believe 2002, the Maryland Police been collecting spent shell casings for all new handgun purchases. Has even on crime been solved?
Click to expand...

Handgun manufacturers (a few anyway) started shipping spent shell casings with new firearms a few years back to send in with registration papers. When I purchased my last firearm I asked about this practice and was told that Pennsylvania (for one) does not catalog new gun casings since after a few hundred rounds and a few dozen cleanings the chamber marks are substantially different from when the gun is brand new.
A law requiring microstamping might have some effect if the guns used to commit crimes are fairly new, legally purchased and registered and have had no gunsmithing work or substantial number of firings or cleanings. Aside from that, it seems like a lawmaker grasping at straws by putting one more law on the books that makes guns more expensive and is unlikely to be any easier to enforce than the hundreds of other firearms laws.
 
What prevents a criminal from getting a handgun from another state or buying one of the millions in existence within the state that is not micro stamped? The law merely makes it a requirement that after 2010 any new handgun manufactured and sold in California must be micro stamped. The law doesn't even cover shotguns and rifles.

Besides that the micro stamped parts could be replaced with parts that are not micro stamped. Although an average criminal probably wouldn't know how to do it. More likely the handgun would be taken apart, and a file used to remove the micro stamping. The point is there are too many holes in this law and it will have little value in stopping gun related crime. Laws need to be passed at the federal level to have any real effect and furthermore this law is too weak.
 
Last edited:
OldTigerCub said:
Handgun manufacturers (a few anyway) started shipping spent shell casings with new firearms a few years back to send in with registration papers. When I purchased my last firearm I asked about this practice and was told that Pennsylvania (for one) does not catalog new gun casings since after a few hundred rounds and a few dozen cleanings the chamber marks are substantially different from when the gun is brand new.
A law requiring microstamping might have some effect if the guns used to commit crimes are fairly new, legally purchased and registered and have had no gunsmithing work or substantial number of firings or cleanings. Aside from that, it seems like a lawmaker grasping at straws by putting one more law on the books that makes guns more expensive and is unlikely to be any easier to enforce than the hundreds of other firearms laws.
Click to expand...

The majority of criminals acquire guns in a few methods on the larger scale.

One method is stealing from gun owners. This can be problematic for tracing in the ways you described, provided the gun owner used the gun on a range or other allowed area enough to cause the wear. However, these types of stolen guns are more often throwaways, being used once or twice and discarded.

Another method is sales through loose restrictions in places like gun shows. Not that the shows themselves have loose restrictions, but that there are some dealers who have less of a problem unloading a gun for money out the back of their van and bypassing or forging some of the required paperwork. The law described seems to be aimed at this kind of group, both the unscrupulous sellers and those who buy that way.

Yet another method is acquiring the weapon on the other side of the border, often through similarly loose means, and smuggling it back. This method is the greatest risk (in large numbers), and is also probably not the target of this legislation.


The problem with trying to legislate ways to track the methods criminals acquire weapons is in being able to cover as much as they can with the legislation. No matter what is done, attempts to track the weapons of criminals is going to impact the legal owners, because legal owners and legal means of acquiring weapons are the two largest sources for weapons for criminals.
 
GreNME said:
Another method is sales through loose restrictions in places like gun shows. Not that the shows themselves have loose restrictions, but that there are some dealers who have less of a problem unloading a gun for money out the back of their van and bypassing or forging some of the required paperwork. The law described seems to be aimed at this kind of group, both the unscrupulous sellers and those who buy that way.
Click to expand...

According to a National Institute of Justice (NIJ) study released in December 1997 ("Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities), only 2% of criminal guns came from gun shows.
 
ServiceSoon said:
According to a National Institute of Justice (NIJ) study released in December 1997 ("Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities), only 2% of criminal guns came from gun shows.
Click to expand...

So, how did they figure out where the guns came from? Did the just ask the criminal?!
 
Dan O. said:
So, how did they figure out where the guns came from? Did the just ask the criminal?!
Click to expand...
You would have to contact NIJ to obtain answers to your questions. Whatever method they used I'm sure they are appropriate and accurate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom