California Assemblything Paul Koretz (D-West Hollyweird, etc.), has introduced a bill that “would, commencing January 1, 2007, expand the definition of unsafe handgun to include semiautomatic pistols that are not designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters, that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched into the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and which are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired.”
Furthermore, “This bill would provide that…no handgun may be submitted for that testing unless the handgun is” so designed and equipped.
This will, of course, stop and/or solve no violent crimes (as if that's justification for infringing on our rights). That’s not the point.
The point is to further limit the availability of firearms to California citizens by drying up their sources of supply. The state started with their stupid “drop test” requirement (as if there was an epidemic of “gun deaths” and injuries resulting from that nonexistent problem, and as if there were no remedies through the courts if there were), and then moved on to mandated loaded chamber indicators (like the kind that was on the Beretta 92 Compact L that Michael Soe used to kill Kenzo Dix during a practical joke—but a Center to Prevent Handgun Violence-backed lawsuit was still filed because the gun didn’t have a written warning on it as well).
Like the reptiles that leave brass at crime scenes get their guns through channels traceable to them. Koretz, of course, knows that. It's just another calculated harassment of gun manufacturers and dealers, designed to drive them out of business by creating prohibitively expensive compliance requirements.
This is more "In your face, California gun owners!" from someone who hates them. It is, in fact, a hate crime.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Microstamping technology gave the forensic community something to counter the disasterous ballistic RBID idea. Dr. Tuelleners of CA DOJ was the catalyst on killing ballistic imaging. He also countered with the idea that ballistic id tagging, the technology called microstamping as an alternative. This wedge issue saved 100's thousands of legal firearms owners from being logged into a criminal database. The reason it did this, was that the anti-gun movement who wanted an RBID system, ie firearm registration, had to defend ballistic imaging. In essence Dr. Tuellenes got the anti-gun industry to shine a light on the technology, which led to testing of the ballistic imaging technology and reviews of its effectiveness.
As for the effectiveness of microstamping, it will provide the forensic community a good tool to plot and track illegal trafficing of firearms. Since the technology creates a code, it makes it easier to share between state and federal law enforcement. There is no need for chain of custody issues, since they are sharing codes, not physical evidence.
By identifying the firearms make, model and date of manufacture, the forensic experts can determine hot spots for trafficing and identify those sources. Straw purchases are a big issue and the forensic community needs new tools. As for impact to the industry, insignificant in comparison to ballistic imaging which costs as follows:(Maryland Gun Owner $20.00/gun, State cost:~$30.00/gun to input into IBIS (tax payer cost). NY is more expensive.
The cost of Ballistic ID Tagging is between $8.00 and $0.50, for custom firearms manufacturers and high volume manufacturers respectively, this range is due to access to the equipment and volume of firearms produced. There are 8 shops in the country that can provide the service.
AB352 is pro-forensic, not anti-gun.
David, thanks for a great short article. I'll be attaching it to letters that I'm sending to my Assemblymembers here in CA, fully attributed to you of course.
Anonymous--
Well written bait & switch.
This bill might aid the forensic community, (hey, scientists always want more data,) but to get the kind of results you're talking about this technology would have to be used nationwide. It would also help forensics if each person had a number tatooed on their forehead, which could then be linked to the serial number on their gun; but too bad, I'm opposed to THAT as well!
Post a Comment