Here's somebody who thinks microstamping is a good idea:
Anonymous said...
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.
Sunday, April 03, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
With all due respect, the problem with posting anonymously is that we can’t be certain of your qualifications or your sympathies, so your comments might be regarded by some as apologia for a political agenda. That the bill’s author, Paul Koretz, is a strong proponent of “gun control” means any defense of his gun-related edicts ought to be looked at with healthy skepticism.
The fact remains, this bill will legally define a semiauto handgun not so equipped as “unsafe” under California law, and the legal ramifications and liabilities of that remain to be seen.
Ignoring this along with “shall not be infringed” for a moment, let’s look at microstamping from strictly a cost/benefit perspective:
Who can provide any kind of meaningful data to demonstrate that this proposal will result in a decrease in violent crime or increased conviction and incarceration rate for violent offenders? You purport to present a science-based argument, so what peer-reviewed studies, methodologies, etc., can you present to justify your apparent certainty—or are you asking us to support a faith-based initiative?
I can think of many intuitive arguments as to why this would not be effective—you admit the disaster of “ballistic fingerprinting,” but the overall effect is similar—tying a particular bullet to a particular firearm. The success rate for this is practically nonexistent. This bill also doesn’t consider long guns, revolvers, and the tens of millions of semiauto handguns currently in circulation.
There’s not a lot of commentary I can find on this bill from the “pro-gun” community. I did find this from TJ Johnston, Chief Instructor of AllSafe Defense Systems:
”In other words, the handgun must imprint every cartridge case fired in it with an identifier. This would probably be a hammer imprint on the primer. How many handgun manufacturers will spend the money necessary to include this technology in their handguns, specifically for the Kalifornia handgun market? I think you understand the effect this legislation will have...”
I am responding to the microstamping post. I witnessed the committee review of AB352. I also cornered the guy who developed it. Pretty much a techno dweeb. He stated that the technology was moved forward by the CA DOJ, then picked up when AB1717 failed. Up until 2002 they had abandoned it and at the moment they are working with the CA DOJ because they have been asked too. He then said, the DOJ only wanted Make, Model and Date of Manufacture, because it would allow them to begin tracking hot spot illegal sales and trafficing around the state by understanding what models were being used, when they were made and how long it takes from sale to crime. I think we should all be very skeptical, but maybe the argument should be no serial number. Let the CSI's get the basic data, but hell no on serial number. Just my thoughts.
Post a Comment