Our anonymous comment poster in “Microstamping-An Alternative View” does not believe Assemblyman Paul Koretz’s AB352, requiring semiautomatic handguns to emply microstamp identifiers is a “gun control” measure.
Remember, according to the bill’s language, “This bill would…expand the definition of unsafe handgun to include semiautomatic pistols that are not [so] designed and equipped…”
Gun owners have particular reason to concern themselves with any firearm-related bills proposed by Mr. Koretz. From his biography:
“While on the [West Hollywood] City Council, Koretz played a key role on many high profile issues, foremost among them gun control issues. In 1988, Paul sponsored a ban on military-style assault weapons, which built momentum for a subsequent statewide ban. In 1996, Koretz co-sponsored the City's ban on ‘Saturday Night Specials.’ West Hollywood was the first city to enact such a ban, which survived various legal assaults by the NRA. Koretz also sponsored an ordinance limiting handgun purchases to one gun per month, to cut the resale of guns on the black market.”
Let’s examine his “Saturday Night Special” ban. Here was his reasoning behind it:
“Because the inferior quality of the alloys these parts are made of, the gun cannot reliably contain its own ballistic power. This means they are chambered to fire high pressure ammunition without the reliable ability to contain the pressures generated by the force of a bullet leaving the gun's chamber and barrel.”
Furthermore, that bill deemed that “as a result of inferior craftsmanship, Saturday Night Specials are not sufficiently accurate or reliable...as a...means of personal protection...they are not well suited for this purpose."
I took exception to that claim a few years back, but the bottom line is, Mr. Koretz has a history of banning guns he deems “unsafe.”
Now he wants to codify into state law the claim that semiauto handguns that don’t employ microstamping are “unsafe.”
And we’re supposed to give credence to the anonymous comment that “AB352 [which will ban the sale of all semiauto handguns in the state of California that Mr. Koretz & Co. claim are 'unsafe'] is pro-forensic, not anti-gun.”
Sunday, April 03, 2005
Microstamping-An Alternative View
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.
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.
Zero Tolerance Insanity and Corruption
A young man gets thrown in the slammer and booted out of the government indoctrination kamp for a drawing he made two years earlier. His kid brother found the sketchbook in the closet, and another kid on the schoolbus reported the "offending" picture.
As outrageous and ludicrous as that is, another story involves the black robe who agreed with this madness every step of the way.
This is not the first time that U.S. District Judge Frank J. Polozola , who determined the drawing constituted a threat, has been noted to exhibit paranoia.
A year ago, he "took control of an accident case involving his car and issued an order transferring evidence about his medical condition to a sealed federal court file."
Another case he ruled on was challenged "because the judge admitted in his accident suit to being impaired and to using Oxy-Contin, a pain medication, in that period.
"In the accident case, filed in 1998, Judge Polozola, 62, sought compensation for a 'serious physical injury' that caused him mental anguish and "impairment of function." In the trial in 2000, [lawyers] wrote in filings, the judge engaged in 'erratic, even paranoid' behavior. The accident case was settled in 2001, and testimony from the judge, his psychiatrist and his psychologist was sealed."
When it looked like those records might be unsealed, "Judge Polozola ordered the evidence in his accident case transferred to federal court and sealed," and get this, it was done at the request of federal prosecutors "to avoid 'irreparable injury to a national interest.'"
These are the people who impose "Zero Tolerance" on a supposedly free people--and expect us to tolerate it.
As outrageous and ludicrous as that is, another story involves the black robe who agreed with this madness every step of the way.
This is not the first time that U.S. District Judge Frank J. Polozola , who determined the drawing constituted a threat, has been noted to exhibit paranoia.
A year ago, he "took control of an accident case involving his car and issued an order transferring evidence about his medical condition to a sealed federal court file."
Another case he ruled on was challenged "because the judge admitted in his accident suit to being impaired and to using Oxy-Contin, a pain medication, in that period.
"In the accident case, filed in 1998, Judge Polozola, 62, sought compensation for a 'serious physical injury' that caused him mental anguish and "impairment of function." In the trial in 2000, [lawyers] wrote in filings, the judge engaged in 'erratic, even paranoid' behavior. The accident case was settled in 2001, and testimony from the judge, his psychiatrist and his psychologist was sealed."
When it looked like those records might be unsealed, "Judge Polozola ordered the evidence in his accident case transferred to federal court and sealed," and get this, it was done at the request of federal prosecutors "to avoid 'irreparable injury to a national interest.'"
These are the people who impose "Zero Tolerance" on a supposedly free people--and expect us to tolerate it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)