After all, microstamping only makes sense if the gun is registered, yes?

... that CA already registers handguns. NY does, and AFAIK is the only other state that has pondered microstamping. Considered the spectacularly expensive failure of COBIS (think "primitive microstamping&quot in NY, I'm surprised that anybody still considers this to be a viable idea for crime-fighting. On the other hand, for throwing impediments in the path to legal gun ownership, it's much more effective.

It's not the technology that failed in COBIS (and will fail with microstamping): it's the concept. Apparently very few gun crimes are committed by legal owners with their registered guns. Surprise, surprise.

However, microstamping has one big advantage in the eyes of the gun-banners: unlike COBIS, the cost of microstamping is borne by manufacturers and consumers of firearms -- not by government. Making gun owners pay to be harassed is a source of amusement for the prohibitionists.

a dealer), and new residents bringing handguns need to file a new resident handgun ownership form as a personal importer. So in theory DOJ has a record of every time a handgun is legally brought into the state, and every time one legally changes owner. Officially we don't have 'registration', but I don't really understand the difference between handgun registration and what we do have...

...if you don't transfer the gun, it's not registration.

Of course, as time marches on, eventually all handguns will be transferred to somebody. Everybody dies, after all.

...of time, money and everything else even related.

I hope this pukes you too.

Last edited Mon May 20, 2013, 08:53 PM - Edit history (1)

...that anything not counterproductive will come from microstamping, IMHO.

re: "I hope this pukes you too."

If by "this" you mean the prospect of implementing some microstamping database, then yes it does. I believe I made that rather clear in my reply. If that wasn't quite clear...

only one company can do it. I think the company is conning the states and gun control advocates to make money for his monopoly.
http://science.kqed.org/quest/2008/06/20/reporters-notes-how-to-id-a-bullet/
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12162

What problem does microstamping address? What would you see as a next step? What is the ultimate goal?

Or haven't you thought it out that far?

I wonder how big the market is/would be on new models that may come out, and whether builders will bother.

With LE exempt, and new purchasers very likely to prefer not having this..."feature", doesn't seem a lot of money to made.

planning to offer this feature, but I haven't been paying much attention and there's no reason any would without the requirement. Opponents of the law assume no manufacturer will try, which is why they characterize it as a de facto ban. But it would be interesting to know how big our market really is: CA is ~10% of the countries population and while I doubt we drive the gun market the way CA and TX drive textbooks (for example) maybe it it will be worth it for some...

They're carrying government-owned, government-issued guns in service of the people, and are authorized to use deadly force in that service. As such, they have no expectation of privacy.

Some animals are more equal I guess.

Cops, who routinely have to physically handle criminals and routinely run the risk of getting their sidearm used against them, should be among the leaders in adopting "smart gun" technology. Police departments have enough purchasing power and government money to actually buy smart guns in bulk for their departments and train people in their use.

And yet...

what is the thing they need to follow that they are exempted from, be specific.

So it looks like either or both of the following conditions are true:

- Law enforcement agencies do not have to buy microstamped guns to issue to their officers, even if they are commercially available.

- Active duty law enforcement officers, when buying their own personal guns for their own personal use with their own money, do not have to buy microstamped guns, even if they are commercially available.

thanks for the FYI.

It makes it pretty easy to frame someone else for murder. All you have to do is go to a shooting range and collect some of the brass on the ground. Then be sure to scatter them at the scene right after you murder someone. To be extra safe, make sure your murder weapon is a revolver.

If people shun microstamped handguns and purchase revolvers instead, then you're reducing over time the number of handguns that can accept quickly-changeable magazines of large but arbitrary capacity.

The practical mechanical limitation of a revolver's capacity is much lower than that of a semiautomatic. The largest revolver capacity that I'm aware of is 10 rounds, and that's in .22LR. I think S&W makes some 8-shot .357 Magnums, but it's a pretty solid rule that centerfire revolvers have a capacity between 5 and 7 rounds.

So, maybe maybe maybe you're reducing the chance of a Virginia Tech-style mass shooting at some point in the future.


Of course, revolvers leave less forensic evidence behind than semiautos, so probably you'd have fewer arrests of murderers.

Anyone planning a massacre isn't going to care if their shells are microstamped. Reducing the number in private hands does not affect likelihood of a killer going on a kill spree, as long as they are available, the gun and the killer will find each other.

I think this is more of a de-facto ban on new semi-autos, packaged as a crime solving law. In fact, I will wager that in ten years' time there will be zero crimes solved by microstamping.

and the result was a loss in sales. Many shooters simply refused to by a new S&W revolver with the key lock and instead looked for a used version without it.

S&W has decided to phase out the safety lock for its revolver lineup.

Or banning fingernail files.

Derp.

need to have stamps?

AB 1471 says, in the (highly debatable) new definition of an "unsafe gun":

some of this seems hard to believe.

existing gun-models could be in production
for decades, or centuries.