Stamping out the wrong problem

I’ve heard the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The road to ruin, therefore, must be paved with politicians.

California, once again, is trying to regulate firearms. In an article on hartfordbusiness.com, it states that the “California lawmakers next month are expected to vote on a measure that — if it passes — could greatly impact how handgun manufacturers across Connecticut and the rest of the nation assemble their deadly wares.”

I’m glad the author used ‘deadly’ in the first paragraph. Usually 2nd amendment assailants try to couch those kind of words in the third or fourth paragraph of their stories. Bravo!

The issue at hand concerns a proposal by California to initiate microstamping on all new firearms.

“The debate centers around a technique called microstamping, a technology that imprints the shells spit out from handguns with an identifying code. That code is linked to a traceable serial number, which could help police track down owners of a gun fired during a crime.”

Ah.

So let me make certain I understand this. All new firearms will be required to have this microstamp ability. So how does this microstamp work?

According to the article...

“Microstamping involves microscopically laser-marking the firing pin, the breech face and other internal surfaces of a gun with a specific, eight-digit code. When the gun fires, the firing pin slams into the back of the shell casing of a bullet, igniting the gun powder. By marking the pin, the code is emblazoned on the shell, which is spit out from the side of the gun, leaving a marked shell which could be collected and traced by police.”

Ah.

To be clear, its not a laser in the firearm that’s doing the marking. It’s a piece of metal inside the firearm that has been marked by a laser. And it “emblazons” a mark on the shell casing.

OK. That helps.

So…

What’s to stop a criminal from picking up the shells once they are through firing the weapon?

What’s to stop a criminal from filing off the microstamp on the tip of the marking pin inside the firearm so that only a smudge appears on each spent casing?

What's to stop a criminal from using a revolver? Revolvers do not eject cartridge casings after firing.

What’s to stop the criminals who engage in drive-by shootings? Those casings usually stay in the vehicle perpetrating the crime.

Who’s going to make certain the “emblazoned” pins in the firearm are still accurately stamping casings after 2 or 3 years?

Who is going to keep track of who owns the “emblazing” firearm?

What’s to stop a criminal from stealing a firearm legally registered to someone else and using it for a crime?

Oh wait, all those things would be illegal. Yeah. That will do it. Criminals don’t do things that are illegal.

That last two questions easily branch off into other topics.

First off, lets say John buys a firearm. Then a few years later, he decides to sell it to George. Who’s going to know George has the firearm now and not John? Or is there going to have to be a new tracking agency set up specifically for this purpose?

Now let’s say Bob has it in for John. Bob steals John’s firearm and discharges the firearm in an illegal manner. Bob makes it a point to leave the stamped shells behind. This new technology just incriminated an innocent person!

This is a poorly thought out solution to a personal responsibility question.

The article also says “complying with the law would add $200 to the price of a handgun. Since most consumer handguns sell typically for less than $1,000, that amounts to a sizable increase.”

No problem. The wealthy can always afford the law. It’s those who have restricted means that will suffer.

The article closes with the following…

“For much of its history, the presence of so many gun makers earned the Connecticut River Valley the nickname “gun valley.” Colt is here. Smith & Wesson is here. Sturm & Ruger Co. calls Fairfield its headquarters. Marlin Firearms was for years a mainstay north of New Haven. Numerous small machine shops throughout the region contract with those handgun makers to supply parts. It’s why the industry’s trade group is based in Newtown. With so much at stake here, the results of California’s vote are sure to have an echo in gun valley.”

So it’s 49 states against one? Well the answer is simple. Tell those political idiots in California to shove it. Don’t sell them any more firearms. Period. Not one. Sell them to all the other 49 states in the Unites States. Watch what happens.

I bet plenty of firearms will still be available in California. I bet none of them will be serialized. And I bet when there are no more firearm companies selling to California, the intelligent citizens of California might… MIGHT… ask their fine government why exactly there is still a firearm problem in their beautiful wine-lovin’ state.

Personal. Responsibility.

-end-