Microstamping Gun Ban Upheld in California

By Woody published on in News

On Thursday, California Eastern District Judge Kimberly Mueller declined to stop the state from imposing a ban on the sale of new handguns that are not microstamped. Unless the case is overturned on appeal, today’s decision would effectively ban the sale or possession of new semiauto handguns in the state.

“This is about the state trying to eliminate the handgun market,” said Alan Gura, the lead attorney in Peña v. Lindley told Fox News last week. “The evidence submitted by the manufacturers shows this is science fiction and there is not a practical way to implement the law.”

The case, Peña v. Lindley, dates from 2009, and it pitted California resident Ivan Peña and three other individual plaintiffs against Stephen Lindley, the chief of the California Department of Justice’s Bureau of Firearms. At issue was the state’s “microstamping” law, which in 2007 was signed into law by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, but which only took effect in 2013.

Cal-guns-civil-rights-foundation-logoDuring a short period in which the Second Amendment applied to states and local governments within the federal Ninth Circuit through a case called Nordyke v. King, Ivan Peña, Roy Vargas, Doña Croston, Brett Thomas, The Calguns Foundation, and the Second Amendment Foundation filed a federal civil rights lawsuit called Peña v. Cid (now Peña v. Lindley) against the California Department of Justice that challenged the constitutionality of the state’s “Handgun Roster” laws.

The Peña case, helmed by civil rights attorneys Gura, Donald Kilmer, and Jason Davis, was argued at the trial court on December 17, 2013.

Since the law took effect in 2013, no manufacturer has made a new firearm that complies with the requirement. Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger & Co., have stopped selling new firearms in the California market because of the microstamping law.

Peña, gun manufacturers, and attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation argued that microstamping relies on an unworkable technology. So if guns without the technology can’t be sold in California, and gun manufacturers can’t implement the technology, the law functions as a handgun ban that violates the Second Amendment.

According to a Calguns Foundation statement about Judge Mueller’s decision, the group is “disappointed that the district court sidestepped a clear violation of Second Amendment civil rights in its decision today. However, we are absolutely committed to litigating this case as far as necessary to reverse this incorrect ruling and restore the right to keep and bear modern handguns in the Golden State.”

“It is utterly preposterous that a Federal Court would rule that a ban on all new semiautomatic handguns does not burden Second Amendment rights,” the Calguns statement continued. “Such a decision conflicts with Ninth Circuit precedent, much less the Supreme Court’s holdings in Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.”

Calguns said counsel has already appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Tags: , , , , ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (32)

  • Sam

    |

    Proof that California is populated by complete idiots! Microstamping is nothing more than liberal feel-good legislation and will do nothing to curb what they fear most……..criminal activity!

    Reply

    • PeteDub

      |

      I don’t think they really fear criminal activity. They fear freedom.

      Reply

    • Smitty 550

      |

      Not ALL Californians are idiots, but we have enough idiots to keep liberal morons in office in Sacto. I was born here in 1937 and have seen the long, slow slide downhill….especially since the 1960s. If there are more liberals than conservatives, this is what happens….especially when liberal politicians know damned well that they can stay in office if they offer enough incentives for free loaders to move into the state, thus becoming part of the liberal voting bloc. This is what happened in California. Obama promises the same thing to illegals, but on a much larger scale, and WE will be forced to pay for it, both financially and socially.

      Reply

  • abelhorn

    |

    Sounds like the 2nd American Revolution is closer than I thought
    as we now have gun owners making excuse for the loss of
    2nd amendment rights.

    Reply

  • Robert Peters

    |

    It’s not that the judge “made a mistake “, he violates the constitution. As these judges say to defendants; ignorance of the law is no excuse.

    Reply

  • Robert Peters

    |

    The California judge’s had to cheat to pass the barrel. No way they are neutral in their interpretation of the law or the constitution. That just pisses me off. Disbarr the bastards.

    Reply

  • G-Man

    |

    Mandating by law, the use of a technology that doesn’t really exist, sounds about right for California.

    Next they will force all automobiles to be equipped with a flux capacitor. So given there is no such device, it will effectively force their citizens to dispense with their pollution producing autos and use only public transportation or bicycles.

    At least New Jersey was smart enough to make their mandatory smart gun law only go into effect after the first viably proven version was ready for the market.

    Way to go anti-gun Californians. It’s not as if the rest of America can’t figure out what you’re trying to pull over on your citizens. I can’t wait to watch the Circuit or Supreme Court spank your ass again; especially when this judge knows it will easily be overturned. What a waste of the tax payer’s time, effort and money.

    Reply

  • DarthVaderMentor

    |

    Well, terrorists, killers and bandits now know which states are the best to go to commit heinous acts and plunder working people’s things. California, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey.

    Reply

  • Smitty 550

    |

    So…what’s to prevent a person from going to Nevada or Arizona, getting a resident ID there (required to legally purchase a pistol), then bringing it back into California? The only thing needed to get an ID is to go to the state’s DMV office, fill out a form with an address (they don’t check) and walk out with your ID card. I’ve done it, but I have rental houses in AZ, so it was not a problem….at least in Arizona. I don’t know about Nevada. I have not used the ID to purchase any firearms.

    Reply

    • PeteDub

      |

      @Smitty

      good question.

      Before last week the answer would have been that it is illegal to purchase a handgun in one state to take back to another state. But THAT law was struck down under the same constitutional principles and “strict scrutiny” test that will be the demise of micro-stamping.

      Reply

  • Robert Peters

    |

    Why are California’s citizens so stupid. The judge should be put in jail, along with the sponsors for violating the Constitution. I’m sick of those idiots.

    Reply

    • PeteDub

      |

      @Robert Peters

      Oh, c’mon get REAL.

      Don’t blame the judge for making a ruling. She did nothing really wrong, even though her decision was clearly wrong.

      And don’t blame the People of California either. She is a federal judge appointed by Barack Obama, not elected by the People of California.

      Blame the government lawyers for misleading the judge. Blame the legislators who came up with this stuff in the first place.

      In particular, if you are looking for blame, blame the gun-rights lawyers who failed to convince the judge. If the gun-rights lawyers failed to paint her and the government’s case into a corner where she HAD to rule against the government, this is really their fault (if there is any fault at all — which I don’t think there is).

      In reality, this ruling probably is a victory in disguise. I doubt that the case ended up in front of that particular Obama appointee by accident. The Eastern District of California is a strange place for a case like this to be heard, and the gun-rights lawyers almost certainly picked the turf on which to start the fight. And they had their reasons for making that choice.

      Judge Mueller is a new judge, and probably is not very good at making her rulings immune from being overturned on appeal. By applying her inherent left-wing bias (which she obviously has or Obama would not have appointed her), she probably painted the government and its case into a corner that the government cannot get out of.

      So the case almost certainly will be reversed on appeal as it should be. I think that is exactly what the gun-rights lawyers had in mind when they took the case where they did.

      Do not despair. This kind of constitutional litigation is a slow and frustrating process, but we are winning.

      Reply

    • Don P

      |

      @PeteDub

      “Don’t blame the judge for making a ruling. She did nothing really wrong, even though her decision was clearly wrong”

      Really? Have you been self medicating?

      Since you stated that her decision was wrong, how can you say she did nothing wrong? The decision is either right or wrong and she made the decision. If she made a wrong decision, she did something wrong. It may not be illegal to make a wrong decision, but it would still be something she did wrong.

      “And don’t blame the People of California either.”

      Hold that thought for a moment…

      “She is a federal judge appointed by Barack Obama, not elected by the People of California.”

      Yes, but who voted Obama into office? Didn’t he overwhelmingly win the vote in California? Now, back to that thought. I will agree that not ALL of the people in California voted for Obama, but in general they can be blamed for helping Obama get into office and, due to “cause and effect”, we can justifiably blame the people of California as having fault in the judge’s appointment to the bench.

      “… Blame the legislators who came up with this stuff in the first place.”

      Back to that thought again. Who voted for those legislators? Wasn’t it the people of California? That takes us back to Cause and effect.

      “By applying her inherent left-wing bias (which she obviously has or Obama would not have appointed her)…”

      In that statement, you make the accusation that the judge is biased (Don’t worry, I’m not arguing that point) and, the way I interpret your statement, has applied her bias in making her decision. Maybe I’m mistaken, but it has always been my understanding that if a judge has an inherent bias concerning a topic and allows it to affect his or her ruling, it is not only wrong, but it’s also illegal.

      Reply

    • PeteDub

      |

      @Don P

      Yes, I definitely am self-medicating. It is a mind-clearing combination of “respect for the Constitution I swore to uphold” and “intellectual integrity.” I recommend it to everyone.

      You said that a federal judge is guilty of a crime and belongs in jail just because you disagree with her opinion. That makes you no better than the left-wingers who think you and I ought to be in jail for daring to have our own opinions..

      I fought, and too many of my closest friends in my life died, for peoples’ right to have their own opinions — however stupid, wrong, ill-advised and even hateful — without having to pay the penalty of going to jail or worse just because somebody else dislikes those opinions.

      It is not a crime for a judge to make a decision, even if that decision is wrong. And, no it is not illegal for a judge to bring the judge’s basic political philosophy to work. If it were, basically every judge who ever heard a case would have been put in jail — because there is a winning and losing side in every case so somebody has to be wrong.

      As to the People of California, of course the minority left-wingers who elect these nutcase politicians are at fault for allowing this crap to happen. And arguably the rest of Californians who allow the minority are at fault for allowing the minority to control their state. But they are not at fault for a decision made by a federal judge — you know, the decision you said should land her in jail.

      Left-wingers actively pursue putting you and me in jail by enacting unconstitutional statutes like the micro-stamping law at issue, so let’s not validate their tactics by stooping to that low level. We are on the moral and legal high ground with respect to gun rights. So, let’s talk like adults about how the LAW is on our side, and leave the hateful rhetoric and behavior to the idiots on the Left who basically have no other arrows in their quivers and never have.

      Reply

    • Don P

      |

      PeteDub,

      I’ll start this one out real simple. Show me where I said the judge belongs in jail. Go ahead. You opened your big mouth and accused me of saying it. Show me where I said she should be in jail.

      My entire post was commenting on your post and pointing out how ridiculous it was. You stated she did nothing wrong and then, after stating it was a wrong decision, blatantly inferred that she made her decision because of her “inherent left-wing bias”.

      True, all judges have their philosophy on life and it affects their decisions, but if it will prevent the judge from ruling on a case with a fair and impartial ruling, he or she is considered biased. When a judge is biased and fails to recuse himself or herself, it is a violation plaintiff’s or defendant’s right to a fair trial. Typically, violating someone’s rights is considered illegal.

      I’m still waiting, but you won’t come up with it. Why? Because I never said she belongs in jail. It just goes to show that your self-medication that you described as: “…a mind-clearing combination of “respect for the Constitution I swore to uphold” and “intellectual integrity.” Seems to be a bit lacking on the second ingredient… Intellectual integrity. Either that or you need a course on reading comprehension.

      Reply

    • BJI

      |

      I wonder how many California and other state resident conservative Republican voters who own guns stayed home and did not vote for Romney because Romney was not conservative enough?

      Reply

    • left coast chuck

      |

      @Don P: As yes, Cricket, but in order to declare a bias the judge has to realize that she or he actually has a bias. As far as I have been able to discern, any liberal I have run across, no matter how extreme in my opinion, considers himself or herself to be middle of the road. I am not saying there aren’t some who recognize that they are far left wing, I just have not met any who recognize their, IMO, mental disorder.

      Reply

    • Smitty 550

      |

      @PeteDub: Listen! I DO blame judges that make stupid decisions. They have all the information they need, and this judge should have had the brains to see through any misinformation she had access to. Judges should have just a bit more sense than the average person; that is why they were put onto the “bench” in the first place.

      The woman is a federal judge, and it is obvious that she was NOT misled. IMO, the woman showed her stripes as being just another Obama hack ex-lawyer who is now just another Obama stooge. I am fed up with judges who blithely skirt the Constitution. We should NOT have to rely on the Court of Appeals to reverse such a stupid decision that should not have been made in the first place.

      Reply

    • PeteDub

      |

      @Smitty,

      I have no problem with you “blaming” the judge — my initial post was not clear enough in that regard and I apologize for that. My issue is your suggestion that a judge should be jailed for making a bad decision. We just can’t go there, and retain the America I hold dear.

      The real problem you are complaining about is the confirmation process allowing extremists on the bench. The history started with Judge Robert Bork, who was “Borked” (confirmation blocked) solely because he held conservative views especially on economic issues. Judge Bork was widely recognized as one of the finest legal minds of the 20th century (which is precisely why the lefties wanted no part of him on the Supreme Court).

      Most Senators have since come to the informal agreement that “Borking” is wrong, and so they have gone to the opposite extreme of not allowing any real ideological inquiry for judicial nominees. And so Obama gets to appoint extremists.

      I personally think the Reagan administration lost a great opportunity when that lying, murdering Ted Kennedy creep was taking shots at Judge Bork. Rather than letting Kennedy’s attack go un-answered, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight I say that the White House should have reminded the public of bubbly Mary Jo Kopechne contrasted with Teddy’s infamous drunk face. “Do you really want this drunk-driving rich kid to keep one of the brightest legal minds of the 20th century off the Supreme Court?” Even the left-wing press would have loved it, because many of them hated Teddy’s arrogance and that he had literally gotten away with murder.

      But the White House wanted to “play nice” because, back then, that was the accepted norm in the Senate and Kennedy family members have been “off limits” because of the tragedies befalling Jack and Bobby. Only left-wing idiots like Kennedy were able to get away with not “playing nice” because being an A double-s actually appealed to the left-wing base while conservatives don’t accept it from anyone.

      You are right that we should not have to rely on reversal of bad decisions, but this case was headed to the appellate level from the get-go either way it was decided. I believe that the gun-rights lawyers carefully picked their target for filing the case where they would get such an outrageously indefensible decision at the trial court that an appellate victory was much more likely. So, in a way, by being such an obvious Obama stooge, this particular Obama stooge may have accidentally done gun rights a favor.

      The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals where this case is headed is known as being the most left-leaning court on the planet. But they have come out with some surprisingly good stuff for us, including effectively striking the California law banning open and concealed carry and requiring the California legislature to go back to the drawing board on the issue. If there is one thing a left wing court likes more than supporting Democrats whenever they can, its it striking down laws on constitutional grounds. The 9th Circuit will not be blind to the fact that this particular Obama stooge acted like an Obama stooge — they won’t say it of course, but they will know it. The worst they can do is to tee up the case for the Supreme Court to reverse as yet another wacky piece of junk coming out of Kalifornia, to stifle the Peoples’ freedom.

      Reply

    • Smitty 550

      |

      @ PeteDub Pete, I made no suggestion that judges should be jailed; Robert Peters did. Re the 9th Circus Court of Appeals, I do hope that they make the right decision (as I am sure that we all do) on the matter at hand when it comes up before them.

      Reply

    • PeteDub

      |

      @Don P

      The OP said the judge belongs in jail, and you supported that position by attacking my response saying he was wrong.

      If you agree that a judge should not be jailed for rendering an opinion we don’t like, great. Then for the sake of effective communication you could SAY SO when supporting the original post rather than just expecting people to READ YOUR MIND: “I don’t agree with the OP saying judges should be jailed, but I think . . . ”

      Otherwise, to a rational person, by supporting the original post you are supporting the ENTIRE original post including the part about throwing the judge in jail.

      And, no, there still is nothing wrong, illegal, immoral, criminal, etc. in a judge bringing the judge’s political views to work and allowing those political views to influence decisions. The real fault lies in allowing Presidents to get in office who can and will appoint extremists.

      By that judge’s perspective, she made the right decision — just because you and I disagree with her does not make it wrong for her to think what she thinks. Indeed, just because I am pretty certain the decision will be overturned on appeal does not mean that it is wrong for her to think what she thinks.

      If you were right that a judge is doing something wrong when making a decision that can be disagreed with, then basically every judge is wrong in every case because one side always loses. If the judge had done what you and I think she should have, there would have been a lot of people who thought that she was doing the worst thing on the face of the Earth by preventing cops from finding heinous murderers.

      And, as I will point out yet again, the judge’s patent bias is a tool for OUR SIDE. This case did not naturally belong in the Eastern District of CA — the gun-rights lawyers who brought the suit chose the turf for a reason. They knew the bias they would be dealing with — compared to the Northern District of CA for example, where they could have easily brought the case. Rather than whining about bias at the trial level on a case we all know is going up at least another level and probably two, be glad that gun-rights lawyers are strategically using Obama’s stupidity against him. Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.

      When a case is about factual findings, trial courts matter because appellate courts accept their factual findings. But in this case, the gun-rights lawyers claim is that there are no facts — this micro-stamping theory is “junk science” as they say. So, the fact that this judge is who she is will help on appeal.

      Another way of saying this is that you are basically insulting the intelligence and acumen of the gun-rights lawyers by dumping in your drawers about the Obama stooge the picked being an Obama stooge.

      Getting upset an an Obama stooge for being an Obama stooge is a lot like getting upset at a dog for barking — they are both inevitable mindless acts that wise people use to their advantage. We use dogs to warn of intruders and we use Obama stooges to set up cases for victory on appeal where it counts.

      Reply

    • Don P

      |

      PeteDub,

      “The OP said the judge belongs in jail, and you supported that position by attacking my response saying he was wrong.”

      That is completely supposition and conjecture. If someone makes a post and you make a response that is ludicrous, just because someone challenges the ludicrous statements in your post doesn’t mean they are in agreement or disagreement, partially or completely, with the original post.

      “If you agree that a judge should not be jailed for rendering an opinion we don’t like, great. Then for the sake of effective communication you could SAY SO when supporting the original post rather than just expecting people to READ YOUR MIND: “I don’t agree with the OP saying judges should be jailed, but I think . . . ””

      Nobody asked you to read minds. Maybe you should just try reading exactly what a person writes and try to comprehend what they said INSTEAD of inferring what you THINK they meant.

      “Otherwise, to a rational person, by supporting the original post you are supporting the ENTIRE original post including the part about throwing the judge in jail.”

      I didn’t say anything to indicate that I agreed with the original post. My post specifically addressed the statements you made in YOUR post. A “rational person” could look at your post and then look at my post and fully understand my points as to why your statements, when taken in totality, were ridiculous. A “rational person” would also NOT infer something that is not addressed in the post. My posts should only be taken to indicate my opinion on the topic(s) specifically address in the post(s).

      “And, no, there still is nothing wrong, illegal, immoral, criminal, etc. in a judge bringing the judge’s political views to work and allowing those political views to influence decisions. The real fault lies in allowing Presidents to get in office who can and will appoint extremists.
      By that judge’s perspective, she made the right decision — just because you and I disagree with her does not make it wrong for her to think what she thinks. Indeed, just because I am pretty certain the decision will be overturned on appeal does not mean that it is wrong for her to think what she thinks.”

      OK, to start off there are degrees of the term “wrong”. There is “wrong” that you just disagree with, there is “wrong” that is in violation of the law and there are degrees in-between. It is best if there is no ambiguity, but you are the one who started it. You stated “She did nothing really wrong, even though her decision was clearly wrong.” My response to that, as were most of my posts, was to point out how your statements varied from vague to ridiculous. She made a ruling, you stated that her decision was wrong but you then said she did nothing wrong. If she did nothing wrong, then everything she did must have been correct. If everything she did was correct, how could her decision have been “clearly wrong”? Had you said “She did nothing really illegal, even though her decision was clearly wrong.”, your statement wouldn’t have been ridiculous. As far as my opinion on her ruling -I NEVER STATED AN OPINION ON HER RULING-.

      “If you were right that a judge is doing something wrong when making a decision that can be disagreed with, then basically every judge is wrong in every case because one side always loses. If the judge had done what you and I think she should have, there would have been a lot of people who thought that she was doing the worst thing on the face of the Earth by preventing cops from finding heinous murderers.”

      I will state that again: -I NEVER STATED AN OPINION ON HER RULING-.
      Go back and read my entire post. All I did was comment on YOUR statements and opinions and how they were in conflict. As far as her perspective, I couldn’t care less… as long as it doesn’t influence her to make a decision that is contrary to the law. According to your post, you implied that she did.

      “And, as I will point out yet again, the judge’s patent bias is a tool for OUR SIDE. This case did not naturally belong in the Eastern District of CA — the gun-rights lawyers who brought the suit chose the turf for a reason. They knew the bias they would be dealing with — compared to the Northern District of CA for example, where they could have easily brought the case. Rather than whining about bias at the trial level on a case we all know is going up at least another level and probably two, be glad that gun-rights lawyers are strategically using Obama’s stupidity against him. Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.”

      I was not whining, just commenting on your post. Court rulings have been overturned or thrown out and retried when it was proven that the judge was not impartial due to an obvious bias. A biased judge, who lets their bias affect their decision, violates the rights of the defendant and/or plaintiff… which is illegal. The judicial system does not overturn or throw out rulings if nothing was done contrary to the law. You stated “By applying her inherent left-wing bias (which she obviously has or Obama would not have appointed her)…” in your post. So, YOUR STATEMENT didn’t just imply, it blatantly stated that she had a bias going into the trial and she let it affect her decision. If true, that is illegal.

      “Another way of saying this is that you are basically insulting the intelligence and acumen of the gun-rights lawyers by dumping in your drawers about the Obama stooge the picked being an Obama stooge.”

      (Exactly WHAT is that supposed to mean? Am I supposed to be a mind reader to understand your posts?)I didn’t insult anyone, since I GAVE NO OPINION on the case. But if you want to criticize someone for insulting the lawyers, what about this comment?

      “In particular, if you are looking for blame, blame the gun-rights lawyers who failed to convince the judge. If the gun-rights lawyers failed to paint her and the government’s case into a corner where she HAD to rule against the government, this is really their fault (if there is any fault at all — which I don’t think there is).”

      Reply

    • PeteDub

      |

      @Don P

      If your point is that It was stupid of me to say that the judge did “nothing wrong” in the same sentence I said her decision was “clearly wrong,” then I am guilty as charged. Like everyone else, sometimes I say stupid things — and that is a good example of one of mine. I should have said “nothing illegal” rather than “nothing wrong.” But a reasonable person, in light of the fact that this was a response to the OP’s crazy suggestion that the judge should be jailed, would understand that notwithstanding my stupid mistake.

      But just about everything else you said in that particular puke was a bunch of pure hogwash.

      Reply

  • PeteDub

    |

    This ruling almost certainly will fall. For the ban to be upheld, it must pass the “strict scrutiny” test: the law must protect a legitimate government interest AND it must be the least restrictive means to protect that interest.

    I suppose the argument is that the “government interest” is to ensure the ability to track spent cartridges to a particular firearm, for the purposes of crime scene investigation. I can see courts upholding that as a legitimate government interest — we all wants crimes to be solved,

    But there is no real science –required as a matter of due process under the Daubert principle — showing that micro-stamping actually protects that interest. The government may not merely assert that micro-stamping might help solve crimes, the government must PROVE that it actually DOES help solve crimes. The law must ACTUALLY protect a legitimate government interest in practice, not just theory.

    In actual practice, any criminal could easily defeat micro-stamping with an emery board, and anyone slightly more motivated with even a modicum of machinist skills could easily create a new firing pin without micro-stamping. Heck, I just bought 2 new firing pins for one of my long arms, and am now a upset at myself for not turning one out in my own shop for the few pennies it would have cost to machine one of my old broken drill bits.

    So the proof is tenuous at best that micro-stamping could ever be effective in solving crimes. Indeed, it simply is not a real challenge to match spent cartridges with the handguns from which they came — the forensic-science folks are REALLY good at that already. Micro-stamping is one of those classic solutions in need of a problem (except that the real intent of micro-stamping is to impose burdens on the market for firearms — and all of this crime investigation hokum is obviously a smoke screen).

    Even if the government could pass the huge hurdle of proving that micro-stamping protects a legitimate government interest, the “least restrictive means” test is even harder. The government has to prove that there is no way to match a spent cartridge to a particular firearm other than to impose the ban against guns sold without micro-stamped firing pins. But there obviously are plenty of such means — like matching DNA on the cartridge with DNA on the handgun (which actually is FAR BETTER than micro-stamping as a forensic matter because DNA also can put that gun and that cartridge in the hands of a specific person, which micro-stamping could never do). Or matching marks on the cartridge wall to micro defects in the chamber. Heck, even without micro-stamping, every firing pin already leaves unique marks on a cartridge. Etc., etc. Again, as a matter of forensic science micro-stamping is a solution in search of a problem.

    The government’s argument on that point probably is that it is more convenient to have a database of micro-stamps to make the matching of cartridge to gun easier than using established methods. But the government’s convenience is never enough to pass the least restrictive means test.

    And, of course, criminals — indeed, even law-abiding citizens like me angered over the clear attempt to burden the basic human right of armed self-defense — could easily render such a database completely ineffective with emery boards and / or simple machining. Gee, I think I need to go dry-fire my weapons for trigger-control training, and that a little piece of emery board would be a good way to prevent damage to the firing pin. Unless the ATF is willing to come and arrest me for dry-firing a weapon, this micro-stamping is all just a bunch of OBVIOUSLY waste effort — which is exactly what these bozos want, to WASTE away at our rights.

    Reply

  • Sportsden

    |

    The entire article deals with “microstamping” and never explains what that is. Get a clue, will ‘ya?

    Reply

    • Slowpoke Rodrigues

      |

      @ Sportsden

      A Coding Book is forthcoming, but when is Unknown. It similar to a Locksmith Code, NDC Code, or VIN Code, for that particular weapon.

      Reply

Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.

%d bloggers like this: