Micro stamping, just another anti-gun tactic

[2aguy]

This column explains why micro-stamping is just another scam by the anti-gunners to attack the ability to own and carry guns….

What, you might ask, is the point? Is microstamping a valid crime fighting tool? No. The point is making firearms more expensive, and harassing law-abiding gun owners in any way possible. In my law enforcement career, I never solved a case through fingerprints, nor was I aware of anyone that did. Trying to solve a crime with a microstamped primer would be even less productive
————-
Any microstamping scheme is of necessity a gun registration scheme, because without a massive national database containing an image of a microstamped case from every gun in America, there’s no way to identify from which gun that case came. For now, it’s against federal law for government to maintain a gun registry, which doesn’t mean government isn’t trying to do it under the radar. Even so, the only case images they’d have on file are from semiautomatic handguns manufactured after a federal microstamping law went into effect. Hundreds of millions of handguns would be unaffected and essentially untraceable.

Even if a criminal doesn’t file the engraving off a firing pin, all they have to do is replace the firing pin, use a revolver, or stop a few seconds to collect their expended cases. Even better, they can visit a range, collect a variety of cases, and spread them around their crime scenes, sending hapless police on wild goose chases.

The microstamping scam

Among the never-ending attempts of anti-liberty/gun cracktivists to deprive Americans of their unalienable Second Amendment rights are various microstamping schemes. Microstamping requires leaving a unique imprint on the primer of a cartridge case. T...

www.americanthinker.com

 

[1srelluc]

LOL....I'd be up for one that leaves a "fuck you" middle finger on the primer.

 

[pknopp]

In my law enforcement career, I never solved a case through fingerprints, nor was I aware of anyone that did.

After reading this I can't take anything the person says as serious.

Perhaps you should attempt your own argument which is what you are supposed to do anyway.

 

[JGalt]

Just because they're going to get caught doesn't mean a criminal won't shoot someone with a micro-stamped gun. If they're disregarding gun laws now, what makes anyone think they'd observe them then?

This is just more stupidity to harass law-abiding gun owners and manufacturers.

 

[PredFan]

And what about the millions of guns already in the hands of free citizens? Are they going to make us all replace our firing pins? I can't replace mine because i lost all my guns in a freak boating accident.

 

[JoeB131]

I've already given you my solution.

Lift the liability protection for gun sellers. If a gun shop or manufacturer sells to the next Joker Holmes, the victims of his shooting spree can take them to court for damages.

You will be AMAZED how quickly they do what the banks and employers currently do to avoid liability.

 

[pknopp]

I've already given you my solution.

Lift the liability protection for gun sellers. If a gun shop or manufacturer sells to the next Joker Holmes, the victims of his shooting spree can take them to court for damages.

You will be AMAZED how quickly they do what the banks and employers currently do to avoid liability.

This can't be done unless you allow people to sue GM because a drunk driver killed their loved one.

Do you want just anyone (say the employee at Wal Mart) to be able to access a persons full medical history?

 

[JoeB131]

This can't be done unless you allow people to sue GM because a drunk driver killed their loved one.

Do you want just anyone (say the employee at Wal Mart) to be able to access a persons full medical history?

Cars aren't designed to kill people.

I'd have no problem with a gun buyer being required to sign a medical records waiver for a background check.

It seems like common sense.

The question is, do you deny a gun to someone if they were treated for depression 40 years ago?

No, of course not.

If they are hearing voice now, like Joker Holmes was, then absolutely.

If they had called Holmes's school, they'd have found out he was being expelled due to his erratic behavior.

Same with the VA Tech shooter. His school knew he was a problem. The Gun store didn't care to find out.

 

[ReinyDays]

I've already given you my solution.

Lift the liability protection for gun sellers. If a gun shop or manufacturer sells to the next Joker Holmes, the victims of his shooting spree can take them to court for damages.

You will be AMAZED how quickly they do what the banks and employers currently do to avoid liability.

That's absolute liability ... if the background check comes up clean, why should the seller be responsible? ... how do we individualize the responsibility in a court-of-law? ..

JGalt is right ... criminals won't use these micro-stamped guns ... we have all the laws we need to stop gun violence ... they're just not enforced ... we've hired cowards for police, they won't go after folks with guns ...

 

[pknopp]

Cars aren't designed to kill people.

But they do.

I'd have no problem with a gun buyer being required to sign a medical records waiver for a background check.

Sorry, I kinda respect a persons privacy rights to not have to release their private medical history to some cashier.

It seems like common sense.

The question is, do you deny a gun to someone if they were treated for depression 40 years ago?

No, of course not.

If they are hearing voice now, like Joker Holmes was, then absolutely.

His therapists reported him. Law enforcement did absolutely nothing.

If they had called Holmes's school, they'd have found out he was being expelled due to his erratic behavior.

Or did something when his therapist told law enforcement he was a danger and had threatened her.

Same with the VA Tech shooter. His school knew he was a problem. The Gun store didn't care to find out.

So the cashier at the gun store needs to take an in depth application, hope the potential buyer is giving a complete history and call everyone they know? And then as a simple low paid cashier make a determination on a persons ability to own a gun?

 

[JGalt]

I've already given you my solution.

Lift the liability protection for gun sellers. If a gun shop or manufacturer sells to the next Joker Holmes, the victims of his shooting spree can take them to court for damages.

You will be AMAZED how quickly they do what the banks and employers currently do to avoid liability.

It's not the gun manufacturer's and seller's responsibility to determine who is eligible to own a firearm and who isn't. That's the government's responsibility, which they do by way of the BATFE and FBI, their background checks, and the Form 4473. It's also the law-enforcement agencies and the court's responsibility to punish those who use guns to commit crimes, which they seldom do.

So apparently the government is failing to perform it's most important job, which is to protect its citizens. Do you need another example of the failure of your precious beloved government? Just look at our Southern border.

 

[ReinyDays]

I'd have no problem with a gun buyer being required to sign a medical records waiver for a background check.
It seems like common sense.

Isn't this onerous to the right of gun ownership ... where gun ownership is constitutionally protected? ... nevermind the 2nd Amendment, I have Article I, Section 6 of the Michigan State Constitution:

"Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state."

No mention of medical waivers ... my understanding is this language appears in 44 of the 50 State Constitutions ... so this only works in California ...

Is taking guns away from Californians such a bad idea? ...

 

[JoeB131]

That's absolute liability ... if the background check comes up clean, why should the seller be responsible? ... how do we individualize the responsibility in a court-of-law? ..

That's why we have trials.

Let's be clear how we got here. We got here because the DC Snipers shot up a bunch of people, and the two of them never should have been allowed to buy guns. - One was a felon, the other was a minor. The reaction of the gun industry was to run to Congress an expand liability protection for gun sellers, even when they clearly fuck up.

Isn't this onerous to the right of gun ownership ... where gun ownership is constitutionally protected? ... nevermind the 2nd Amendment, I have Article I, Section 6 of the Michigan State Constitution:

I don't think it's onerous at all. The Second Amendment is about militias. Militias were replaced by the National Guard.

 

[JoeB131]

It's not the gun manufacturer's and seller's responsibility to determine who is eligible to own a firearm and who isn't. That's the government's responsibility, which they do by way of the BATFE and FBI, their background checks, and the Form 4473. It's also the law-enforcement agencies and the court's responsibility to punish those who use guns to commit crimes, which they seldom do.

So apparently the government is failing to perform it's most important job, which is to protect its citizens.

The problem is, every time the government tries to tighten up background checks, the usual gun fondlers will run to congress and whine they had to fill out another piece of paperwork.

You can't weaken gun restrictions to be nearly non-existent, and then whine the government didn't keep Joker Holmes from getting a gun.

A gun seller looked at that freak with his orange hair and said, "Yup, you look like a fine young man, here's an AR-15 and a 100 round drum magazine!"

 

[JoeB131]

So the cashier at the gun store needs to take an in depth application, hope the potential buyer is giving a complete history and call everyone they know? And then as a simple low paid cashier make a determination on a persons ability to own a gun?

Works for me.

I had to jump through a lot of hoops to get my last job, to get my last mortgage, or to sponsor my wife for US residency (even though she had lived her for seven years before we married.)

I just can't work up a lot of sympathy that a person who want go buy a gun will have to as well.

 

[pknopp]

Works for me.

I had to jump through a lot of hoops to get my last job, to get my last mortgage, or to sponsor my wife for US residency (even though she had lived her for seven years before we married.)

I just can't work up a lot of sympathy that a person who want go buy a gun will have to as well.

We do not make Constitutional rights harder for people to exercise.

 

[JoeB131]

We do not make Constitutional rights harder for people to exercise.

The Second Amendment is about militias, not gun ownership.
The word "Gun" doesn't even appear in there.

The word "Arms" does, but I promise you, I won't be able to buy a howitzer firing anthrax-laden shells. So the government already makes it harder for me to exercise that "right".

 

[JGalt]

Isn't this onerous to the right of gun ownership ... where gun ownership is constitutionally protected? ... nevermind the 2nd Amendment, I have Article I, Section 6 of the Michigan State Constitution:

"Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state."

No mention of medical waivers ... my understanding is this language appears in 44 of the 50 State Constitutions ... so this only works in California ...

Is taking guns away from Californians such a bad idea? ...

Very true. When you attach stipulations to a constitutionally-protected right, it's no longer a "right." It becomes a "privilege."

 

[pknopp]

The Second Amendment is about militias, not gun ownership.
The word "Gun" doesn't even appear in there.

The word "Arms" does, but I promise you, I won't be able to buy a howitzer firing anthrax-laden shells. So the government already makes it harder for me to exercise that "right".

Odd how no one understood this for 240 years. Not even the Founders.

 

[ReinyDays]

I don't think it's onerous at all. The Second Amendment is about militias. Militias were replaced by the National Guard.

That's a common mistake ... here in the United States, we have what is generally characterized as "duel sovereignty" ... we have both Federal laws and State laws ... and we have both a Federal Constitution and State Constitutions ...

From Yahoo's AI:

"District of Columbia v. Heller. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment acknowledges and guarantees the right of the individual to possess and carry firearms, and therefore D.C.'s ban on handguns was unconstitutional."

[emphasis from source]

Handguns enjoy 2nd Amendment protections ... as Congress has made no specific law restricting their sales, unlike sawed-off shotguns or automatics ... meaning the handgun is "normal and necessary" for a militiaman to possess ... the States and ONLY the States determine the rules for these militiamen ... 44 States require militiamen to bring their own handguns, AR-15s and shotguns ... therefore these weapons are lawful to own and possess to all who qualify for militia duty ... i.e. no felons, crazies or wife-beaters ... in the 44 States that guaranty the right to gun ownership ...

There's some history here that apparently you're not aware of ... it was the Plantegenets who were fond of sending the English army over to the continent to fight their personal wars ... then tax the English barons to pay for it all ... the 2nd Amendment was just one part to correct this misfortune ... another is Article 1 Section 8 Clauses 11 through 16 of the Federal Constitution; "[The Congress shall have Power] To declare War" ...