Firearms Micro-Stamping Bills on the Move in New York ...

rate of any state in the area and has the most restrictive gun ownership laws.

Good thought, folks-punish the legal owners/buyers who do not commit the crimes. This is a typical Democratic "cheap shot" in politics, the same as saying you are pro-life if you are GOP - meaningless bullshit pusturing for easy votes.



mark

POST#1 States “...New York has the highest violent crime rate of any state in the area and has the most restrictive gun ownership laws”….

It is common knowledge, or at least the information is easily accessible from reputable recognized sources to prove or refute many of the claims presented as FACT on this board.



In the area means what?
The FBI’s annual Uniform Crime Reports has broadly categorized it’s report by States, Geographic Divisions and Regions.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/standard_links/regional_estimates.html

Most restrictive gun ownership laws means what?
Do you know of, and if so can you provide a link to another measure, in addition to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence RATINGS of State gun laws (to stop gun trafficking) that can be used to compare “restrictions of gun ownership laws?” http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/



Using those sites;
New York state does not have the highest violent crime rate of any state in the area.
New York state does not have the most restrictive gun ownership laws.

Poorly rated Vermont, which shares a long border with NY State, has a very low crime rate. Likewise, New Hampshire
(which does have poor urban areas), and is an hour or so further along by car.

So, unless you'd like to think bad guys commute, I'd say the Brady ratings are horseshit.

The Brady ratings are presented, as I stated “Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence RATINGS of State gun laws (to stop gun trafficking)” a proxy for a measure of restrictive gun ownership laws. Your opinion of what they mean or what effect you think they have, isn’t what I posted about.
I pointed out that I know of no basis in fact for what was posted.
“...New York has the highest violent crime rate of any state in the area and has the most restrictive gun ownership laws”….
Did you read post#1?

"
blahblah.....blah


Using those sites;
New York state does not have the highest violent crime rate of any state in the area.
New York state does not have the most restrictive gun ownership laws."



Your statement easily begs the question.....
if NY is so safe, why spend tax dollars on such frivolous measures?

And why is this apparently not needed in "lax" states like neighboring Vermont?

Doesn’t anybody in this forum know how to read or understand anything?

A good point??????

NY is so safe? Things are so great in NY?

By calling bullshit to the claim that NY has the highest violent crime rate in the area, I never claimed or implied that NY is so safe, or so great! That is seriously convoluted and adolescent thinking.

There is no purpose in continuing any dialog…………

I quoted you.


(try your own advice on reading comprehension :rofl:)

self deleted

a backward looking camera mounted on the gun that takes a picture of the person firing the weapon every time the trigger is pressed?

Then we can connect the camera to a satellite uplink and a GPS that will alert the police when the weapon is fired transmitting a location to the scene.

When the location is confirmed, a drone aircraft can be dispached that will fly to the scene and scoop up the malefactor and transport him to jail.

The technology already exists to do that:



I better include this: :sarcasm:

that maybe we could require all new guns to shoot backward so as to kill the shooter.

:sarcasm:

Of course we would have to pass a law requiring those who abuse drugs, are mentally unstable, have been convicted of a felony, have a history of violence or may have any of those problems in the future to use ONLY this type of firearm. I'm sure they'll go along with it out of their innate sense of civic duty.

And just in case: :sarcasm: You just never know when the galactically obtuse will be online. :bounce: :D

The "logic" employed by the pro-control movement is capable of producing multiple dumbgasms multiple time a day.

The "logic" employed by the pro-control movement is capable of producing multiple dumbgasms multiple time a day.

I was simply playing loose with language.

Any contributions to make on this thread, "smart man"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x316554

and lacks the knowledge to post anything of substance on this issue.

:rofl:

Idiots...

I would bet that pulling the firing pin out and pounding it against anything hard would deform away the numbers.

I don't think it would even make it illegal to remove the micro stamp numbers. You could legally file off the numbers.

Completely shutting down retail sales of new guns and ammo would be the way to stand up against proliferation.

I thought you might favor an incremental approach to your idea. I guess you are smart enough to realize that most other states would never pass such a stupid law.

Even if such a law passed on the federal level, there are by estimates 300 million firearms in our country that wouldn't have this technology. Plenty of other countries would also be willing to smuggle firearms into our nation to meet the criminal demand. If you can smuggle tons of marijuana across our border, firearms would be easy.

I think we both would like to reduce violent crime caused by firearms. I believe we also would like to see the proliferation of firearms decrease.

My approach is to focus gun control on criminals and gangs that misuse them to cause tragedy. I also would like to see many drugs legalized to remove much of the profit motive from smuggling. Prohibition and bans have rarely succeeded and often exacerbate the problem.

If we reduce the level of violence in our country caused by criminals and gang members fighting over turf we may reach a tipping point where only target shooters, hunters and collectors will feel a need to spend money on firearms.

I grew up in the 50s and 60s and few people except for hunters and competitive target shooters owned firearms. We left the doors to our house unlocked and often left the keys to our cars in the ignition. Focusing our efforts on gun control toward those who MISUSE firearms rather than honest owners might return us to those days.

It sounds so absurd when we say it out loud.

firearms can be used for many legitimate purposes including hunting, target shooting and collecting.

If we lived in a society that the overwhelming majority of firearms owners would own their guns for these reasons rather than self defense, wouldn't that better.

I should also mention that it is necessary for hunters to practice target shooting to become proficient with their hunting weapon to avoid unnecessary pain and suffering to the game they hunt.

Not to protect hunters or target shooters or collectors.

Obsolete now on its face. The American Civil War has already been fought. Never again.

we definitely do not need another civil war.

However the issue of federal government vs state government is far from over.



I expect that these efforts will fail without bloodshed. But if the the ideas you constantly propose were ever to be enacted by the federal government, there likely would be a serious problem in many states which might lead to states seceding and a potential civil war.

I don't think that the resulting bloodshed is anything either of us would look forward to. The winner would be irrelevant.

It's never a good idea to poke a stick into a hornet's nest.

Is the nation better or worse off for the federal government's compelling racial integration?

State's rights is just code for rejecting progress.

None of the Constitution has expiration dates.

Any 13 states can block an attempt to repeal it. Since there are now 41 states that are shall-issue, I think it is safe to assume that at least 13 of them would refuse to ratify a repeal of the 2nd.

But it's still authoritarian crap.

Those dragged kicking and screaming into modernity, that is.

Forced racial integration was an experiment in social engineering that produced mixed results.

It perpetuated segregation into the mid 20th century, until reversed by Brown v. Board of Eduction of Topeka.

The United States Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution to either lead or retard progress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson

The plaintiffs were parents of a little girl, who wanted for their daughter to be allowed to go to a school that was a few blocks away from their home rather than being forced to go across town to the school for black children. Forced busing as a solution to forced busing. ;-) That created school populations of mixed race. It gave students more opportunity to interact with people of different skin color, but it did nothing to integrate the neighborhoods, and most parents and kids hate it.

My cousin and his wife are both 1/4 Cherokee, therefore so are their children. They leveraged that fact to keep their sons in schools close to their home.

A long time having elapsed from the end of slavery to get to that point.

The Court is dragging its feet in the same way on the 2nd Amendment.

With your desire to have the Court restrict civil rights for all.

Separate but equal was an infringement on the right of people to go to the school of their choice. The Brown decision struck down that infringement.

Heller vs. DC struck down an infringement on the rights of residents of DC.

We are at war with EastAsia. We have always been at war with EastAsia....

writings of those who penned that amendment. Heller was very through in its citations of that fact.

The frames left ample writing that show their intent. With over 40 states now being shall-issue, it is obvious that the modern view of the states is for gun-rights. Your side has lost and continues to lose. I get to have my guns and carry them concealed.

The new wave of gun rights is for open-carry.

You could always go to the police range and scoop up a 5 gallon bucket of fired brass and dump it at the scene of the crime. They will spend the next six months arresting each other.

Or there might be a resurgence in revolver sales.

New York and Maryland have required a "sample case" for their ballistic fingerprinting boondoggles for how long? They have squandered how much time and money to solve precisely ZERO crimes? Is this like the charlatan snake oil peddler who handles complaints the cure he is peddling isn't working by selling you a bigger dose?

and you tried to retrieve it by reaching across the line or using a broom to pull it back, you risked the ire of the range master who would to put it politely, chew your ass.

But if you waited until he was occupied at the counter with a customer, you could grab your brass and other brass.

Obviously, you could use this brass to leave at a scene to confuse the police or sell it on the street to someone who planned to commit a crime.

As you point out, revolvers do not eject brass. They may be considered to be outdated technology to some, but they kill just as well as a semi-auto pistol.

...or possibly the year before, but either way, there has actually been ONE crime solved. Well worth the millions of dollars and thousands of police man-hours expended.

The police brass trick probably won't work because legislation like this tends to have an exemption for law enforcement written in, for no satisfactorily explained reason.

thousands of hours of police time?

Maybe we ought to target criminals rather than honest citizens.

I recalled that the Maryland State Police wrote a report critical of the program and asking the Maryland General Assembly to disband it, since it was expensive and had not contributed to solving a single crime. They also argued that scarce resources, manpower and funding devoted to the database could be used more effectively elswhere.

Subsequently, as you pointed out, the database did provide evidence used to obtain one murder conviction at an estimated cost of 2.6 million per conviction.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19876-2005Apr1.html

In real life the felon uses a stolen gun, and dumps it after he shoots it. If he is really fortunate he can go to a gun buy-back where it will be melted down.

Nothing connects the micro-stamping to him.

and those who favor firearm ownership would work together, we might successfully reduce firearm violent crime in our nation. Instead those who oppose firearms keep trying to pass "feel good" laws which will do nothing but cost money and waste the time of law enforcement. Those that believe in RKBA often believe that those who oppose gun ownership are socialists who only want to ban firearms and overturn the Constitution. They often fear the government without proof or reason.

We play in a political environment that resembles a football game. Both sides are interested only in winning the game. It matters not what the issue is. Both sides promote hatred without facts or commonsense. The name of the game is propaganda and fear.

For the future of our country we need to find common ground on many issues. Gun control and crime control is possibly the simplest issue we face but both sides of the issue face off like the Steelers playing the Browns.

Politicians play the game and appeal to their base without any consideration to the future of our county. Nothing ever gets solved and at the best we end up with law that only benefits only the big corporations. We are all in the same boat and we are trying to get to the other shore. If we all row together we will reach our goal, but if some of us refuse to row and some drill holes in the bottom of the boat we will at the best go in circles.

What I'm talking about is far deeper than gun control. It really doesn't matter. Healthcare, taxes, employment and immigration reform are all suffering from this idiotic "win at all costs" approach. Compromise appears dead.

Our future is grim unless we can realize that we need to all work together. We elect people to represent us and we trust that they will be honest and responsible and make a serious effort to improve our country for the sake of every citizen. All too often they fail us because of greed and the appeal of power.

I shouldn't be surprised. The great American experiment will probably end in failure as in history the rich and powerful always win in the end. I've watched the demise of the middle class in my lifetime and I've also watched the level of education decline to the point that a high school graduate in the sixties has almost as much education as a college graduate today. I suspect that the rich and powerful really don't want the middle and lower classes to be well educated as it threatens them and their offspring.

We are entering a modern feudal society where the lords and the royalty of corporations and the rich are in charge and the mere citizen is fulfilling the role of a serf or wage slave. We receive crumbs while the ruling elite eat cake protected by those we elect who are supposed to represent us. The banks get the bailouts while we lose our homes. The big corporations use illegal immigrants as modern day slaves to make enormous profits while our government refuses to develop a fair and reasonable immigration policy.

But I still have hope. I voted for Obama and change. I may have made a mistake but I still have confidence. Obama faces a daunting task but in reality I feel he is a far better President than Bush the Junior. I seriously believe he has far more compassion for the middle and lower classes of our country. I also believe that he has a realistic approach to gun control and crime and will support many of the ideas I believe in. His biggest problem may be to overcome the propaganda machine led by Fox News.

I realize that this is a long answer to a post that really had little to do with my reply. Perhaps it's just a bad day and I need to vent. I just heard that a friend is having his house foreclosed on despite his attempts to get some relief from the government. He is currently working three jobs to try to meet his financial obligations. His wife has just discovered she is pregnant and while she has been attempting to find work this will probably eliminate any chances she had.

The bankers who are "too big to fail" will survive. My acquaintance will go under. That sucks.

MICROSTAMPING

Background: Microstamping is a proposed means for imprinting unique serial numbers onto cartridges fired from a gun. Similar to “ballistic fingerprinting,” it allegedly helps police identify what firearm might have been used in a crime. Microstamping uses precision equipment to remove microscopic amounts of metal from the tip of the firing pin

Myth: Independent testing by forensic technologists shows the technology is reliable
Fact: Firing pins are readily removable and swappable in most models of handguns, and inexpensive replacement parts. Criminals who file down serial numbers on the sides of guns won’t hesitate to file or exchange firing pins.
Fact: 46% of impressions ranked as “unsatisfactory” (i.e., illegible) after only ten rounds.1 Myth: Filing the firing pin will make the gun inoperable
Fact: Firing pins are designed to be pushed deeply into the primer (igniter) of the round. The depth of the engraving (approximately 0.005 inch)2 is vastly smaller than the tolerance of the firing pins drive depth.
Fact: In a test, the engravings were removed using a 50-year-old knife sharpening stone in less than a minute. The firearm still operated correctly after the filing.3
Fact: Even if a criminal does not file down the firing pin, they might retrieve spent cartridges. If they use a revolver, the cartridges stay with the firearm and are rarely recovered by police.

Myth: The cost per firearm will be cheap
Fact: The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the representative for firearm manufactures, estimates the cost will be upwards of $150 per firearm, more than tripling the price of self- protection and making it unaffordable for low-income people.4 The Brady Campaign dispute those with firearm manufacturing experience claiming micro-stamping would cost only 50¢?

Myth: The numbers will let police find the gun’s owner
Fact: Most crime guns are stolen property, 5 which makes finding the original owner worthless.

1 “NanoTagTM Markings From Another Perspective”, George G. Krivosta, Suffolk County Crime Laboratory, Hauppauge, New York, Winter 2006 edition of the AFTE Journal
Micro stamped Serial Number
2 Ibid
3 Ibid
4 “Etched bullets interest law enforcement”, The Record, September 25, 2006
5 “Armed and Considered Dangerous”, U.S. Department of Justice, 1986

They probably are, but if not and know one makes such a gun what will the police do?

The Clinton Justice Department forced Smith & Wesson to make design changes under the threat of canceling all Federal agency contracts. Among these were: limiting magazine capacity to under 10 rounds, magazine disconnects that would keep the pistol from firing with the magazine removed, and integral locks among others.

Notably, the very same Justice Department specified these features be REMOVED from all the S&W pistols they purchased. Similarly, every proposed regulation concerning the yet-to be-developed "smart guns" specifically exempts law enforcement agencies.

That is particularly telling as the gun control proponents justify mandating "smart guns" by arguing how it would prevent cops being shot by guns snatched away from them. Ironic how they exempt the very population they claim would most benefit from their restrictions.

Going all the way back to Homer Cummings, the goal of the gun control movement, under all its various incarnations and name changes has been the complete elimination of civilian firearms ownership. It is part of the charters of the HCI, VPC and all their various offshoots. Any statement they make to the contrary is suspect and will always elicit this question from me.

"Were y'all lying then or are you lying now?

How good would that microstamping look after 10,000 rounds?

How about after 100 cleanings?

How hard would it be to bypass? Buff the end of the firing pin?

Pointless and expensive... Let's do it!

Is there an exception for state agencies?

If there is, and I were a manufacturer, I would simply inform them that I would not be selling retail in their state, and I am not tooling up just to provide the state of NY with firearms. Have a nice day.


The state (the same entity in whose hands the anti RKBA folks want to put the control of guns) LOVES guns. I would like to see more of the manufacturers stand up and say "look, if you don't trust people with them, I don't trust you." Lack of trusting someone with something, I think, is a fair indicator that the person/group doesn't think that they, themselves, ought to be trusted. Follow their lead, and don't sell. Easy.

"Both A6468C and S6005 require that semiautomatic pistols manufactured or delivered to any licensed dealer in the state of New York be capable of micro-stamping ammunition and establish fines for violations of this requirement."


What about revolvers, what about the (OMFG!!1!) 1,000's of 24/7 driveby's with AK-47's?


Attica! Attica!