Rep. Young Pushes Microstamping in Wisconsin

Only someone ignorant of gun technology and human behavior would push something like this - not to mention the other implications.

Rep. Leon Young (D-Milwaukee) has introduced legislation that would require semi-automatic handguns manufactured after Jan. 1, 2011 sold in Wisconsin to feature microstamping technology. This technology is an enormous advancement in ballistic identification from what law enforcement currently use.

[...]

Microstamping technology uses lasers to make precise and specific etchings on the internal mechanisms of the gun. When the gun is fired, a unique alpha-numeric code is intentionally stamped onto the cartridge and is used to identify the make, model, and serial number of the gun. Current technology relies on unintentional markings left on the casing when the gun is fired and do not directly lead law enforcement to a specific gun.

First, let’s take a look at the reality of something like this if it is implimented…. it’s worthless as a crime-fighting tool.  There are already hundreds of millions of guns in circulation without this and a properly maintained gun can last for centuries.  I have several guns that are quite a bit older than I am and they work great.  Also, as a state law, people could still buy guns from out of state where this doesn’t apply.  Furthermore, it takes all of about three seconds to sand off the firing pin or put a coating on it to disable the microstamping.  Not to mention that the whole issue can be avoided by a crook by merely using a revolver or taking a second to clean up the scene.  As I said, this is worthless as a law enforcement item.

But consider the larger implications of the proposal.  Information like the serial number of a gun is useless without knowing who owns the gun.  As it stands, if law enforcement happened to find a microstamped shell casing, all it would tell them is where the gun was originally sold.  They would then have to track the trail of ownership.  I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that if this is passed, the next proposal down the road will be for all gun owners to register their guns with the government so that law enforcement can look up the current owner of the gun. 

This bill is nothing more than a means to an end. 

1. Pretty soon you’ll get a comment from some Anonymous who claims that this is the best thing ever for those of us who believe in the 2A.

   That’s right:  the Anony likes microstamping…he can’t really explain it too well, but ‘it’s really a GOOD thing.’

   Posted by dad29 on March 31, 2009 at 1908 hrs




2. When I first read this post’s title, I thought you were going to talk about microstamping for people. 

   Of course, that might actually help when it comes to solving crimes.

   Posted by David Casper on March 31, 2009 at 2005 hrs




3. Law abiding gun owners would not have anything to worry about.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 31, 2009 at 2323 hrs




4. Wrong. If your gun was stolen and used to commit a crime - guess how fast you’d be sitting in jail?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2009 at 0700 hrs




5. Law abiding gun owners would not have anything to worry about

   Except of course for the price of the guns which will have go up to implement the law.  The law which will be of ZERO help.

   Posted by Deibert on April 01, 2009 at 0810 hrs




6. Nothing like a non-gun owner imposing his will on actual gun owners.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2009 at 0911 hrs




7. MoveForward…

   Non-terrorists have nothing to worry about if the government is listening in on their phone conversations, right?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2009 at 0912 hrs




8. Every time I see new gun legislation proposed I shake my head.  The existing suite of gun laws are theoretically very effective and do not require much supplimentation. 

   What they require is effective enforcement.  Straw purchasing, firearm use by criminals (almost certainly felons who should not be able to possess them to begin with) are already illegal. 

   The great fallacy is the beliefe that because you create a new law it will alter behavior.  Voluntary behavioral change generally only works on the already law abiding citizen - not the ones who are committing the crimes.

   With the possible exception of statistics that show domestic violence homicides are higher in DV households that have guns there is little discussion of evidence suggesting any of the existing laws have actually impacted violent crime.

   (Ironically a high percentage of these DV homicides are committed by women, suggesting the firearm was used by them to defend themself against a male abuser - but that is another argument entirely.)

   The noteable exception here being “ceasfire” programs sponsored by the Fed where they adopt felon in possession cases and charge them federally.  Amazing that a program that targets an offender actually works versus a program that targets everyone, law abiders included.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2009 at 1046 hrs




9. Non-terrorists have nothing to worry about if the government is listening in on their phone conversations, right?

   Exactly!! Just wanted to point out the hypocrisy of the argument.

   You are willing to take away someone elses freedom but not willing to give up one of your own, no matter how miniscule.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2009 at 1108 hrs




10. I don’t know why people argue with idiots like MoveForward.  It won’t understand the argument, and it can only parrot talking points.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2009 at 1400 hrs




11. Nothing like a non-uterus owner imposing his will on actual uterus owners.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2009 at 1716 hrs




12. Let me guess: This was a recent plot on CIS or Law and Order.

    Off-topic Jo, if it were left up to uterus owners, abortion would be illegal.

    Too bad they can’t all be rounded up, put to a vote, and let the country make of it what it will.

    Posted by tee bee on April 01, 2009 at 2002 hrs




13. The gun banners and freedom haters among us will take anything they can get in the area of “gun control”.  Always keep in mind that it has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with control.  The far left moonbats, of which Rep. Young is most assuredly a part, do not like the fact that their subjects are armed.  This nothing more than an attempt to chip away at our liberty.

    Visit http://www.wisconsinpatriots.com to find out more.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2009 at 0417 hrs




14. As if criminals walk into Cabela’s, Gander Mountain, or Fleet Farm for that matter, and buy guys at the counter, fill out their actual name and address, and use a real driver’s license and then wait for the FBI check to clear.

    These people are idiots.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2009 at 1238 hrs




15. I love the statement “This technology is an enormous advancement in ballistic identification from what law enforcement currently use.”  The object-verb agreement problem aside, it makes the false assumption that current ballistic fingerprinting schemes are actually used to find criminals and solve crimes.  MA has had a ballistic registry for what, a decade now and it was “used” to solve one or two crimes at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars and the loss of liberty involved in the registration scheme.

    Posted by Mike Gallo on April 02, 2009 at 1919 hrs