Blocking Gun Laws With Patents?

[herebyproxy]

California isn't broke enough....they have to create a new government department for this ridiculous requirement. I am against anything remotely negative concerning the second amendment and as a gun owner everyone else should too

You people do realize if Obama gets a second term the second amandment will be on his agenda for dismantlement. If you don't believe that you have been living in a cave........(Fast and Furious)

 

[Patronus]

So, like if you buy a firing pin from Cheaper than Dirt, Brownells, MidwayUSA, etc... will they ALL come with microstamping?

And is the pin registered to the gun so that if they find the brass at the scene they can run the stamp ID and get the gun info? If so would the new pins have to go to an FFL for paperwork transfers? And if I bought a hundred or so pins and resold them would that be a "straw purchase"? And wouldn't filing the stamp off the pin prevent them from tracking it back to the gun in that case? What if I bought some pins, put them in my dremmel and spun them against a polishing pad, removing the stamp, while making the pin tip perfeclty smooth(you know, like the MILLIONS if not BILLIONS already on the market)?

Or if the pin is only for matching the brass to the gun AFTER they find a suspect and find his gun then wouldn't standard ballistics be enough as it has been in the past? Granted that in a relatively few cases the slug is lost or too badly deformed for ballistics matching. Of course if the gun were used in a crime it would make sense to file the pin AFTER the crime in this case as well as after to alter it's signature so it won't match the evidence.

Personally, I think with the possible evidence of:

fingerprints from the brass;
ballistics;
possible eye-witness accounts;
potential camera footage;
personal connection between victim and perpetrator;
Various other forensic and trace evidence

There are MANY clues that are legally available to law enforcement. To FURTHER violate our constitutional rights only to add a HIGHLY questionable SLIGHTLY possible, easily overcome layer of "evidence" seems a tad over the top to me. But hey, that's just me talking.

 

[WMSproject]

If they decide to pass this crap then just buy a dozen or so firing pins. Would the firing pins then be registered instead of the receiver?

 

[Laxguy59]

At least gun owners will know where their stolen guns went. I'm sure the gang bangers have been really troubled by magazine bans and bullet buttons since they would hate to commit an additional crime with their stolen gun while they rob/shoot/rape someone

 

[Bulldawg165]

It's quite an infringement, the "Big Brother" sort. Plus, buddy, if you go to a range and fail to pick up all your brass, what stops me from taking some, creating a crime scene through armed robbery or whatever, and dropping your shell casings? Suddenly you're guilty until proven innocent, as proof says you were there.

I'm not your buddy. I don't know you and you don't know me, so drop the arrogant and rude tone.

To rebut your question, what's to stop you from doing that now? My fingerprints would be on that brass too and since I have my CWP then my fingerprints are in the database. It would be the exact same thing... Great example though, buddy.

 

[Laxguy59]

I can agree with this to an extent. There are definitely crimes that this wouldn't help solve but there are plenty of others that this actually could help with. For example, if the gun has only had 2-3 owners or less then it wouldn't be hard to track it from the original buyer to who he/she sold it to, who they sold it to, etc. This wouldn't work for all crimes of course because the gun could've been stolen, had transferred hands too many times, etc., but anything that assists in locking up people who misuse firearms while essentially leaving law abiding citizens alone is alright with me.




They aren't doing anything to infringe on your right to bear arms...

In cali all gun sales go through an ffl, if you have a gun and you're not supposed to this system won't find you and nor will the registry.

 

[JWC]

Let's take a different look at microstamping. The company that makes the gun will now have to buy the materials to microstamp. Then have to create the process of actually putting those materials on the gun. That process would require an additional inspection stop, and would require paperwork to register the microstamp with the Feds. This process would be very costly and time consuming. The process would drive the cost of guns up. The other implications microstamping have been stated already. I am not in favor of it because I can see no clear benefit from it. Could it help in certain situations? Maybe. But I feel the vast majority of crimes that involve a gun, would not be solved any faster with this process. Plus other reasons already stated. Just my two cents.

 

[Fatal_Bert]

Let's take a different look at microstamping. The company that makes the gun will now have to buy the materials to microstamp. Then have to create the process of actually putting those materials on the gun. That process would require an additional inspection stop, and would require paperwork to register the microstamp with the Feds. This process would be very costly and time consuming. The process would drive the cost of guns up. The other implications microstamping have been stated already. I am not in favor of it because I can see no clear benefit from it. Could it help in certain situations? Maybe. But I feel the vast majority of crimes that involve a gun, would not be solved any faster with this process. Just my two cents.

exactly, and this is there agenda, to continually drive up the prices for us to enjoy are sport.there's enough useless and invasive gun control laws on the books we need to get rid of, not add more too.

 

[Billrube]

Let's take a different look at microstamping. The company that makes the gun will now have to buy the materials to microstamp. Then have to create the process of actually putting those materials on the gun. That process would require an additional inspection stop, and would require paperwork to register the microstamp with the Feds. This process would be very costly and time consuming. The process would drive the cost of guns up. The other implications microstamping have been stated already. I am not in favor of it because I can see no clear benefit from it. Could it help in certain situations? Maybe. But I feel the vast majority of crimes that involve a gun, would not be solved any faster with this process. Plus other reasons already stated. Just my two cents.

You hit the nail on the head. You have to look at the end goal: Removing guns from the population-that's the goal. If nobody's got them criminals cant get them right?
But the killer is in the cost...EVERYTHING will have to be re-tooled...the manufactures won't be able to afford two separate processes...they will have to change over completely to this 'microstamp' system; the problem is as JWC stated, the cost of manufacturing will skyrocket. We will see larger gun companies buy smaller ones, (reducing competition) and smaller ones go out of business. The larger ones will have to pass along the cost of the new process to everyone.
So what does this mean? Either they change over for California requirements and prices go up for EVERY purchaser or the manufacturers stop selling guns in California. (if they set up a separate process for cali only and don't spread the cost out throughout the whole country, it will cost a grand just to buy a high point--and people in cali will stop buying) That's too risky for the investment. Either they go all out and pass the cost to everyone or they stop selling in Cali and concentrate elsewhere.
These microstamping plans are just like the crazy requirements in some states for carry licensing. They intend to make it so difficult and so expensive that most gun owners will finally stop purchasing.
This way, the government is not "infringing" on anyone's rights, just making things "safer" for the public. The Cali government will have an open ended campaign decrying the gun manufactures as not wanting to participate in "common sense" gun laws.
Cali has got some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Each step they cried "this will make it safer and keep guns out of the hands of criminals". Step by step. Restriction by restriction. And it's never enough restrictions. Not speculating here--not "fear mongering" just look at their gun laws/gun control history and you can see for yourself.

 

[JWC]

Billrube, thank you for stating, in more detail, what I was attempting to say. The average Joe gun buyer, like me, can afford to buy a $350 to $500 gun. And there are alot of average Joe gun buyers out there. However, once that entry level gun goes up in price to say $625 to $800, that limits the number of average Joe's who can purchase that gun. Gun libs want to limit the number of people who own guns. They are not short sighted and they know that higher prices will ultimately result in fewer guns sold, therefore fewer Americans will own guns legally. Look, I am all for solving crimes that involve guns. Everyone is. But this, in my opinion, will never result in solving more crimes, just making it more difficult to own guns. Again, just my two cents.