The following post is by CDFingers.
Disclaimer: Blog posts do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the LGC, the LGOA, and their minions, nor do the blogs necessarily reflect the opinions of LGC members, their families, or of the mildew in anonymous showers. That should about cover it.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Existing and Better Than Microstamping
We know microstamping laws exist in California (thank you Gov. Schwarzenegger).  And microstamping laws have been proposed in several other states. Many gun owners do not like them, Sam I Am.”Not liking” them is not enough. The laws must be strongly attacked with unassailable facts.  Ruger CEO Mike Fifer discussed microstamping laws with guns.com. “We’re being forced out of the state by the California Department of Justice,” explained Fifer. “This insistence on microstamping, which doesn’t work, is denying you your rights to have access to these guns.”We know microstamping laws require retooling at the manufacturer’s. This costs money. The cost, of course, is passed on to the gun buyer. We could view this as an attack on the 99%, raising costs of newer guns up beyond their reach. But that is a values-based stance. It is good, but it is not strong enough.The better argument about costs is to show that microstamping laws duplicate existing efforts and thus should be opposed as an inefficient and unconstitutional use of tax payer dollars. Bite that, Congress.We already have the “National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN).”  This is what it is:

To use NIBIN, firearms examiners or technicians enter cartridge casing evidence into the Integrated Ballistic Identification System. These images are correlated against the database. Law enforcement can search against evidence from their jurisdiction, neighboring ones, and others across the country. This program is one investigative tool accessed by law enforcement that allows each of us to share information and cooperation easily making all of us more effective in closing cases. …A NIBIN hit typically starts with fired ammunition components recovered from a shooting scene.

Gun owners know how easy it is to remove a firing pin. Imagine if an unscrupulous American sought to replace a worn out firing pin with one that did not have a micro stamp? Easy peasy. The microstamping law is inadvertently :roflmao: circumvented. This of course makes completely worthless all the expensive retooling that had to be done, all the new records that had to be invented, all the expended political hot air–and so on.

A recently-corrected article on California’s microstamping law found that “[c]odes engraved on the face of the firing pin could easily be removed with household tools.”

The NIBIN pictures of crime scene cases and bullets show marks left by more than one piece of the firearm. While it’s possible to alter or replace all those parts, that could be cost prohibitive, which acts as a deterrent against an attempt to circumvent the process.

To show that new microstamping laws will not be cost effective is a good, facts-based argument. Moreover, to show that existing microstamping laws are not cost effective as well is a second strategy.

Check that: these laws are not cost-effective because they are easily circumvented, rendering any taxpayer money WASTED that was invested in the technologies.

Despite all the TV crime shows that spread disinformation, forensic micro-tools are arts, rather than sciences. One forensic tool that has a true scientific basis is DNA. Guns don’t have DNA.

The first question about microstamping that never seems to get asked is, “How many crimes does it solve, compared to the cost to the public?”

There is another existing program in addition to NIBIN. It’s IBIS:

Currently, ATF is utilizing a unique ballistic comparison system that allows technicians to digitize and automatically sort bullet and shell casing signatures and aids in providing matches at a greatly accelerated rate. The equipment expeditiously provides investigators with leads to solve greater numbers of crimes in a shorter period of time.
The Integrated Ballistic Identification System (IBIS) provides a single system capable of comparing both types of ballistic evidence found at crime scenes. This integrated and automated imaging system permits a technician to enter and review large numbers of fired bullets and expended cartridge cases and crossreference hits made from each system for examination by a firearms examiner. Statistics collected by ATF’s National Tracing Center (NTC) indicate that revolvers and semiautomatic firearms are traced with nearly equal frequency by law enforcement agencies.The ballistic comparison of crime scene bullet or cartridge casing evidence can be automatically compared with other bullet or cartridge casing images previously entered into the system. The ballistic comparison system does not positively identify (match) bullets or casings fired from the same weapon — that must be done by a firearms examiner. However, the system does produce a short list of candidates for the match.

It appears these systems do what gun owners “think” they should do: catch criminals by using evidence from crime scenes.

As yet, we have uncovered exactly zero evidence that microstamping in California has solved any crimes, but it has probably made profits for a few people paid with taxpayer dollars.

McDonald v. Chicago incorporated the Second Amendment against the states. A duplicate program that increases costs infringes upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for the 99%. Sam I Am does not like that, either, because it’s unconstitutional.

IBIS and NIBIN focus on crime scene evidence and do not raise the cost of products to consumers. States should use these programs and refuse further to waste taxpayer dollars by inventing the Department of Redundancy Bureau.

Argue against microstamping with facts and laws. It’s the Liberal thing to do.

_____________________________________________

Discuss on the LGC forums here!