Forgot your password?

typodupeerror
Crime Government Patents

Blocking Gun Laws With Patents 1165

Posted by Soulskill
from the patent-attorneys-are-mightier-than-the-sword dept.
New submitter robkeeney writes "Legislators in several states are working on laws that would require certain gun manufacturers to implement 'microstamping' to help law enforcement solve gun crimes. 'Lasers engrave a unique microscopic numeric code on the tip of a gun’s firing pin and breech face. When the gun is fired, the pressure transfers markings to the shell casing and the primer. By reading the code imprinted on casings found at a crime scene, police officers can identify the gun and track it to the purchaser, even when the weapon is not recovered.' As with any gun-related legislation, many people oppose these new laws. In California, a law passed in 2007 requires that when microstamping (which is easily defeat-able) is no longer patent encumbered, all new guns in CA must use it. To fight it, an organization called the Calguns Foundation paid a fee to extend the patent in order to prevent the law from going into effect."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Blocking Gun Laws With Patents

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 13, 2012 @06:19PM (#40315531)

    Not only can you just file/sandpaper the tip of the firing pin, I personally know a forensic scientist who did a Master's Thesis on this very subject, and in his research and testing, he found that the serial numbers wear down enough in just a few shots that they aren't readable on the primers any more. Combine that with widely varying degrees of hardness of different brands of primers (some take a good print, some don't), and it's a totally unreliable way identify which firearm shot the round. The people who push this technology in the political arena hope to make tons of money on it (they own the businesses that make the products). The tech sounds good in theory, but in practice, it simply doesn't work.

  • by livewire98801 (916940) on Wednesday June 13, 2012 @06:29PM (#40315665)

    File the firing pin? Good luck getting the gun to fire reliably after that.

    The amount of filing required is far less than the tolerances for getting the round to fire. Actually, one of the biggest critiques of this law is that a few magazines into the gun's life does all the "filing" you need.

  • by IndustrialComplex (975015) on Wednesday June 13, 2012 @06:41PM (#40315791)

    It may not be obvious now, but whenever you deal with firearms, it is inconvenient.

    There is NO room for error when dealing with firearms laws. If I'm late on getting my car's registration renewed, I can get hit with a $25 fine.

    If I am late on getting that pistol that sits in a locked box in the back of my closet and hasn't been opened in 2 years renewed... I can be charged with a LOT of crimes which carry VERY stiff penalties. (which ones, I don't know... but I'm sure I wouldn't like it)

    The point is, whenever there is a compliance law relating to firearms, you have to be absolutely anal retentive about getting EVERYTHING PERFECT. Even if you think you got everything right, what if you didn't and you end up somehow carrying an 'illegal' firearm and get subject to minimum sentencing laws?

    With this stamping technology, what happens if I need to change a component in my firearm? Will I be able to do it the old fashioned way and just replace the part myself, or will I have to take it to a repair shop specifically licensed to do the work and then re-register with the police?

    The point being, with the extreme penalties surrounding firearms, even simple laws makes people trying to follow the law have to take more care than most would believe. Hell, I've asked some cop friends and they admit that it's hard to be 100% legal.

  • by Scutter (18425) on Wednesday June 13, 2012 @07:16PM (#40316191) Journal

    If you're not planning on using the gun illegally, then why would you care if the gun has identifiable parts/imprintings/etc.? I'm all for allowing people to legally own guns. I'm not all for allowing people to try and hide traces of their usage.

    Because when the firing pin has to be replaced (and it will, because it's a consumable item), you go from a $2 part to a $150 part. Furthermore, any criminal is going to file the number off the firing pin almost immediately. The law will do nothing to prosecute crime while at the same time making firearm ownership prohibitively expensive. It's yet another in a long line of back-alley legislation to infringe the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

  • Re:Damn! (Score:5, Informative)

    by shutdown -p now (807394) on Wednesday June 13, 2012 @07:45PM (#40316523) Journal

    Breivik actually wielded legally obtained [wikipedia.org], registered guns. Which is to say, Norway was certainly not "so unbelievably mild, that no one was allowed to have a gun".

  • Re:Damn! (Score:5, Informative)

    by furball (2853) on Wednesday June 13, 2012 @07:59PM (#40316697) Journal

    > I just pick up brass at the police range and reload it when I murder people.

    The stamping is going to be on the primer. If you're reloading, you'll end up popping the old primer out anyway.

  • Re:Guns (Score:5, Informative)

    by pla (258480) on Wednesday June 13, 2012 @08:15PM (#40316893) Journal
    Are you telling seriously than more than 50% of the population can build a gun that won't explode in their hands / fail to shot / shot when not intended to do so? Not to mention the case expulsion / bullet replacement mechanism

    Google "zip gun".

    Really... Go do it. Now.

    You can fire a .22 with a Bic pen case, a rubber band, and a nail. And yes, you have a good chance of getting somewhat injured, but y'know what, 90% of the time, the damned thing will actually work.
  • Re:Damn! (Score:5, Informative)

    by A nonymous Coward (7548) on Wednesday June 13, 2012 @08:52PM (#40317319)

    It has happened. A parishioner at a church stopped a madman before he did much damage. Someone in Utah at a mall brought down the killer before the cops showed up. Of course, those don't make the big news because they are so ... distasteful ... to the hoplophobes, don't make for nearly as scary headlines, and provide almost no scary followup headlines which the increasing death toll, trial, appeals, punishment, and survivor interviews do. The news media is in the business of selling ads to news readers, so no news is not news.

  • Fatality rates (Score:5, Informative)

    by wonderboss (952111) on Wednesday June 13, 2012 @08:53PM (#40317327)

    In 2009 there were 33,808 deaths in the US from auto accidents.
    In 2009 there were 31,347 deaths in the US from firearms.

    The firearm deaths include
    homicides 11,493
    suicides 18,735
    legal intervention 333 (gotta love the CDC's terminology).
    unintentional 554 (I guess that's CDC speak for accidental).

    I couldn't find data on the leading cause of fatal car accidents, but
    for all car accidents the leading causes are:
    1. Distracted Driving
    2. Speeding
    3. Drunk Driving
    4. Reckless Driving
    5. Rain
    6. Running Red Lights
    7. Running Stop Signs (seems like 6&7 should be combined)
    8. Teenage Drivers
    The list goes on.

    Number one cause of distracted driving?
    Nope.
    Kids in the car.

  • Re:Damn! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Lehk228 (705449) on Wednesday June 13, 2012 @09:40PM (#40317751) Journal
    New York just Terminated it's COBIS program, because it was a waste of fucking money that solved exactly 0 cases between 2001 when it started and march 2012 when terminated.
  • by shutdown -p now (807394) on Wednesday June 13, 2012 @10:24PM (#40318051) Journal

    I'm not an American, either, but the US Constitution is written in plain English and accessible to anyone who wants to read it.

    Anyway, the standing interpretation - which is what ultimately matters - is as follows (per DC v Heller):

    "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. "

    However:

    "The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."

    So e.g. bans on fully automatic firearms (and Predator drones and motorcycle mounted chainguns) are reasonable, while bans on widely used self-defense, hunting or sporting guns, such as your typical handgun or semi-auto rifle, are not.

  • Re:Damn! (Score:4, Informative)

    by couchslug (175151) on Thursday June 14, 2012 @12:05AM (#40318875)

    "I got my first gun back when most Americans, and most conservative Americans, rightly believed that the Second Amendment was not about personal gun-toting at all."

    Constitutional scholars have disposed of your asserted conclusion.

    http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html [guncite.com]

  • Re:Damn! (Score:5, Informative)

    by 1u3hr (530656) on Thursday June 14, 2012 @12:12AM (#40318923)

    That's my vote. Make it annoying to carry (it already pretty much is) and law abiding citizens will just not do it.

    Okay, just how is having a microscopic pattern on a fining pin "annoying" to the end user? He won't know or care, unless he kills someone.

  • Re:Damn! (Score:5, Informative)

    by 1u3hr (530656) on Thursday June 14, 2012 @12:17AM (#40318979)

    It will be the legal owner, who may not even know that his gun was stolen, who will have his door kicked in.

    If someone has a gun stolen and they don't notice or report it, they probably deserve to have their door kicked in. They're responsible for it. Police aren't complete idiots anyway, if it's a suburban dad registered to a gun and the killing was drug related a thousand miles away, they will probably knock rather than kick the door down.

  • Re:Damn! (Score:4, Informative)

    by semi-extrinsic (1997002) <asmunder@stud.ntCOLAnu.no minus caffeine> on Thursday June 14, 2012 @08:11AM (#40321101)
    Coming from a country where the sale and ownership of firearms is very restricted, I would argue that guns are pretty much worthless. In my country, it is a 99.99% sure thing that unless you're dealing with Russian mafia, people won't have guns. Even when there are gang/mob related incidents such as killing rival gang leaders, they use baseball bats and iron pipes. Makes sense, as it is much easier to explain why you have a baseball bat than a 9mm.

    Now, you could argue that blunt weapons are no better than guns, but I haven't heard of anyone accidentally kill someone with a baseball bat. Or shoot themselves in the foot with one. You could also argue that it would be easy for the first gangmember to start carrying guns, and then everyone will, but this is a slippery slope argument. Why don't criminals in the US all carry M60s, seeing as they're much better than handguns? Oh, that's right, because the sale and ownership of M60s is very restricted.* Go back to beginning of this post.

    So yes, in a country where criminals don't carry guns, I would meet you in a dark alley, but I might bring a few friends who are going to play some baseball later in the evening.

    *: I know it is technically legal for a civilian in the US to own an M60, but you would have to acquire a "transferrable" example, i.e. one manufactured prior to 1986 which is still in working order and hasn't had the receiver replaced. This will cost you upwards of $50 000. I call this severly restricted, partly by law and partly by free market economics.

"We are on the verge: Today our program proved Fermat's next-to-last theorem." -- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982

Working...