So... file the firing pin?
Buy a gun from outside CA and bring it in?
Laser engrave some other sod's ID?
Hold a firing pin party?

It sounds like a horrendous waste of time and money, whether you want gun control or not. Ineffective legislation is the worse of all outcomes.

Apparently the people making laws are about as proficient with firearms as they are with technology.

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

No need for extra firing pins, though; a bit of sandpaper is all that is needed to remove the microstamping. But that would be illegal, and we all know criminals wouldn't dare break the law before they go out to murder someone.

I don't believe the lawmakers could really be this retarded; there has to be some other reason they're pushing for this law (perhaps just general harassment of gun owners?).

defeated by a diamond dental burr and a Dremel.

politicians proving their worth (?) or lack thereof

The problem with guns is the technology to kill people is very primitive and simple. We've been killing each other since before we could read and write. Guns are nothing more than a device for initiating a controlled rapid exothermic reaction resulting in a propulsive force to a projectile.

Most people have the necessary tools and items required to manufacture a simple gun in their garages, propellant included. So even in the ideal case where criminals don't just file off the microprinting in a few well-placed strokes, and in this magical world every bullet fired has a 1:1 parity with a registered gun owner, the problem isn't any closer to being solved... there's still hundreds of other ways to murder people, either with guns, or gun-like devices, or even without guns. Hell, the government routinely says tazers, water cannons, and microwaving protesters is "safe", yet people still somehow wind up just as dead.

Expecting violent criminals to care about legislation like this is like expecting a terrorist to care his car bomb is taking up two parking spaces.

Ok, microstamp it. Costs to manufacturer to tool up to do that, thousands.
2 dollar file at the local Ace hardware store, file it down...defeat it, PRICELESS.

Hey idiots...instead of making NEW laws for firearms, how about ENFORCING the current ones?
IE: Fast & Furious?

Also get some hair or other random DNA from the floor of the local barber shop, nail parlor, etc.

The very idea of microstamping was never intended to assist law enforcement. It was specifically intended to target lawful gun owners to cause them harassment and extra expense and to better "track the law-abiding citizenry". I've been employed with a municipal police department for over 16 years, in a city that has more than its fair share of shootings and even random "gunfire in the night". Our forensics team has zero problems identifying shell casings using existing stereo microscopy technology to match it to a gun that fired the cartridge, but 99 times out of 100 there's no need to ever do that because regular ordinary police detective work that already solves the gun crimes is well established and quite effective. In the case of drive-by shootings in the gang areas of town, by the time the gunshots call is made to 911, the gang detectives already know who the culprits are and are ready to round them up because... well, these cops know their "clientele" pretty well from past repeat offenses.

This is just one more attempt to make law abiding citizens criminals because they exercise a right the government thinks they shouldn't have. Criminals will ignore this law and deface their illegal guns if they have this. However, it will soon become illegal to have your firing pin defaced, and with how much som people legally shoot it will become defaced through use. Once a cop decides he doesn't like you, searches your car without a warrant, finds the gun and suspect its illegal, the law abiding citizen is now a criminal.

This is merely an attempt to make those who legally exercise their second amendment rights criminals.

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

1. Your gun is stolen and used in a crime. The cops come looking for you.
2. When selling your gun to someone else, add on the cost and time of changing the micro-code registration.
3. When the paperwork for a legal sale gets lost, and the buyer uses the gun in a crime, police come looking for you.
4. When the paperwork is lost, and the new owner has his gun stolen and used in a crime, the cops come looking for you, then you finger the buyer, so double the fun and double the inconvenience for twice as many people.
5. When your "helpful" "friend" helps you police your brass at the shooting range and then drops a few casings at his next shooting, he's effectively framed you.
6. When the market for old guns explodes and it becomes harder and more expensive to buy one, it both costs money and time.
7. If you are trying to repair your gun, having to buy a new registered firing pin instead of someone's cheaper and readily available used one.

As the firing pin hits the primer, and that you don't reuse, you get a new primer to put in the case. As I said in another post a more real problem would just be people getting new firing pins. You can order them online and people do. Some AR enthusiasts like to keep an extra firing pin and bolt with them since those are the most likely things to go wrong. If they do, swap them out, go back to plinking.

Why would anyone sandpaper the casings? They'd just sandpaper the firing pin and the breech face - before heading off to kill someone.

If you don't like the 2nd, just say so openly, and campaign for its abolition. Why do you feel the urge to engage in sophistry to argue that it doesn't say something that it obviously does?

Do you have a magical box or something? How do you keep guns out of the hands of criminals? There would be a black market. The criminals are the ones you need to worry about having guns not law-abiding citizens. Also, why is banning guns from the country "the best thing"?

I see lots of "oh, it's easily defeatable" blah blah blah here.

Naturally, if one bothers to go out an look at the legislation and motivation behind this, one would find it's no different than the serial number stamp on firearms. You can't get a conviction based on micro-stamped brass at a crime scene, any more than you can get a conviction just on finding the murder weapon (complete with intact serial number stamped on the frame) at the scene. One still has to place the gun in an offender's hand (in either instance).

It's an aid to crime solving, in the same way serial numbers on the gun itself are an aid. It gives the police investigation a good place to start looking, nothing more, nothing less. It's not evidence that the owner committed the crime; one still has to prove that the owner fired the gun in question, just like you have to do with gun frame serial numbers . For the purpose it is intended to serve, microstamping the firing pin is a very good idea, and has roughly the same utility as gun frame serial numbers do. As such, it's actually a great investigative aid, given that brass is much more likely to be left at a crime scene than a gun itself, and that criminals are highly unlikely to be able to gather all expended brass, which means that at least some of the brass almost certainly comes from the weapon used in the crime.

Certainly there are ways to subvert this, but they're not much more likely than filing the serial number off a gun, and we all know how many guns used in crimes have them filed off (hint: not many). Gun crimes (like the vast majority of all crimes) are not well-planned by super-level-headed big brain geniuses that think of all possible outcomes, then coolly remember to execute everything flawlessly. Crime is sloppy by nature, with gun crimes even more so, so the utility of this goes up with the amount of sloppiness of the criminal. Hell, even "professional" mob hits are notoriously unprofessional.

Get a grip, people.

-Erik

It's because the manufacturers of the technology pay money to their campaigns and lobbyists.. The politicians that get the laws written / passed can buy stock before the law goes into effect and then sell once it's illegal to not use that company's technology. THAT is why they do it. It's profitable.

But...but... the other gun guys said that microprinting is useless because the first thing a criminal will do is erase the microprinting, so microprinting is useless. But now you're saying that microprinting is bad because criminals will steal guns and innocent gun owners will get blamed for the crime due to the microprinting.

So which is it -- are criminals smart enough to sand the microprinting off a gun before using it, or will they not bother because they use stolen guns? I can think of lots of reasons a smart criminal would erase the microprinting even from a stolen gun - so if he gets caught with the stolen gun, the microprinting doesn't tie him to other crimes with the same gun.

In reality, I think sometimes microprinting will help solve crimes, sometimes it won't. But it seems like such a small expense that it's probably worth it. Since serial numbers are already recorded in gun sales (in some (all?) states), so recording the microprinting serial number during a transaction or when reporting it stolen seems like little additional work. And the gunowner whose gun is found at a scene of a crime will get a call from the police when they trace back the serial number, just like a gunowner whose microprinting is found on shell casings found at the scene.

FTFC: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

How would an ID that links a bullet or casing to the gun that fired it infringe your right to keep and bear arms?

If the second amendment said "...right of the people to keep and bear arms *** and fire them anonymously*** shall not be infringed." then you would have a point. The second amendment does not say that, and it is not sophistry to point this out.

Why would you want gun shots to be anonymous? This is an honest question: I don't see any case where a person would want to shoot someone and deny doing it that is not horribly unethical.

Hell, I've asked some cop friends and they admit that it's hard to be 100% legal.

Which is important, in case you become inconvenient.

You can also prevent rape by cutting off the penis of every male and sewing up the vagina of every female. Just because something can be used for a crime it doesn't mean we should make it a criminal offense to own one. Guns are a tools. How you use a tool makes all the difference. Law-abiding citizens use guns for fun, hunting, and most importantly defense. Criminals use guns to murder, rape, steal, and destroy.

Its odd, how in your gun toting utopia, the USA, which has regular gun massacres, I'm aware of very few - if *any* instances of one of the concealed carry heroes actually stopping a massacres by shooting the nutter.

Probably because they realise that when push comes to shove - they aren't John Wayne (who was a draft dodging coward anyway), but rather pants pissing blowhards hiding as best as they can.

This isn't a bad thing, there's a chance of more forensic evidence from the theft, in addition to the shooting. For example, they might get a print or DNA from the break-in, which leads to an ex-con on the system, which leads to a search, which uncovers the gun (because many lowlifes won't ditch a perfectly good gun), which leads to a conviction. You're inconvenienced, but a murderer gets caught. Still a win for the good guys.

No harder than selling a car. Jesus, shouldn't you take selling a gun as seriously as selling a car?

And exactly how often do you think that chain of events will occur in the next thousand years?

He can already just pick a hair off your shoulder and do that. Without the risk of leaving his own fingerprints and DNA on the casings he picked up to frame you with. (Also without having the rifling on the slug not matching your handgun. You didn't forget about the actual shooting at the crime-scene, did you?)

Implies that the market for new guns crashes. So bargain.

You're just making up crap for the sake of being difficult. People do this all the time and it's stupid. You know why this law is bad? Because it won't work, it's too easy to file off the micro-code. That's it. Bam. You don't need to invent a pile of hysterical nonsense to object to a law. It just makes you look like a stupid old woman.

Conversely, how wouldn't it infringe? The obvious problem here is that it drives up the cost of lawful compliance both for the gun owner and the gun maker. One has to include a piece of technology which doesn't have any practical use. Remember that guns already are identifiable by their bore and firing pin marks. There's no reason to require an additional, complicated, unreliable system for marking bullets or shell casings except to vex gun owners or to provide a generous rent seeking opportunity for the suppliers of the identification technology.

Criminals as in gang member, don't. Criminals as in drunken wife beater who one day shoots his wife do.

The flaw in gun owners is that they see the world in blank and white, with the law-abiding beacons of righteousness on one side and the tattoo ridden coke pushing gang bangers on the other.

In reality, there's plenty of Joes just one more drink away from becoming news for the worst reasons.

The term you're looking for is observation bias. You don't read about the massacres that didn't happen because the bad guy got shot at.

Funny because its true. I am very happy to live in a country where guns are rarely seen or used. The american love and fascination with guns and violence seems to be simple overcompensation. I cannot think of any time in my life when I would have needed a gun. We call it being civilised. Gun nuts of course just cant understand.

That specific question dpends on who has the gun and what they want to do with it.

However, the primary *benefit* of guns has been to equalize right and might. As the saying goes, God may have created man, but Sam Colt made them equal.

Look up the Deacons for Defense, where black WW II and Korean War vets in Louisiana in the 1960s used their guns to hold the KKK-infested local and state governments accountable. Look up the battle of Athens in 1946, where WW II vets used their guns to outs a corrupt government and overturn a fraudulent election.

It takes a lot of practice to be good with bows and arrows, or swords, and both take a lot of strength. It takes very little skill, only strength, to kill someone with your fists. Defending yourself from any of these requires faster feet or more skill and strength. It takes only a little skill, and no unusual strength, to defend yourself with a gun. I would rather justice depended on both sides having guns than bad guys having fists.

If your fairy godmother could wave her wand and eliminate all guns, the world would not be better off. There would of course be fewer gun deaths, but there would be more "might makes right" criminals and governments, and suicides would not drop.

If you think a law against guns and the police sweeps necessary to enforce it would eliminate guns, you are deluded and naive. When anything is outlawed, only the outlaws have it.

A) *woosh!*
B) Would you honestly die to retain posession of your firearms? Or are you just trying to impress all these internet strangers with how much of a man you are for being willing to stand up to a bunch of guys with assault rifles?

As a non American, I can totally vouch for that.

I have never ever needed a gun in my life, and I dont relish the thought of having a gun battle with somebody because an argument got out of hand.

The American fascination with shooting people to death is disturbing and sad.

In terms even US citizens can understand, gun control works great here in .au, I have never once seen a gun used or even carried outside a range. I know its hard for you overcompensating types to understand but that is the reality. A quick look at the stats for gun deaths in both countries makes this starkly clear. Americans always seem to be on violent revenge fantasy trips, and easy access to guns makes this common.

Defensive gun use != a life saved.

Just because you brandish a gun to "defend" yourself, does not mean that you would have died otherwise.

One need only look at statistics in other countries with lesser rates of gun ownership to see this.

Now, you can make the argument that the U.S. is tainted by the flood of guns and that since it is tainted, gun ownership is sensible (similar concept to MAD), but by and large, in the civilized world, you don't need a gun to be safe.

In fact, even in the U.S, if you've got the cash to spare on a gun, you're statistically better off spending the money on an automatic defibrillator.

This isn't to take away for other gun uses. I've fired M-16s at the range and enjoyed myself quite a bit. You like to hunt? Not my thing, but good for you. I just don't buy the defense claim. I've looked into it extensively and I think while possible, you can find a few incidents here and there where a gun clearly saved a life, I think it's wildly overblown.

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

"Annoying"? Owning and carrying a gun is a lot less "annoying" than driving a car or buying an iPhone or getting your insurance company to pay for minor surgery.

Anybody who whines about filling out a form and paying a $10 fee to own a gun does not have sufficient equanimity to carry a deadly weapon, IMO. Fuck them.

As a gun owner for 41 years and carrier of an Illinois FOID card since the early 1980s, I vote for the strictest possible gun laws. My gun ownership actually predates the widely held belief that the Second Amendment guarantees a personal right to own and carry. 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. This was an innovation of the Reagan Administration, along with peacetime budget deficits, astrologers in the White House and the $1trillion "Star Wars" missile defense system. Interesting, that early 1980s seems to have been some sort of turning point, after which American started a rapid decline. I don't know if there is any connection, but I'd be willing to hazard a guess.

I've long been fully in favor of the right to bear arms. Last month, I spent a few days in Paris, where I was targeted by pick-pockets three times. One of the little fuckers I caught by the neck and had to restrain myself from killing him. I think that if these guys had hand guns, I'd be in a whole different place right now.

So, I've changed my opinion on hand guns, even though I love using them for target practice. The rifles used for hunting are an important part of our American heritage, but handguns are simply for killing people. If you own a hunting rifle, there's a good chance you used it for it's intended purpose. Using a handgun for it's intended purpose is only legal in self defense, and they suck at self defense compared to shotguns. So, as much as I loved firing a Colt 45 at the dirt in my friends back yard, I think I'd prefer that future low-lifes trying to take my wallet be like the pick-pockets in Paris. They could have pulled a knife, but in reality, that's just a bit too dangerous for most criminals. They might get their ass kicked. Hand guns make killing easy, and criminals are all about what's easy.

Now, that said, it's intensely scary having the government require us to register guns. I think the two groups of people I fear most are criminals with guns, and a government trying to take mine away. Is there some middle ground were we can agree to keep hand-guns out of circulation while allowing the rest to be used without Big Brother's oversight?

Actually, if you were at all familiar with contents of The Federalist Papers and the debates around the penning of the Bill of Rights, you'd know that the 2nd Amendment is about personal, individual keeping and bearing of arms. You are correct that for a number of years in the late 20th century it was popular to pretend otherwise, but that belief was not then, nor was it ever, true.

All the smart criminals work in places like Congress, law offices, and financial institutions, so of course they're not interested in catching those people; they'd rather give them big bailouts.

The history of the anti-gun movement indicates that regulation is a deliberate bridge to confiscation.

They are quieter now thanks to taking a pounding at the polls, but Bradycrats are no invention of mine...

Do you even have a fucking clue what the 2A text is?

Because, its pretty amazing that anybody can believe that the "people" refers to the governed individuals in any other part of the constitution, yet not be the governed individuals in the second amendment.

What a gun does is that it exchanges physical superiority for technological superiority.

You might have a gun, but I might have a sniper rifle.

It changes the ante, but it just gives a different group of people superior fire power. As much as the gun lobby loves to play up the "evening the playing field" argument, it only works only for certain situations, and then the criminals can still way out gun the average citizen.

The wolves will chase after one stray deer; they do not need to hunt down the whole herd. The wolves use overwhelming force to take down that one deer, and the herd moves on. Great for the herd; not so great for that one deer. If a species of deer develop a defense mechanism that changes which deer the wolves go after, is that necessarily a great solution? Maybe. Maybe not. I still would not want to be that deer that becomes dinner.

Just as the micro-stamping was designed to only catch a certain cross-section of the criminal population, guns only help a certain cross-section of the crime victims. As with any tool, the behavior of the user predominantly determines the effectiveness of that tool. Very few people, except the nutty gun lobby, would argue that having all of the Virginia Tech students armed to the teeth would have been a good idea. It might have been a good idea for that specific incident, but having a campus full of students carrying side arms is not what would attract students to any university.

>At this point it was nothing to do with ID, just a general gun scare.

As an outsider looking in on an America's gun-law debates... I've come to the conclusion that there are two types of people in America.
1) A large group of people who are deathly afraid of "criminals" and so feel that they couldn't possibly protect themselves unless they carry more firepower than Wile E. Coyote. To quote an awesome movie: a pussy can become a tough guy, if he has a gun in his hand.
Somehow these people have all managed to remain completely unaware that crime reporting may be going up but actual crime rates have been going down consistently for over a century and more people die from suicide than violent crime in America. They all cite stuff like the second ammendment and the revolution but pretty much none of them actually give a damn about that stuff- they sure as hell aren't planning to ever revolt against Washington, they just like having an excuse to keep their tough-guy-makers.

2) Another large group of people who have figured out that a large group of pussies with guns in their hands are a much, much scarier thing than a tiny minority of people who engage in a life of violent crime.

Both groups are trying to protect themselves and their families. But only one of them have managed to do an accurate risk-assessment, worked out who is most likely to harm them and tried to make an effort to reduce that risk.
In case you're wondering: it's the gun-grabbers who did the maths.

Translation: "We don't know - or care - if the suspects actually fired the gun. We know they're guilty because they're black, poor, live in a bad part of town, and we've previously arrested them for being black, poor, and living in a bad part of town, but have had witnesses not pick them out of a line up. They're our 'usual suspects' and they will be until we manage to convince a witness to identify them."