Slashdot Mirror
Blocking Gun Laws With Patents
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."
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.
Breivik actually wielded legally obtained, registered guns. Which is to say, Norway was certainly not "so unbelievably mild, that no one was allowed to have a gun".
> 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.
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
.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.
Google "zip gun".
Really... Go do it. Now.
You can fire a
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.
Infuriate left and right
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.
more cowbell
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.