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."

69 of 1,165 comments (clear)

  1. Damn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Luckily I reload all shots myself that I use in crimes.
    Additionally I use revolver or if I use a pistol, I use a brass catcher.
    So dear murderers, get replacement firing pins now, before you have to order them in Canada.

    1. Re:Damn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So dear murderers, get replacement firing pins now, before you have to order them in Canada.

      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?).

    2. Re:Damn! by nschubach · · Score: 5, Insightful

      (perhaps just general harassment of gun owners?)

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

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    3. Re:Damn! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Criminals aren't going to stand around the crime scene, collect the casings, sandpaper them off, and put them back on the ground, before running off.

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

      The 2nd Amendment wasn't for your personal liberty.

      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?

    4. Re:Damn! by Githaron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The best thing, of course, is to just ban guns from the country.

      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"?

    5. Re:Damn! by Rostin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Harassment is probably part of it -- of not only gun owners, but gun manufacturers. The cost of microstamping guns is expected to be small, but it's not 0, and anything above 0 will probably lead to an incremental reduction in the number of guns sold. Another reason is that it's a standard tactic of moral crusaders of all kinds to chip away at rights that they don't have the support to do away with all at once. It's progress, and you know what they say about boiling frogs. Also, never far from the thoughts of any politician is the question: "How can I get elected again?" Whether this legislation would actually do any real good (by reducing gun crime, for example), it will strike a lot of people as "reasonable", so that the next time an election rolls around, its supporters can paint their opponents as radicals who were unwilling to support "reasonable" gun control measures. Also, it could earn a nice campaign contribution from the Brady campaign or whoever for being a good gun grabber. One final benefit I can imagine is that it's a way of using state money to waste the resources of anti-gun control groups who have undoubtedly tried to sue this law out of existence.

    6. Re:Damn! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Informative

      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".

    7. Re:Damn! by jhoegl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, they are trying to catch stupid criminals, not ALL criminals.

    8. Re:Damn! by JimCanuck · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Besides... barrel rifling already makes a fingerprint-like marking on the shell/slug/bullet, and that's going to be a hell of a lot more useful in identifying the gun it was shot from than any other method thought up so far...

      Only in TV shows and movies, fact is most handgun and rifle barrels today are mass produced on hammer forging equipment on a mandrel which makes all of them virtually the exact same on a run of tends of thousands of barrels. You can narrow down your suspect list using it, you can even match similar makes and models, but you'll never be able to prove it came out of the gun with serial number #24953 or #24954 or even #25953 for that matter.

    9. Re:Damn! by X0563511 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Well, sir, it looks like there were actually 17 shooters, and each one only fired one shot."

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    10. Re:Damn! by furball · · Score: 5, Informative

      > 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.

    11. Re:Damn! by Omestes · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The cost of microstamping guns is expected to be small, but it's not 0, and anything above 0 will probably lead to an incremental reduction in the number of guns sold.

      Knowing most of the gun collectors I know, not-0 would would have to be pretty significant to effect their hobby. It could be an issue, though, I doubt very much it is some intentional conspiracy to hurt gun manufacturers or gun sales. If it raises percent, then sure, get mad about it, if not, live with it, we do for every other damn product in the world.

      . Another reason is that it's a standard tactic of moral crusaders of all kinds to chip away at rights that they don't have the support to do away with all at once.

      What rights are being chipped away here? You still run around bearing your arms to your hearts content.

      ...can paint their opponents as radicals who were unwilling to support "reasonable" gun control measures.

      Do you live in the same America as I do? Anyone ever suggesting that we shouldn't put guns in Crackerjack boxes is shouted down these days. Hell, if I own a place of business, and decide that your not allowed to carry on my property, I'm now somehow trying to destroy the Second Amendment, blah blah. With guns, and everything else, we've thrown all moderation to the wind, and let the extremists win.

      Which, coincidentally, is why this is the first time I've been on Slashdot in awhile, and thanks to this topic, it might be the last for awhile. I'm so goddamn sick of politics. I used to love them, but now there is no point. Everyone is 100% correct, and if anyone disagrees with them (or doesn't give them and there golden little opinion due reverence) they are a moron. No one is ever going to discuss anything, because obviously they are 100% right, and everyone else is 100% wrong.

      Perhaps I'm just getting old.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    12. Re:Damn! by icebraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    13. Re:Damn! by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      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.

    14. Re:Damn! by phoomp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      a standard tactic of moral crusaders of all kinds to chip away at rights that they don't have the support to do away with all at once.

      Where does it say "the right to bear arms in a way that can't be traced"?

    15. Re:Damn! by verifine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thankfully, the US is NOT a utopia. Try reading Thomas More, if you want to learn what's totally wrong about the concept of utopia. In the US we have liberty - that means we're free to live our lives as we choose, so long as we're not infringing on the rights of others. Since we have constitutionally guaranteed rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, we can resist efforts by government (ours or another) to enslave us. IMHO the whole microstamping thing has more to do with the 225 million guns already in private hands. There are those in government who can't stand the thought of a peaceful armed populace. If microstamping can be shoved down our throats, the next step is to require the retrofitting of all currently owned firearms. While we're retrofitting, you don't mind if we just register this... Microstamping has nothing to do with helping the police. It's part of a plan to seize all privately owned weapons.

    16. Re:Damn! by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    17. Re:Damn! by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Another thing you may not be aware of. The Center for Disease Control hates guns, and when they did a congressional mandated study on defensive gun uses, they found 1.5 million of them. Most of these were just scaring a burglar away by showing the gun or racking the slide, no actual shots fired. But at the very least, tens of thousands of lives are saved by guns every year.

      Don't read much about that kind of thing, do you? Too scary to your preconceived notions, I reckon.

    18. Re:Damn! by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Please state the primary intended use for a gun.

      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.

    19. Re:Damn! by PyroMosh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    20. Re:Damn! by Lehk228 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    21. Re:Damn! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    22. Re:Damn! by WaywardGeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
    23. Re:Damn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

      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.

    24. Re:Damn! by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    25. Re:Damn! by couchslug · · Score: 3, Informative

      "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

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    26. Re:Damn! by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    27. Re:Damn! by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    28. Re:Damn! by Grayhand · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Harassment is the whole point. Gun owners especially in California are dealing with the death of a thousand cuts. The anti gun groups couldn't win on Constitutional grounds so they are trying to regulate guns to death. When anti gun people talk about "reasonable gun laws" they are talking about laws that make it nearly impossible to own guns. California has had unreasonable gun laws for 20 years or more and it has had no affect on crime. States and cities with the most radical gun laws tend to have the most gun violence so simply trying to legislate them away isn't working. I'm always angered by the fact they don't consult people that know guns to come up with effective safe guards. They don't want effective laws allowing gun ownership because the end game is to get rid of guns and effective laws take away their argument for an outright ban. My favorite silly ban was the ban in California on 50 calibre rifles. It was hailed as a major success. No one bothered to point out that no crime had even been committed by one in the state and the only ones that were affected were a tiny number of long range shooters. No one is going to rob a bank with a 30lb+ rifle with enough recoil to dislocate your shoulder. Not to mention being heard from several miles away when you discharge it bringing every cop in the city. They use pocket 9mm pistols or at the most shotguns. Notice no laws target shotguns? Rich people bird hunt and shoot skeet so they don't go near shotguns. They just want to take them away from regular people.

    29. Re:Damn! by semi-extrinsic · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
    30. Re:Damn! by silentcoder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >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.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    31. Re:Damn! by Theaetetus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "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

      Constitutional scholars have done research studies in the 1970s identifying that only a minority of Americans believed the Second Amendment was about bearing arms as part of a militia? Because that's all he asserted.

      Constitutional scholars may have indicated an error in those beliefs, but your linked article says nothing about percentage of the population. Furthermore, your linked article makes a leap to an unsupported conclusion: that the second amendment guarantees a right to self-defense against criminals. The article provides plenty of citations - which I agree with - that the 2nd Amendment is about preventing the government from rounding up arms to prevent a rebellion, as the British government was doing in the pre-Revolutionary era. However, the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee a right to use those weapons. Obviously, in fact, using them against the government would be an act of treason, just as the Revolution itself was treason, and thus barred by the Constitution.

      No, as your cited article correctly notes, the 2nd Amendment is about the right of the people to keep arms as a deterrent to a tyrannical government. It says nothing about using them, or using them against criminals. The latter right is more properly found in the 5th Amendment.

    32. Re:Damn! by Toze · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As another outsider looking in on America's gun-law debates, I have come to an entirely different set of conclusions about the two evident groups. 1) A large group of people who are deathly afraid of their fellow-citizens and suspect that guns are a magical fetish that turns people into murderers. Their solution is to make it illegal for potential murderers (read: everyone) to have access to guns. 2) Another large group of people who have figured out that criminals and governments don't obey laws and that their fellow-citizens can generally be trusted to not fly into a killing rage because they have access to firearms. Their solution is to prevent laws that disarm the law-abiding citizens. Both groups are trying to protect themselves and their families. But only one seems to have managed 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-nuts who did the maths.

      --
      No OS on the planet can protect itself from a user with the admin password. - Yvan256
  2. utter pointlessness by Cederic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:utter pointlessness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:utter pointlessness by livewire98801 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      "He may be mad, but there's method in his madness. [...] It's what drives men mad, being methodical." G.K.Chesterton
    3. Re:utter pointlessness by nomadic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "What would stop someone who knows some guy with a machine shop from etching *different* numbers on the end of a firing pin with a die-sinking EDM?"

      Ahhh, the sheltered suburbanite slashdot demographic, blessedly unfamiliar with the real world...

      Guys, the vast majority of criminals are not planning out everything with meticulous detail. In fact, most criminals are criminals because they are uneducated and never learned impulse control, and act irrationally and emotionally. They're not going to forge different numbers on the gun. The vast majority of them will not understand even the basic structure of the gun in the first place.

    4. Re:utter pointlessness by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    5. Re:utter pointlessness by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Increased cost? Yes... Inconvenience? How, other than a larger cost?

      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.
    6. Re:utter pointlessness by hawguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Increased cost? Yes... Inconvenience? How, other than a larger cost?

      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.

      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.

    7. Re:utter pointlessness by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    8. Re:utter pointlessness by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your gun is stolen and used in a crime. The cops come looking for you.

      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.

      When selling your gun to someone else, add on the cost and time of changing the micro-code registration.

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

      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.

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

      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.

      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?)

      When the market for old guns explodes and it becomes harder and more expensive to buy one, it both costs money and time.

      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.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  3. Lame Tech by iinventstuff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, a well-planned criminal just needs to hang out at the local shooting range and collect someone else's brass casings before they commit a crime. After they commit their crime, they collect their own shells, and toss out the other person's shells. When police show up, there is a positive ID on the discarded casings, because of the #. This was a good idea, but it is so very easily spoofed because it's non-deterministic and can put innocent people at risk. I'd pass...

    1. Re:Lame Tech by mbstone · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  4. Used gun market and revolver sales will sky rocket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  5. overheard at an Italian restaurant by bitt3n · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Ok Vito, we're going to need you to ice Ricky Peanuts tonight. Shoot him full of holes, then chop up the body and feed it to your pet alligator. Then grind up the alligator, dissolve him in acid, and turn it into smoothies at your ice cream parlor. Then burn down the ice cream parlor with everyone inside. And don't forget to file the code off your gun."

    "File off the code? Madone! That's illegal!"

  6. Guns by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Guns by pla · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  7. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  8. What, you mean it isn't 100% perfect?! by Derekloffin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well hell, can't use that then. We all know that criminals are all well planned geniuses that think of every contingency and will counter every forensic method used to find them. I mean, seriously, what are they thinking.

  9. Unreliable and defeatable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  10. Lawful Citizens = Criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  11. Gun Control = DRM by johofnovi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In terms most /. readers can understand, Gun control has very similar problems to DRM. It solves a minute percentage of the problem, affects almost none of the people it was intended to (criminals/pirates) and serves only to inconvenience the law abiding citizen. Passing gun control legislation has a nice "feel good" factor, ie "Do it for the children!", but in fact does squat to actually diminish any gun related crime at all. I give you the infamous "Crime Bill" passed in the 90's as exhibit A.

    1. Re:Gun Control = DRM by Falconhell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  12. Well that presumably shouldn't be a problem by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  13. You don't understand. by raehl · · Score: 5, Funny

    If guns are illegal, then anyone who has a gun is a criminal, and you can prevent crime by just arresting everyone who has guns.

    1. Re:You don't understand. by Githaron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If guns are illegal, then anyone who has a gun is a criminal, and you can prevent crime by just arresting everyone who has guns.

      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.

    2. Re:You don't understand. by khallow · · Score: 4, Funny

      The gun is good. The penis is evil. The penis shoots seeds, and makes new life to poison the Earth with a plague of men, as once it was, but the gun shoots death, and purifies the Earth of the filth of brutals. Go forth ... and kill!

    3. Re:You don't understand. by Falconhell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:You don't understand. by WhitePanther5000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If guns are illegal, then anyone who has a gun is a criminal, and you can prevent crime by just arresting everyone who has guns.

      You can sure try to arrest us... Best wear your vest and bring bigger guns....

      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?

    5. Re:You don't understand. by ThePeices · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:You don't understand. by Entropius · · Score: 4, Funny

      (*or vagina)

    7. Re:You don't understand. by Onuma · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Aside from military experience, I've never needed to use my firearms in a defense capacity. I genuinely hope that I never have to use a firearm against another human, but I prepare for the day which I may. It is the absolute last resort, when there is no way out of the situation but deadly force...and once you reach that point you either kill or get killed.
      There's a quote we have which puts it into perspective, perhaps: It is better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6. Which would you prefer?

      Apparently shooting people is merely an American hobby now? That's a silly notion. There are riots, civil wars, and other violent movements using all kinds of small arms on every inhabited continent on the planet; quite often (if not always) simultaneously.

      --
      What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
    8. Re:You don't understand. by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. A hammer is a building tool, a knife is a cooking tool. But you can murder someone just fine with either. Don't see anyone (anyone rational that is) calling for the ban of hammers and knives. A gun for most people is a 'Punch holes in paper at a distance' tool. or maybe a 'hunt for food tool' The military uses them as a 'defend the lives of people with force when needed' tool (mostly, yes, there are a few murdering whackos out to kill 'ragheads' but for the most part, that is not the case). Tools can be misused, but don't blame the tool, blame the damn fool holding it.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
  14. Re:Don't see the problem by Scutter · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --

    "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
  15. Fatality rates by wonderboss · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  16. Law-abiding citizens are the bigger threat by mozumder · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's always the law-abiding citizen that ends up killing their ex-wife.

    The focus of us liberal gun-grabbers is to remove guns from the law-abiding citizen, BEFORE they can kill their ex-wives.

    1. Re:Law-abiding citizens are the bigger threat by Smidge204 · · Score: 3, Funny

      You make a great case for banning marriage. No marriage, no ex-wives!

      =Smidge=

  17. Re:My Right to a Predator Drone by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.