Hidden Threat to Second Amendment
Recently the American Bar Association published a report urging:
[F]ederal, state … governments to enact laws requiring that all newly-manufactured semi-automatic pistols be fitted with microstamping technology which would ensure that when a firearm is fired, an alphanumeric and/or geometric code would be stamped on the cartridge casing … that would enable law enforcement to identify the serial number of the pistol and hence the first known purchaser of a weapon used in a crime.
To succeed, microstamping requires building a permanent database of all gun owners (licensing) and linking their firearms by serial number (registration), two major goals of gun control advocates.
Two law firms represent patent holders that could make the ABA recommendation reality. They’ve spent $6.7 million on campaign contributions since 2004, while the entire gun rights lobby spent $6 million.
There are fortunes to be made promoting gun control.
As a newly converted gun control researcher, the first time I saw lawyer money intersect with gun rights was in 2005, when Congress enacted the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This tort reform banned manufacturer liability suits based upon injuries and damages resulting from criminal firearm use. Campaign finance watchdog Open Secrets notes that lawyers generally oppose tort reform.
According to Open Secrets, lawyers and law firms (aka the law lobby) contributed heavily to congressional and presidential races in 2004, more than any other industry, spending nearly $183 million on federal campaigns, with 74% going to Democrats.
During the PLCAA roll call, senators voting “Yea” received an average of $366,847 in lawyer contributions, while the 31 “Nay” voters – 29 Democrats – received $645,972, 73.4% more. Lawyer money represented the largest industry donor for most “Nay” voters, while for most “Yea” voters, it ranked between 3rd and 4th.
In the House, those who voted “Yea” on the bill, received an average of $49,464 apiece. “Nay” voters — 140 of 144 were Democrats — received an average of $74,742 apiece, 51% higher. Again, those voting against tort reform were more likely to have the law lobby as their biggest donor.
The law lobby bias existed in both the Senate and the House:
- More law lobby money, more support for continued lawsuits against gun manufacturers when a criminal shoots somebody.
- As the law lobby trended towards becoming the biggest contributor to a candidate’s campaign fund, that candidate was more likely to support gun control.*
Subsequent congressional vote analyses consistently supported these findings (e.g. the Vitter Amendment banning firearms confiscation during emergencies; the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 in the House.)
In the 2008 election cycle, the law lobby spent over $233 million; it has spent $81.6 million so far in 2010. In the last two election cycles, 76% of that money went to Democrats, slightly above the historical average of 73%. Lawyers are the richest lobby in America, representing the largest segment of anti-rights Democrats’ campaign funding. In 2008, re-elected Democratic incumbents averaged a D+ NRA grade, while GOP incumbents averaged an A.
Campaign funding reflects a certain quid pro quo benefiting Democrats and their donors, making them resistant to change in campaign finance law.
In 2008, voters re-elected 223 Democratic House incumbents. The charts below show that within the Democratic Party, anti-rights representatives’ voting records correlated with the law lobby comprising a greater share of total campaign contributions.
The cost would be forbidding would be the first item the second is what’s the point? Criminals already can delete the identifying groves on a bullet by running a rattail file down the barrel of a gun to change the micro groves of identification.
And if the microstamping is done with the firing pin or breech face, a couple of passes with a small file will take care of that.
Absoulty mixplix! Even the writers of cop shows know this!
Civil war is coming. It’s time for “Law Enforcement” to show whether they will actually honor their oath of office to “…preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution…”, or if instead they are nothing more than the enablers – thugs with guns – for those who spit on it and grind it into the dirt. Unfortunately, it’s ALREADY clear where they stand.
The the social unrest that’s about to hit us as this economy collapses, I think gun sales are going to keep skyrocketing, as well as the sale of ammunition. So the NRA, probably one of the biggest lobbying groups in Washington, will only get stronger, not weaker. And if we get a new Republican Congress in November, 2011 will be a good year for gun advocates.
But it all starts with a win in November, gang. Yet another reason to get out there and vote!
The solution here as elsewhere is to recognize lawyers for a form of social pollution and law schools for smokestack industry. Glen Reynolds has been complaining about the surplus of lawyers for years. An abundance of lawyers is a formula for mischief. Close half the law schools in the nation and the problem will go away.
A friend suggests an alternative for culling the legal herd. An annual “running of the lawyers” through gauntlets of citizens armed with bats and broomsticks. Any lawyer who makes it to the end of a run gets to practice for another year until the next running of the lawyers.
Every problem yields to a creative solution.
Geeeze, what a farce. Pistol users would simply attach a catch bag on the injector port to catch the expended brass (such bags already exist for target range shooters who want to save their brass for reloading) or else change to a revolver. There would be nothing for the police to collect and look at. The database of guns and owners would still exist, however, so guns could be confiscated when so desired by a tyrant. Obama fro example. THAT’S the real point of this legislation!
Interesting. Lets see – money, guns, and lawyers. Which one should we get rid of ? Lawyers of course – the most dangerous, destructive, and costly to the public good. VOTE in Novenber !
the day may come when you are in dire need of lawyers guns and money
until then, enjoy every sandwich
Let’s look at this from a slightly different perspective.
We are constantly urged to contact our representatives and contribute to those who express our views and vote our way. All of these lawyers and anti-gunners are merely using the “democratic process” of informing their representatives about what they want done.
Exactly how is the action of those who lobby for anti-gun legislation any different than the lobbying efforts of anyone else?
The problem is not who is rich, or more able to lobby for what they want. The problem is that self ownership, self responsibility and self defense should never be subject to a vote of any kind, for any reason.
When people govern themselves, defend their own lives and property, and engage in voluntary association with others without calling for government to force others to their way… then we won’t need or HAVE any of these legislative parasites and “lawyers.”
Mama: What you say is true. This is not an attack on the First Amendment. Notice I do not quote Shakespeare’s oft-misused line: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” (Henry VI, Part 2)
The picture is far bigger than 1200 words can express. However, the fact remains that the Democratic party garners the supermajority of lawyer campaign support, and the Democratic party is the party of gun control. Plus, Democrats who get a larger portion of lawyer money tend to vote anti-rights. Also, federal Democratic politicians tend towards voting against tort reform, without which gun makers would be bankrupt, creating a de facto gun ban for all but the most wealthy.
In keeping with the First Amendment, we have the right to research and publish such findings. Educated voters are more able to attain what you called “self ownership, self responsibility and self defense”.
As you noted, gun owners have been successfully contacting their elected representatives. As a result, the only federal gun-related bill enacted in the last two years was when Obama signed the credit card reform bill, which included a rider opening national parks to licensed concealed carry.
But the law lobby, which represents about 700,000 of America’s wealthiest professionals, isn’t going away. There’s too much money and power at stake.
700,000 lawyers vs. 80+ million gun owners: which is a more democratic representation of the will of the People?
Freedom loving Americans will not go down without a fight. Fighting doesn’t always mean violence either folks so any lefties lurking out there, don’t flip out over my choice of words.
I believe… no, I KNOW that there are far more freedom loving people in this nation who value liberty, justice for all and the constitution than there are fools who want to live in a perpetual childhood with a government that provides for them while spoon feeding them news sanitized for their protection (propaganda).
How do I know that? Look up photos of the Restoring Honor Rally and compare them to the One Nation Rally, then consider that the unions bussed people to the latter. Beck’s rally had no union support.
There are enough of us in this country who know history. We have seen the failure of Socialism and Communism in the rest of the world. Enough of us have not been brainwashed into believing that somehow the lefties in power now are so superior that this time they’ll deliver the Socialist Utopia without the poverty, misery and general failure resulting every where else, every time.
Albert Einstein once said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.
Perhaps that definition can apply to stupidity as well?
You say that “there are enough of us who know history.” But whose version of history? Most history teachers are big leftists who “teach” that the Second Amendment does not protect the rights of individuals. Here’s what they say:http://historyhalf.com/academia-and-the-second-amendment/
I am an ABA member. This is the first I learned that the ABA has backed this nonsense, but it is certainly consistent with other issues the ABA has backed and with the way the ABA does things. The clique that governs the ABA issues its pronouncements without consulting the membership. The membership has no voice in issuing these policies. Once the policies are issued, anyone who voices dissent is looked at as at best a crank.
Like many lawyers, I joined the ABA for the professional education, the membership benefits, and the chance to network with other lawyers. The organization has lost sight of its role as an association of legal professionals and has annointed itself on all things that may conceivably come before a court of a legislature, even if lawyers have no special expertise to offer on those matters.
As to Mama Liberty,I agree with you about lobbying, self defense and so forth. As to your final paragraph, all I can say is that in every social system, there will still be differing opinions between people who do business with each other, and there will still be a need for people who can offer advice on how to avoid a misunderstanding later, or who can help resolve it when it occurs. And there will still be people who break society’s rules. Or as one lawyer put it, “If you people could trust each other, you wouldn’t need lawyers.”
“If you people could trust each other, you wouldn’t need lawyers.”
Can’t trust trade or professional organizations at all. They are not alwasy up front with their agenda. I trash every unopened AARP envelope ever since learning from the NRA they support an anti gun agenda monetarily.
Don’t trash the envelope. They usually contain a self-addressed, postage paid business reply envelope. They want to make it easy for you to join their organization and give them your money so you can help them destroy the country with their leftist lobbying. Same with the ACLU.
Instead, stuff the envelope with your other junk mail–the stuff that doesn’t contain personally-identifiable info–and mail it back to them on their own dime.
As revolvers do not eject the brass, obviously revolvers have to be outlawed. Brass catchers also have to be outlawed as they are “obviously” intended to thwart law enforcement by hiding the evidence.
(/satire)
Ahad: Thanks for your input. It would be historically consistent for an elite clique to hijack an organization for their own ends. Another reason for smaller government.
I have worked with a number of good attorneys in the pro-rights movement. David Hardy, David Kopel, and Don Kates all come to mind. Then there’s Alan Gura who spearheaded Heller and McDonald. Gun owners in California owe a lot to Chuck Michel, and Texans to Charles Cotton. This list is not all-inclusive, just off the top of my head.
Maybe through the efforts of those like you, the ABA will remember the People’s trust they uphold our Constitution.
Its a mechanical/technical impossibility, there are too many weapons produced and too may cartridges to account for every single one with a unique identifier.
Would it be a 12-14 digit code that would wrap all the way (several times?) around a small .22 caliber shell?
Who imagines this crap?
To micro print something so tiny, AND fit it inside the chamber of a firearm (that, guess what? needs room to fit the cartridge, and be solidly strong enough to contain the high pressures generated when the cartridge fires) would require a level of printing/stamping/etching technology that simply does not exist, nor has any reasonable engineering hope of being put into practical existence.
And THAT ladies and gents is the whole reason its being propossed.
Once certain people get convinced of what “ought” to be, they will demand it be implemented, “poof” out of thin air, like all impossible liberal decrees…
Its impracticality/impossibility will BE the very reason to BAN the devises (guns and ammunition)in the end.
Are they crazy that they dont understand basic mechanics?
Yes, crazy like a fox.
What is proposed by the devil is not a solution to any problem but a complication and compounding of a problem that yields a single most undesirable solution.
The earliest self-explaining observation on lawyers is immutable:
“If it weren’t for lawyers, we would not need lawyers.”
We can overcome this plague by following the highest Law to its (for them, bitter) proper end, we just must begin now before the only answer is accompanied with violence and regret. Should that be the case, however, so be it. Evil is not self-sustaining, so we cannot allow including ourselves in their suicide no matter the name of their design.
Is it time yet? Is somebody going to yell “GO”?
I AIN’T DOIN’ IT
come an get me, coppers
Thugs commonly remove the S/N to create “cold” weapons
I’m sure they’ll have no trouble defeating the micro-stamp. As has been noted elsewhere, there is a fool born every minute
( sigh ) .
What do you think the sons of the American Revolution would have said or done if the british would have demanded the guns in america be licensed or counted? Why do we need any more treaties or gun-control laws when we don’t (because we cannot) enforce the ones on the books? The only thing gun-control laws acomplish is to disarm law-abiding citizens leaving them at the mercy of the criminals and/or tyrants. Guns are not the problem. Criminals are. Instead of more gun-control, we should be concentrating on criminal control. A brief look into history should enlighten the people in our fair land. In the early 1900’s there are several historical instances of leaders that insisted on the disarmament of their people. Their names should be familiar to you: Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler. All of these men enforced disarmament on their people. For example:
August 24, 2009 / Richmond Times Dispatch
Long time Anti-Gun Advocate State Senator R.C. Soles, 74, shot one of two intruders at his home just outside Tabor City, N.C. about 5 p.m. Sunday, the prosecutor for the politician’s home county said. The State Bureau of Investigation and Columbus County Sheriff’s Department are investigating the shooting, Gore said. Soles, who was not arrested, declined to discuss the incident Sunday evening. The Senator, who has made a career of being against gun ownership for the general public, didn’t hesitate to defend himself with his own gun when he believed he was in immediate danger and he was the victim. It has prompted some to ask if the Senator believes his life and personal safety is more valuable than yours or mine. But this is to be expected from those who believe they can run our lives, raise our kids, and protect our families better than we can.
Butte , Montana November 5, 2007 — Two illegal aliens, Raphael Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26, probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11 year old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two-story home. It seems the two crooks never learned one thing; Patricia had been a clays shooting champion since she was nine. She quickly ran to her father’s room and grabbed his 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun. Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor, only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buckshot from the 11-year-old’s knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals. When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive.It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber handgun he had taken from another home invasion robbery. That victim, 50-year-old David Burien, was not so lucky. He died from stab wounds to the chest. She is still alive, the bad guys are dead, and you probably never heard the story before now. Ever wonder why this sort of positive gun story never makes NBC, CBS, PBS, & MSNBC, CNN, or ABC news? Pretty obvious, isn’t it? This story doesn’t fit the liberal mainstream media view that guns are bad and need to be controlled. Had this story happened in California or any other state with gun lock and storage laws, and had the father obeyed those counterproductive, unconstitutional laws, the girl would be raped, dead or both, the home looted, and two dirtbags would’ve been out on the street to rob, rape and murder again.
I’m on your side, but this story isn’t true:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/homeinvasion.asp
They do give several examples of incidents where minors did defend their homes.
A brief look into history should enlighten the “Progressives” in our fair land. In the early 1900’s there are several historical instances of leaders that insisted on the disarmament of their people. Their names should be familiar to you: Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler. All of these men enforced disarmament on their people. All of them are known as some of the most sinister men in history. Notably, Hitler could never have achieved as much as he did without civilian disarmament. He disarmed his people, used the Hitler Youth program to brainwash the young, and “cleansed” his nation, as well as conquered territories of the “undesirables,” whom he referred to as “untermensch” or subhuman. The unarmed civilians were an easy target for his armies, and the SS was used to intimidate and control other Germans and prevent dissension. In retrospect, people lament the atrocities that happened under Hitler, but the German people then never saw it coming. They had been seduced by a charismatic leader, who convinced (and when necessary coerced) them to give up their weapons. The Nazi reign of terror began with false news reports on the Jews, Bohemians and Gypsies who were said to be arming themselves to overthrow the “New World Order” and Hitler demanded that all good people register their guns so that they wouldn’t fall into the hands of “terrorists and madmen”. Right wing fanatics of the “Old Order” who protested firearms registration were arrested by the S.S. and put in jail for “fomenting hatred against the Government of the German people”. Then the Reichstag (government building) was blown up and Hitler ram-rodded an “Emergency Anti-Terrorist Act” through Parliament that gave the Gestapo extraordinary powers. The leader then declared that for the well-being of the German people, all private firearms were to be confiscated by the Gestapo and the Wermotten (federal law enforcement and military). When several local ministers spoke out against these atrocities, they were imprisoned and never seen again. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated’ people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Can you provide evidence for ANY of that?
Hitler did not run around disarming his population. Jews, yes, but generally no. Only the ownership of handguns was more strictly regulated … in 1938, five years AFTER the reichstag fire. Other firearms laws (i.e. rifles and shotguns) were actually liberalized at the same time – anyone with a hunter’s permit could arm themselves to the teeth. And the gestapo? Huh? The gestapo didn’t even exist in 1933! That was created more than a year after the fire.
Agreed Roy rambles a bit and doesn’t cite his references. However, Hitler used existing law to toughen gun control laws. That you admit he used this to render the Jews defenseless shows you acknowledge how civilian disarmament is helpful for government-sponsored genocide.
David Kopel, Carl Moody, and I wrote a paper which appeared in a the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Vol. 13, No. 1. We found that countries with higher firearms ownership rates had greater individual civil and political rights, less corrupt governments, and greater personal economic freedom.
“Agreed Roy rambles a bit and doesn’t cite his references.”
He’s also wrong
“However, Hitler used existing law to toughen gun control laws.”
Partially, yes. But well after he’d gained power and already started annexing his neighbors (although, to be fair, it’s not clear that all of his neighbors really minded). The “lack” of handguns (although doubt that there was really a lack of handguns in a country which was rapidly becoming more militarized) didn’t prevent folks from trying to top the fuhrer. Several times.
I really think the question of gun ownership in nazi germany is a red herring. Faced with a trained army with armor and serious rifles, civilians with peashooters are always going to come off second-best. Even if the jews had all been armed to the teeth, they would still have been picked off gradually and, if push came to shove, outgunned.
No, I’m not saying “just give in and do whatever the man says”. I’m saying I don’t think the question of individual civilian gun ownership has never made the foggiest scrap of difference to the outcome when a leader manages to grab the military and use it to take over with violence.
“That you admit he used this to render the Jews defenseless shows you acknowledge how civilian disarmament is helpful for government-sponsored genocide.”
I don’t think it made a bit of difference.
“David Kopel, Carl Moody, and I wrote a paper which appeared in a the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Vol. 13, No. 1. We found that countries with higher firearms ownership rates had greater individual civil and political rights, less corrupt governments, and greater personal economic freedom.”
I’ll have to take a look. I’m curious to see how you deal with sudan, somalia, iraq, pakistan, afghanistan etc.
The Australian Experience
Since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
1) Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
2) Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.
3) Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
4) In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
5) While Australian figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
6) There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
7) You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.The story of the Katrina disaster area survivors disagrees. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, gangs, thieves, looters and vandals overran New Orleans, as well as the other affected areas. To defend themselves, the residents banded together to form militia groups. The police and national guard went in, with orders to disarm everyone. They entered the homes of local residents at gunpoint, demanding the weapons. Sadly, these people surrendered their weapons, and were then left defenseless as the police and national guard went away. Once they were gone, the gangs and looters came back. The disarmed people were unable to defend themselves. Many were robbed. Some were killed.
Roy …
Those laws were introduced nearly 15 years ago – not “in the past 12 months”. It’s now possible to produce some stats for more than just the following year.
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.aspx
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/361-380/tandi361/view%20paper.aspx
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide/weapon.aspx
The overall role of guns in violent crime has more or less steadily fallen since 1996. It WAS already falling. You could argue that the assault weapons ban et al didn’t have a lot of impact, but it’s ridiculous to claim that it made anything worse.
What is interesting is that the percentage use of handguns (as a fraction of all gun-related crime) did increase after 1996. That’s curious. But gun crime as a whole continued to fall.
The spike in 1996 on that weapons graph is due to the port arthur massacre. It’s the cause, not the effect.
You’ll notice that the actual statistics are add odds with most of what you just wrote.
Mat: You used the popular dodge among gun banners, talking about the use of guns in crime as if that proves gun control works. If guns never exists, there would be no guns used in crime. However, that doesn’t equate with no crime.
I analyzed Australia’s crime data extensively, using the very sources you cited, plus United Nations survey data. They all point to the fact that violent crime rose during the 10 years following the gun ban. For example, rape rates increased 21.4%. During the same time period, American women experienced a 16.8% DECREASE in the rape rate, despite ready access to guns. By 2006, Australian women experienced rape three times as often as American women. Who knows had they had concealed carry. Lott, in his book More Guns, Less Crime, found that concealed carry benefits women and reduces rape, which only makes sense considering the size and strength differential between genders. Apparently, some people prefer to promote an ideology even though that makes them accessories to rape.
It’s all in Four Hundred Years of Gun Control.
Actually, I was just responding to comments like:
“Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.”
“Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.”
“Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!”
“In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent”
All of which are not true.
As you point out, the use of knives is on the steady increase, while the use of guns is falling.
I’ll have to look at the other stats later. Got to go to a birthday party.
You miss the point.
Microstamping is a technique to track first purchase / straw purchasers. The 99% of us are not going to sell handguns into the criminal networks. However, we suffer from that 1% that does.
We suffer from the BATFE and Congress making rules on how and when we can sell or purchase and the industry is made to search for data for FREE by the BATFE … Why, because they hold all the data and also produce reports for Congress that skew to their position.
So, what does microstamping do:
First, Microstamping is free to the industry – no royalties for the technology.
Second, the code is linked to the serial number – it is not the actual serial number.
Third, the code database is being offered to the NSSF and the NRA (e.g. they could control the distribution of the codes to the manaufacturers and also be the clearing house for law enforcement searches) for free.
Fourth, each mnufacturer can hold its codes in their internal ERP/MRP (Enterprise Resources Planning) systems, which they currently do for the BATFE.
Fifth, by taking away the codes from the BATFE you basically elliminate their involvement in tracing of “New Semi-Auto” handguns going forward. They become obsolete …
In essence, the industry recaptures the data and the BATFE and their secret imaging programs go away.
So, think about it.
The indsutry would be in complete control of the database – there would not be a need for licensing – since they would just use the same data trail they use to track firearms for the BATFE – except this time – they hold all the cards and now local law enforcement can go direct to the indsutry instead of having to go to the federal government.
So, simply put, Microstamping has the ability to neuter the BATFE relagating them to legacy work (It is hard to get funding when you are not growing) and allow the industry to forge a closer relationship with state level law enforcement and get paid to do the work.
I hear the the old saying, “Camels nose under the tent” well it is time to stop hiding in the tent and go out and shot the camel in the head.
The industry always fights a defensive strategy, time to shift the balance.
Microstamping does nothing useful whatsoever about straw purchasing that the original serial number did not do. The point of microstamping is stamping an ID on a fired shell casing. It is a technology that purports to stamp an ID on evidence found at a crime scene; however, its been shown by the Calif DOJ that it simply can’t work. The firing pin stamp technology is a failure and a fraud. Its only purpose for gun control fanatics is to drive up the cost of firearms.
Your comment is flat out nonsense.
The $$$ WE pay for our Elitist Politicians is NOT enough for them . The way Government works Now ,, is GOING To CHANGE . We are COMING ,, as B-Ho has said ,, Their will be Hand to Hand COMBAT . TEA – UP to AMERICAN GREATNESS .
IF YOU COME FOR MY GUNS, YOU WILL END UP PEAING YOUR PANTS.