Quote of the day–The North State Sheriffs’

As we see it, the technology to implement the micro-stamping is flawed, there would be an increase in the potential for civil liability for law enforcement agencies that continue to use handguns which will be placed on the “unsafe” handgun list, there would be an increase in law enforcement training costs due to not being able to reuse spent cartridge casings, the technology could be easily defeated since the stamping is only 25 microns deep and the cost of the technology would be passed on to law enforcement agencies and citizens alike.

The North State Sheriffs’
Bill Analysis, Senate Rules Committee, Third Reading, Bill No: AB 1471
[I’m not sure why the reuse of shell casings would be affected. Any ideas?–Joe]


6 thoughts on “Quote of the day–The North State Sheriffs’

  1. If I read the bill right it requires the case to be marked in 2 places. I’m thinking that this means the firing pin and the breachface would both need to leave a mark on the case. IE, the primer and the rim would be marked. Re-priming would eliminate the primer mark but the rim marking would be relatively permanent. A case with multiple markings would be virtually impossible to trace. An athema to a police mentality, as well as possibly linking crime evidence back to the only ones and we couldn’t have that now could we!

  2. There is enough pressure on each firing that it flattens out (to a certain extent) previous markings from the breach face. Take a close look at repeatedly fired brass. You can always tell which is the most recent.

    If it’s actually on the rim, then maybe… but still the primer would have a fresh mark.

  3. IIRC, there is a second impression made inside the case rim by the extractor. Why that would cause a problem for reloading practice rounds is not clear.

  4. I have not read the law, but, is there a provision in it that says you have to always use fresh brass? It is also possible that reusing brass that has already been stamped by one firearm could fall under the law about removing serial numbers.

  5. Fortunately there appears to be some hope that a section in AB1471 makes the law ineligible until there are no patent restrictions, and ID Dynamics is currently claiming total rights over (patents 7111423 and 6886284 amongst others) the technology so this might invalidate the law for decades. As David Hardy says, :(1) the requirement doesn’t activate until microstamping is outside of patent protection and (2) a company has a patent on it that runs until around 2023. And some further, positive debate at Calguns.net “Since the legislature required that the technology be avialable from more than one provider and not encumbered by patent I’m quite confident that DOJ can not complete an OAL rulemaking that conforms with the legislation and Patent Law before the expiration of ID Dynamic’s patents in 2023.
    I wonder who worked those changes into the law?”

    Sounds like we had a little legislative squirrel chewing at the works…

  6. No doubt a Vehicle Identification Number will prevent car theft, too, and driver’s licensing will prevent incompetent driving, and a required Oath of Office will put an end to legislators violating our rights, just like Prohibition removed all of the undesirable effects of alcohol in society and the War on Drugs makes us all safe and free from adversity.

    With such a record of smashing successes, it’s no wonder so many in Congress are in favor of more Statism.

Comments are closed.