Microstamping Bill Comes to Massachusetts

[GOAL]

Microstamping Bill Comes to Massachusetts

This is one bill that we have been waiting to appear here in Massachusetts. H.2247 “An Act to Improve the Ballistic Database through Microstamping Ammunition.” Gun owners have seen these type of bills pop up all over the country for the past few years. Although there was a late file microstamping bill last session, it never got out of committee. H.2247 has been filed through the normal process and has ten cosponsors. No surprise that one of the names is Boston Mayor Thomas Menino.

This bill proposes to add language to Section 11E of Chapter 269 (Current serial numbers on firearms law.) In short the bill would mandate that all semiautomatic handguns manufactured or delivered to a licensed dealer in Massachusetts as of January 1, 2010 would be required to be capable of microstamping any ammunition fired from them.

One of the key components is the term “…delivered to any licensed dealer…” The bill doesn’t just affect new semiautomatic handguns, it bans the delivery of all such handguns to a licensed dealer. The language could effectually ban a licensed dealer from accepting a noncompliant semiautomatic under any circumstances. Trades in, consignments, surrenders, storage, transfers, etc. would all be banned through a licensed dealer. There is supposed to be an exemption in (D) to cover existing handguns, but we have seen how Massachusetts government interprets law and the exemption language might mean something different to a government official than it does to a lawful gun owner. We've seen it happen.

As for the so-called technology, the National Shooting Sports Foundation has done a great job at debunking it. The following is taken from their website www.NSSF.org:

A recent independent, peer-reviewed, study published in the professional scholarly journal for forensic firearms examiners proved that the technology of microstamping is unreliable and does not function as the patent holder claims. It can be easily defeated in mere seconds using common household tools or criminals could simply switch the engraved firing pin for readily available unmarked spare parts, thereby circumventing the technology.
Experts at the University of California, Davis, recently finished a study of the technology which was requested and funded by the California State Legislature. The conclusions about the technology are straightforward and direct. The researchers found this patented technology "flawed" and concluded that "At the current time it is not recommended that a mandate for implementation of this technology in all semiautomatic handguns in the state of California be made. Further testing, analysis and evaluation is required."
NSSF and other groups, including major law enforcement organizations, are opposed to this unproven and unreliable technology. The cost of this dubious technology is a great concern to firearms owners and taxpayers alike. Microstamping legislation in California would not only have forced consumers of firearms to pay exorbitant price increases ― as much as $200 per firearm ― to cover the increased cost of microstamping, but substantially higher taxes for the cost of microstamped law enforcement guns.​

For more information on the microstamping debate, go to: http://nssf.org/media/FactSheets/Microstamping.cfm

Bill Language:

(B) All semiautomatic firearms as defined in Chapter 140 Section 21 (this typo is in the bill, should be 121) manufactured or delivered
to any licensed dealer within the commonwealth shall be capable of microstamping ammunition.
(C) For purposes of subparagraph (B), a firearm is capable of microstamping ammunition if –
(i) a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the of
the firearm is etched into the breech face and firing pin of the firearm; and
(ii) when ammunition is fired from the firearm, the characters are copied from the breech face
and firing pin onto the cartridge case of the ammunition.
(D) Subparagraph (B) shall apply only to semiautomatic firearms which –
(i) are manufactured, or imported into the Commonwealth on or after the effective date of this
subsection; and
(ii) have not been transferred to a person not licensed under Chapter 140 of the general laws.
(D) Whoever violates paragraph (B) shall be fined an amount equal to –
(i) in the case of a first such violation by the violator, $1,000 multiplied by the number of
firearms involved in the violation;
(ii) in the case of a second violation by the violator, $2,000 multiplied by the number of firearms
involved in the violation;
(iii) in the case of a third such violation by the violator, $3,000 multiplied by the number of
firearms involved in the violation.
(E) The effective date of this act shall be January 1, 2010.

 

[Admin]

A recent independent, peer-reviewed, study published in the professional scholarly journal for forensic firearms examiners proved that the technology of microstamping is unreliable and does not function as the patent holder claims. It can be easily defeated in mere seconds using common household tools or criminals could simply switch the engraved firing pin for readily available unmarked spare parts, thereby circumventing the technology.
Experts at the University of California, Davis, recently finished a study of the technology which was requested and funded by the California State Legislature. The conclusions about the technology are straightforward and direct. The researchers found this patented technology "flawed" and concluded that "At the current time it is not recommended that a mandate for implementation of this technology in all semiautomatic handguns in the state of California be made. Further testing, analysis and evaluation is required."
NSSF and other groups, including major law enforcement organizations, are opposed to this unproven and unreliable technology. The cost of this dubious technology is a great concern to firearms owners and taxpayers alike. Microstamping legislation in California would not only have forced consumers of firearms to pay exorbitant price increases ― as much as $200 per firearm ― to cover the increased cost of microstamping, but substantially higher taxes for the cost of microstamped law enforcement guns.

That should be the end of the debate right there.

 

[pdm]

As we like to say, "That's retahhded".

 

[EddieCoyle]

Rather than objecting to the technology, is it possible to concentrate the attack on the idiotic notion that it will help fight crime?

I understand that it's easier to highlight the flaws in the technology, but what happens when the bugs are worked out and the sponsors come back and say, "Hey look! We've overcome your objections!"

 

[pdm]

The bill makes perfect sense... if you consider all gun owners to be criminals in the making.

 

[theGringo]

This shit will just keep coming. The enemy will keep hammering until he breaks down the wall.

My only (really, only) question is ... when do we recognize that there is no legislative solution to our current problem? When do we take direct action and end this creeping enslavement?

Go and write your letters now.

That is all.

 

[GOAL]

Rather than objecting to the technology, is it possible to concentrate the attack on the idiotic notion that it will help fight crime?

I understand that it's easier to highlight the flaws in the technology, but what happens when the bugs are worked out and the sponsors come back and say, "Hey look! We've overcome your objections!"

http://www.nssf.org/share/legal/docs/microstamping/Microstamping-Crime.pdf

 

[lord1234]

Microstamping Bill Comes to Massachusetts

One of the key components is the term “…delivered to any licensed dealer…” The bill doesn’t just affect new semiautomatic handguns, it bans the delivery of all such handguns to a licensed dealer. The language would effectually ban a licensed dealer from accepting a noncompliant semiautomatic under any circumstances. Trades in, consignments, surrenders, storage, transfers, etc. would all be banned through a licensed dealer.
Bill Language:

(B) All semiautomatic firearms as defined in Chapter 140 Section 21 (this typo is in the bill, should be 121) manufactured or delivered
to any licensed dealer within the commonwealth shall be capable of microstamping ammunition.
(C) For purposes of subparagraph (B), a firearm is capable of microstamping ammunition if –
(i) a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the of
the firearm is etched into the breech face and firing pin of the firearm; and
(ii) when ammunition is fired from the firearm, the characters are copied from the breech face
and firing pin onto the cartridge case of the ammunition.
(D) Subparagraph (B) shall apply only to semiautomatic firearms which –
(i) are manufactured, or imported into the Commonwealth on or after the effective date of this
subsection; and
(ii) have not been transferred to a person not licensed under Chapter 140 of the general laws.
(D) Whoever violates paragraph (B) shall be fined an amount equal to –
(i) in the case of a first such violation by the violator, $1,000 multiplied by the number of
firearms involved in the violation;
(ii) in the case of a second violation by the violator, $2,000 multiplied by the number of firearms
involved in the violation;
(iii) in the case of a third such violation by the violator, $3,000 multiplied by the number of
firearms involved in the violation.
(E) The effective date of this act shall be January 1, 2010.

Jim,
While I hate to argue with you, you must also see that this bill exempts guns that are currently in the state prior to the effective date(see bold)

 

[jdubois]

One of the key components is the term “…delivered to any licensed dealer…” The bill doesn’t just affect new semiautomatic handguns, it bans the delivery of all such handguns to a licensed dealer. The language would effectually ban a licensed dealer from accepting a noncompliant semiautomatic under any circumstances. Trades in, consignments, surrenders, storage, transfers, etc. would all be banned through a licensed dealer.

While we all know this bill is a load of horsesh*t, I'm not exactly seeing what you are saying above in the text of the law. (D)(i) seems to say that it does, in fact, only apply to firearms manufactured or imported into the state after the law goes into effect. So any pre-microstamping guns already in the state would be exempt.

I'm not sure what the heck (D)(ii) is trying to do. Maybe I'm getting confused on the double negative, but it sounds like any gun that is illegally owned at any point, or is somehow transferred to a non-resident within the state, is suddenly not subject the microstamping rule? I don't think that part is saying what they want it to say...

Anyway, doesn't matter, the bill needs to be killed either way.

 

[GOAL]

Jim,
While I hate to argue with you, you must also see that this bill exempts guns that are currently in the state prior to the effective date(see bold)

I realize that is in the bill and i will amend the post to reflect that, but I was really concerned with the way the exemption was written. After seeing how our state agencies interpret law, I was not convinced it meant what we think it should mean. I could easily see a state agency head saying "No that means manufactured in Massachusetts" or some such thing. We've seen it too many times. I'll amend the post to reflect it though.

 

[dwarven1]

Mention to your legistraitor that MD, CA and NY all have "ballistic fingerprint" databases and NOT ONE CRIME has been solved by them yet although the cost to the states is in the millions of dollars to implement them. Given that they're going through budget stuff right now, that should be a good argument... I hope.

 

[GOAL]

I'm not sure what the heck (D)(ii) is trying to do. Maybe I'm getting confused on the double negative, but it sounds like any gun that is illegally owned at any point, or is somehow transferred to a non-resident within the state, is suddenly not subject the microstamping rule? I don't think that part is saying what they want it to say...

Would agree with your confusion on that one. I've been trying to make sense out of that myself. It almost says if your in illegal possession, don't worry about microstampping requirements. The only thing I can think of is he is trying to exempt transfers that are not through a licensed dealer, but how would you get a new firearm into the state after 2010 without going through a licensed dealer (other than someone moving in). Thus an example of why I didn't trust the exemption part of the bill.

 

[center442]

This bill makes absolutely no sense, from either a technological or law enforcement viewpoint; therefore I believe it will have an excellent chance at passage in the PRM.

 

[jdubois]

The only thing I can think of is he is trying to exempt transfers that are not through a licensed dealer

Perhaps he's trying to say that dealers can accept guns which are meant to be transferred out of state?

 

[Dirigoboy]

Lengthy, but a decent article: http://articles.directorym.net/Microstamping_calls_the_shots-a878980.html

It seems to be much like style..........doesn't have to be functional, just look good.

 

[richc]

Rather than objecting to the technology, is it possible to concentrate the attack on the idiotic notion that it will help fight crime?

I understand that it's easier to highlight the flaws in the technology, but what happens when the bugs are worked out and the sponsors come back and say, "Hey look! We've overcome your objections!"

Completely agree... ammo stamped by firearm illegally obtained by a gang member or criminal has no value as there is no legal owner to trace it to. So what is the point of stamping ammo for firearms used for legal purposes???

Go figure... just another FU'd attempt to make our lives miserable and drive folks away from a constitutional right.

Rich

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

Criminal goes to a range, picks up all of the brass from the floor, finds the caliber of gun that he is planning to blast someone with: Then after he does the deed, he throws down 40 shell casings. Now I ask you, is there any way to know who did that crime? Because there are no witnesses to the "stamping", is this all just a BULLSHIT moot point? I mean, there is no way you can prove that a specific firearm created that stamp because no one was there to see the stamp occur. Furthermore, what happens if criminals can fabricate the stamp to implicate others...

BS...pure and simple. This is not like leaving DNA evidence behind: This is much, much worse. Because I go to the range A LOT, and that means I have to clean up all of my brass behind as I don't leave my DNA behind.

Heck. I have a great thought. As soon as my firearms rapes or kills someone, then you can swap out the firing pin and take its shell stamp. Then you can register it as a violent offender.

 

[pipmaster1971]

Sadly it was only going to be a short amount of time before the stupidity that is microstamping made it to the MA legislator. That place never ceases to amaze me.

 

[andrew]

Sooner or later some (or most or all) of these bills are going to make it to law. MA is irredeemable for gun owners.

 

[LoginName]

The devil in the details with this plan is that it would effectively cease the sale of new semi-autos in this state because no manufacturer is going to invest in the equipment for such a small market.

I wouldn't even count on S&W to go along with it because it would almost certainly result in a call for a nationwide boycott from gun owners in other states.

 

[jdubois]

The devil in the details with this plan is that it would effectively cease the sale of new semi-autos in this state because no manufacturer is going to invest in the equipment for such a small market.

They'll already have to implement microstamping if they want to sell any new models in CA starting 1/1/2010, thanks to the bill signed into law there in 2007. There are enough significant differences between the two bills, however, that if this one became law it would be a confusing mess for manufacturers.

 

[mikem317]

What's the chance of it coming out of committee and coming to a vote?

 

[sig shooter]

The bill makes perfect sense... if you consider all gun owners to be criminals in the making.

No doubt all the people who drafted and support this bill do. This would not be good news for reloading ether. This is just another attempt by scum bag politicians to make it harder to exercise our 2nd amendment rights. There strategy:divide and conquer and slice away the unknowing citizens rights a little at a time.

 

[LoginName]

They'll already have to implement microstamping if they want to sell any new models in CA starting 1/1/2010, thanks to the bill signed into law there in 2007. There are enough significant differences between the two bills, however, that if this one became law it would be a confusing mess for manufacturers.

If I'm not mistaken, that's all dependent if any single manufacturer embraces the technology... if one does it, they'll all have to do it in order to do business in CA.

 

[Big Daddy 45acp]

As we like to say, "That's retahhded".

Then it will most likely get signed into law.

 

[jdubois]

If I'm not mistaken, that's all dependent if any single manufacturer embraces the technology... if one does it, they'll all have to do it in order to do business in CA.

The text I believe you are referring to simply says that the AG's office must certify that the technology is 'available' to more than one manufacturer, unencumbered by any patents. (and, yes, there has been some discussion about the fact that applicable patents do exist)

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1451-1500/ab_1471_bill_20071013_chaptered.html

 

[Fixxah]

What's the chance of it coming out of committee and coming to a vote?

How soon is Teddy going to die? They will want to run it through before he goes so he can have his name on it and put the screws to those of us who do things legally.

 

[mikem317]

How soon is Teddy going to die? They will want to run it through before he goes so he can have his name on it and put the screws to those of us who do things legally.

I thought this was a state initiative?

(Fat "I Swear I Didn't Kill Her" Teddy is US Senator).

 

[GSG]

In short the bill would mandate that all semiautomatic handguns manufactured or delivered to a licensed dealer in Massachusetts as of January 1, 2010 would be required to be capable of microstamping any ammunition fired from them.

Hold on just one second.

They're proposing a bill that would make it so you have to have markings to register the shells fired from handguns, presumably so that they can look up the serial numbers on shells at crime scenes and catch the shooter, right?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a revolver keeps all of it's empty shells neatly in the cylinder, and leaves the pavement at a crime scene completely free from brass shell casings.

So the one kind of gun that won't leave behind registered shells at crime scenes by its very nature will be the one kind of gun you can obtain legally.

Riiiiiight.

 

[theGringo]

So the one kind of gun that won't leave behind registered shells at crime scenes by its very nature will be the one kind of gun you can obtain legally.

Riiiiiight.

I've always been a wheelgun man.