Firearm Microstamping - Controversy

Controversy

In general, groups that support gun control legislation generally favor requiring ballistic imprinting on all new firearms, while groups supportive of gun rights and the Second Amendment generally oppose any legal requirement for ballistic imprinting technology. Since the technology is unproven with large scale implementation, there are no reliable statistics to substantiate how useful the process might really be to law enforcement or that it would in any way hurt these same efforts.

Claims made by proponents of the technology include:

• Microstamping enables law enforcement to match fired cartridge cases from a crime scene to at least the last registered owner of the firearm.
• Microstamping would allow law enforcement to track illegal trade in guns.
• Low cost of implementation; the technology owner claims as low as US$0.50 per firearm or as high as US $8.50, depending on the volume of the manufacturer.
• High reliability; the "nearly as hard as a diamond" firing pin provides long service life.

Claims made by the opponents of the technology include:

• Stamped casing can only be traced to the last registered owner, not to the person who used the gun when the casings were stamped. In the case of a stolen gun, as is the case for most firearms used in crime, the stamped case would not lead to the criminal.
• Unscrupulous individuals could collect discarded brass from a firing range and salt crime scenes with microstamped cases, thereby providing false evidence against innocent people and increasing the workload for investigators.
• High costs for testing the efficacy of the technique must be passed on to customers, increasing the cost of firearms for those who obtain them legally.
• Microstamping is easily defeated. Diamond coated files are inexpensive and will remove microstamping. Firing pins are normally replaceable and can be changed with simple tools or without tools. Firing a large number of rounds will wear down the microstamp. Marked components such as slides, barrels, firing pins and ejectors are all easily and commonly replaced items.
• Microstamping is an immature, sole source technology, and has not been subjected to sufficient independent testing. Transfer of microstamped marks to the cases is less reliable than proponents claim.
• Microstamping would be irrelevant/non-applicable for implementation of revolvers as these types of weapons do not eject shell cases necessarily.
• Ejected casings can be easily collected and removed from a crime scene.

Specific to California, opponents say:

• Firearms sold to law-enforcement are exempt. Problems could arise if a police officer's firearm is used in a crime or stolen, and the fact that a firearm is "unsafe" if not provided with stamping technology exposes the police to liability.
• Guns manufactured before an effective date are exempt and the bill does not extend to guns outside of California. There's no possibility that this bill would ever cover enough guns to provide the investigative advantage claimed for it by the proponents.
• Failures of the microstamping parts of a firearm makes it "unsafe" under the California law, which then becomes illegal to sell, give or lend under existing law.