CT Micro-Stamping Bill Will Ban Handguns


PDA






statelineblues
March 14, 2009, 09:52 AM
Attention Connecticut handgun owners! We need to knock this bill out -

"Micro-Stamping" Bill Scheduled for a Hearing on Monday, March 16!

Please Stand-Up and Make Your Voice Heard!

On Monday, March 16, the Joint Committee on Judiciary will hold a public hearing on Senate Bill 353, a bill sponsored by State Senator Martin M. Looney (D-11) that would ban the sale of all semi-automatic pistols not equipped with so-called "micro-stamping" technology.

Micro-stamping is an unproven technology that would require unique identifying information from the firearm, including the make, model, and serial number to be etched into the firing pin and breech face in such a manner that those identifiers are imprinted on the cartridge case upon firing. The technology can easily be defeated with common household tools, has no public safety value, and adds substantially to the cost of the firearm.

If SB 353 is passed, it will become ILLEGAL to sell or transfer any semi-automatic pistol that is not capable of micro-stamping. This would mean that any semi-auto handgun that you currently own could never be sold or transferred in Connecticut. This would ban the sale of used semi-auto handguns without the technology and would prohibit estates from bequeathing semi-auto handguns that do not include micro-stamping technology.

Since no manufacturers currently incorporate micro-stamping in their firearms, this bill would result in a de facto ban on all semi-automatic handguns in Connecticut.

The hearing will be held on Monday, March 16 at 10:00 A.M. in Room 2C of the Legislative Office Building (LOB) in Hartford and it is important that Connecticut gun owners attend this hearing. We encourage all of our members to attend this meeting and voice your opposition to SB353. If you would like to testify before the committee, you must submit 45 copies of your written/typed testimony to the Judiciary Committee staff in Room 2500 at least two hours prior to the start of the hearing.

This bill must be defeated! If you are unable to attend the hearing, please contact the members of the Joint Judiciary Committee TODAY and respectfully urge them to defend our Second Amendment rights by opposing SB353.

This came from the NRA-ILA Alerts

(Mods, if this has been posted already, please merge it with other threads - thanks!)

If you enjoyed reading about "CT Micro-Stamping Bill Will Ban Handguns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Mr_Rogers
March 14, 2009, 12:06 PM
You all get together pool your pennies, sue the State then strike another blow for the 2nd.

It seems pretty clear that this is more than a "reasonable" restriction in that, since microstamped firearms are not available, this is a De Facto ban.

Actually, the whole idea is going nowhere but the more noise CT gun owners make the sooner this idea will end up in that happy location.

Shear_stress
March 14, 2009, 12:23 PM
Senator "Looney"? Seriously?

distra
March 14, 2009, 08:15 PM
Send my emails yesterday. Most of shooting buds have called or emailed the Judiciary committee members. I'm calling them Monday morning first thing. I don't think this will get out of committee, but I've already contacted both my state senators. Nip this garbage in the bud! :cuss:

statelineblues
March 15, 2009, 07:37 AM
Posted by Shear_stress:

Senator "Looney"? Seriously?

Yes, really...

Senator Martin Looney (D) is in his third term as Senate Majority Leader of the General Assembly, having first been elected to that leadership post in 2003. He is also Chair of the Executive and Legislative Nominations Committee and Vice Chair of the Legislative Management Committee. Since being elected to the State Senate in 1993, he has spent six years as Senate Chair of the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee; Chairman of the Banks Committee, Vice-Chair of the Bonding Subcommittee, and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee.

He represents New Haven and Hamden Districts.

gbran
March 15, 2009, 03:44 PM
CT Micro-Stamping Bill Will Ban Handguns


Of course it bans handguns. That is the true intent.

hso
March 15, 2009, 04:12 PM
Ask them how much of a kickback they're getting from the company promoting this?

ID Dynamics is the only one and they focus on getting legislation passed to make their useless product commercially viable. That's monopolistic and something that Mr. Looney should have his nose rubbed in.

Technical problems with applying microstamping abound.

* 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.

* 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. 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 revolvers they do not eject shell cases.

Hungry Seagull
March 15, 2009, 05:21 PM
Then it's time we learn how to make ammuntion that burns off totally, leaving nothing behind to eject.

cauberallies
March 15, 2009, 05:44 PM
Hungry Seagull, such ammunition already exists. I forget exactly what uses it, but it is a HK rifle/carbine of some sort.

Boba Fett
March 15, 2009, 05:56 PM
Posted by cauberallies:
Hungry Seagull, such ammunition already exists. I forget exactly what uses it, but it is a HK rifle/carbine of some sort.

Link?




Then it's time we learn how to make ammuntion that burns off totally, leaving nothing behind to eject.

You mean something like this? ;)
http://www.derbyshirearms.co.uk/images/percussion.jpghttp://www.derbyshirearms.co.uk/images/musket.jpghttp://www.derbyshirearms.co.uk/images/dragoon.jpg

HeavenlySword
March 15, 2009, 07:35 PM
LOL @ the flintlocks

No, he means the HK G11 prototypes. They were using advanced caseless ammunition, allowing for less weight per round, more power for weight, and also a theoretically higher cyclic rate of fire as there was no ejection cycle, However, the weapon heated up much faster as brass serves as an heat sink in conventional weaponry.

lanternlad1
March 15, 2009, 07:42 PM
Then it's time we learn how to make ammuntion that burns off totally, leaving nothing behind to eject.

Or use revolvers.

Or a brass catching bag.

Or pick up brass from someone else and strew them at the crime scene.

Schleprok62
March 15, 2009, 08:22 PM
Or pick up brass from someone else and strew them at the crime scene.

Of several different calibers from several different sources... Brass is easily collected from any range... indoor or outdoor... yeah... that'll really throw CSI into a tizzy...

Hungry Seagull
March 15, 2009, 08:22 PM
No no no... LOL at some of the stuff in reply...

Tossing down range brass at a crime scene will throw off the LEO's in a "Post-Stamp" crime in the future.

My intent was to have ammo such as used for the G11 burn off totally, leaving no stamps behind for anyone to worry about.

What's next? Vanishing ammo? Buy and shoot within a week or lose it to evaporation?

grimjaw
March 15, 2009, 09:26 PM
Let me make sure I understand this. This tech is supposed to use the gun to stamp the BRASS, right, and not the primer or bullet?

So what happens if the brass is reloaded five times and shot in five different guns before it's fired in the last one?

jm

statelineblues
March 15, 2009, 10:57 PM
hso (and everybody else, too) - Thanks; that's some more "ammunition" we can use...

N003k
March 15, 2009, 10:58 PM
Bleh, unfortunatly I have no way of getting to the hearing, since I somehow doubt anything that happens will end up on the news...:rolleyes: Post an update here if ya can on how it goes.

distra
March 15, 2009, 11:15 PM
N003K, Please call or email the Judiciary Committee if you have time. I can't make it either, but LOTS of folks from our club are heading over. I've already made contact with my two senators as well.

N003k
March 15, 2009, 11:17 PM
Oh, I took care of that already, I did it once when I heard it first was in committee, did it once when I got the NRA Email the other day, and I may send another one tonight.

nksmfamjp
March 15, 2009, 11:54 PM
So what happens if the brass is reloaded five times and shot in five different guns before it's fired in the last one?

OMG we have to ban reloading!

Gamera
March 16, 2009, 12:34 AM
Quote:
Posted by cauberallies:
Hungry Seagull, such ammunition already exists. I forget exactly what uses it, but it is a HK rifle/carbine of some sort.
Link?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_G11

evan price
March 16, 2009, 03:23 AM
"Senator Looney"... Migawd, you can't make this stuff up...

cane
March 16, 2009, 07:21 AM
IIRC, Daisy (of BB gun fame) made a caseless .22 rifle about 30 yrs ago. It didn't have a firing pin, rather used a modified spring action that used compressed air to ignite the propelled. I think they discontinued them because they weren't licensed to build firearms. Here's a link: http://www.bbairguns.com/Chronology/DaisyGuns/model_VL.htm

eye5600
March 16, 2009, 11:41 AM
So what happens if the brass is reloaded five times and shot in five different guns before it's fired in the last one?

So what's the chance that the guy who holds up a 7/11 reloads? There are many good reasons to oppose this law, but the fact that it might only work some of the time is not persuasive. Crooks only leave fingerprints some of the time. Crooks only leave DNA some of the time.

Claude Clay
March 16, 2009, 01:46 PM
crowd is BIG
all parking within 1 mile was taken was what the police were telling those looking for a parking place.

micro stamping is like legislating pi = 3.0. this may allow the 'special' people to learn math easier, but it will not work in the real world. of course I'm thinking that enough laws passed later on to clarify the original and its bound to be so convoluted that statistically it can be proven to work. we elect them after all because they are the only ones professional enough to understand the laws they have made.:what:

hso
March 16, 2009, 03:21 PM
Criminals won't be strewing brass "from the range" around. They don't go to the range, they don't use guns registered to them and they don't take time to cover their tracks that way.

It also won't put gun manufacturers out of business. It just requires the firing pin to microstamp the primer.

What it will do is increase the cost of firearms manufacturing because the manufacturers will have to license the technology from IDD to use it.

Tell them if CT wants to void IDD's patents or develop an alternative to it that is not monopolistic we'd be interested in hearing about it, but until then it will be assumed that the supporting legislators are in IDD's pocket.

distra
March 16, 2009, 05:20 PM
Here are few links to the testimonies.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/JUDdata/Tmy/2009SB-00353-R000316-Dept.%20of%20Public%20Safety,%20John%20A.%20Danaher%20III-TMY.PDF
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/JUDdata/Tmy/2009SB-00353-R000316-Fraternal%20Order%20of%20Police%20CT%20State%20Lodge,%20John%20Flynn-TMY.PDF

Plus link to main testimony page.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/CommDocTmy.asp?comm_code=JUD&date=03/16/2009

statelineblues
March 17, 2009, 10:34 AM
Any info on the outcome? Anyone stay for the whole session?

JohnL2
March 17, 2009, 11:26 AM
When the tree of common sense falls over in the woods, does it make a sound?
Not in Connecticut I guess.

lanternlad1
March 17, 2009, 03:42 PM
When the tree of common sense falls over in the woods, does it make a sound?

Remember, these are the people that took the Beloved Charter Oak (the one you see on the back of the CT quarter) where was hidden the Charter Of Connecticut and made it into a high backed armchair.

Yep, Yankees can be stupid sometimes...

JohnL2
March 17, 2009, 09:43 PM
Well, I am a Yankee, and I've done plenty of stupid things in my life. In defense of Yankees in general, I must say they are for the most part, great people.
It is just that it is so disappointing to see what we have in government. I have no doubt that this Senator has the best intentions but I just have to wonder where this guys' logic is. Doesn't he know how easy it would be to defeat this measure by someone with just a little bit of ingenuity?
And what about all the enthusiasts who like to swap parts to customize their firearm?
After observing politics for the short time that I have become interested in it, I have come to the realization that there are basically two types of people who go into politics. Well meaning nice people, who are kind of half-witted; and then the "mean set" of people. You know who you are.

lanternlad1
March 19, 2009, 11:59 AM
Well, I am a Yankee, and I've done plenty of stupid things in my life. In defense of Yankees in general, I must say they are for the most part, great people.

I agree. I was born in CT, and lived there for the first 25 years of my life. That makes me a Yankee too.

statelineblues
March 19, 2009, 12:06 PM
Update from NRA-ILA:

"Micro-Stamping" Bill Heard Yesterday (Mon., 16 March) in Hartford

Please Continue Contacting Your State Legislators!

A strong showing of law-abiding gun owners spoke loudly yesterday in Hartford at the hearing on Senate Bill 353, a bill which would ban the sale of all semi-automatic handguns not equipped with so-called "micro-stamping" technology.

Thank you to the hundreds of opponents of this proposal who took time from work and their busy lives to stand up and say "NO" to yet another misguided anti-gun bill.

Members of the Joint Committee on Judiciary must vote on SB353 by Friday, April 3 in order for the bill to advance.



Thank you again to all who have made their voices heard. If you haven't yet done so, please be sure to contact your lawmakers and urge them to oppose SB353!

eye5600
March 19, 2009, 12:11 PM
As matters stand now, if a gun is found at a crime scene, a cop takes the s/n and goes to the phone. He starts with the manufacturer and asks what distributor it was shipped to. He calls the distributor and ask what gun store. He calls the gun store and asks what customer. He calls (or visits) the customer and asks where the gun is. After half a day on the phone, he finds the gun was stolen and it's a dead end. Or maybe not. With micro-stamping, it would be the same.

If I were a legislator, I would be worried about a) all the voters who would be angry (livid? total, inconsolably enraged?) about having most models of guns taken off the market (until/unless they comply), and about voters who are angry at the me for helping make guns more expensive, and very uncomfortable for legislating a mandate for a private, patented technology. But I don't think I'd be much worried on the gun trace side.

Carl N. Brown
September 4, 2009, 02:27 PM
Members of the CT legislature obviously hold stock in revolver factories.

Introduce a bill to require microstamping for REVOLVERS TOO (which will have crime fighting value only with a bill to require criminals who use revolvers to dump their empties at the crime scene).

If the relatively gross toolmarks left on cartridges and bullets by firing pins, extractors, firing chambers, breech faces and muzzles can change over a few years of even light use, how long will the microstamp etchings hold up? The guy who holds the patent on microstamping must have a good lobbyist.

If you enjoyed reading about "CT Micro-Stamping Bill Will Ban Handguns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!