Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, January 24, 2014

Smith and Wesson announced Wednesday that it will stop selling its handguns in California rather than manufacture them to comply with the new microstamping law. The other publicly traded firearms manufacturer in the U.S., Sturm, Ruger, also said this month that it will stop new sales to California. The announcement came a week after the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for firearms manufacturers, filed suit against California for requiring that all new semi-automatic pistols that are not already on the state's approved gun roster have the microstamping technology.

Advertisement

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

zack991

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Smith & Wesson President and CEO James Debney said, "As our products fall off the roster due to California's interpretation of the Unsafe Handgun Act, we will continue to work with the NRA and the NSSF to oppose this poorly conceived law which mandates the unproven and unreliable concept of microstamping and makes it impossible for Californians to have access to the best products with the latest innovations."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

There is a much, much simpler solution.
All we need is for gun manufacturers to keep on file the digital record of ballistics from the proof loads shot through each weapon before sale. Simple. With gun serial numbers and a ballistics database it would be a ten minute operation to connect a round used in a crime with a specific gun. No registration necessary. Tracing a firearm used in a crime would be much simpler.
The technology is relatively inexpensive and could be done even at gun shops selling used weapons. Nor would it be an "unreasonable restriction," which is what the supreme dorks said was the only type of prohibited restriction on guns.
Usually an intact round has the characteristics of the manufacturer and model. It would be simple to make arms traders keep the record for police if needed.

#1 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-01-23 02:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

I don't blame them. The NRA tried to run S & W out of business the last time they wanted to comply with some new regs.

#2 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-01-23 08:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

The technology is relatively inexpensive and could be done even at gun shops selling used weapons. Nor would it be an "unreasonable restriction," which is what the supreme dorks said was the only type of prohibited restriction on guns.

The NSA would violate every orifice of that database.

#3 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2014-01-23 08:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

shouldn't be a problem....someone give them a contact number for Eric Holder...he can send them all plenty.

#4 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-01-23 12:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

All we need is for gun manufacturers to keep on file the digital record of ballistics from the proof loads shot through each weapon before sale.

That seems like a very simple and effective solution. Is paranoia (see #3) the only thing stopping it?

#5 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-01-23 12:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Frankly it is an almost total waste of time and effort. Firing pin manufacturing and replacement is not a difficult process.

As for the NSA... Think they don't already know who is buying guns? It's not legal for the DEA to track them but NSA doing it in secret?

#6 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2014-01-23 05:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Good for Smith & Wesson. California and it's gun hating politicians like Senator Diane Feinstein will try any backdoor ploy they can get away with in order to strip law-abiding citizens of their 2nd Amendment right to own a gun. And California WILL send law-enforcement to your door to take away your guns if they get the chance, make no mistake about it.

#7 | Posted by CalifChris at 2014-01-24 10:53 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

That seems like a very simple and effective solution. Is paranoia (see #3) the only thing stopping it?

#5 | Posted by BruceBanner

Wrong oh lib breath. That would be as usfull as all the data the NSA gathers. They can't sift through all of it.

#8 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-01-24 10:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

who needs S&W when you have Glock, Ruger and Berreta

#9 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2014-01-24 11:07 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Soon the cops in cal will be without pistols. No mfgr. is going to do what that law says.

#10 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-01-24 11:12 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Soon the cops in cal will be without pistols."

See, shark, jump.

#11 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-24 11:14 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2

Isn't this a win for both free market proponents and anti-gun nuts. DC and Cali now get to effectively remove certain weapons form the marketplace without having to resort to coersion or potential constitutional violations.

#12 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-01-24 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

Isn't this a win for both free market proponents and anti-gun nuts.

#12 | Posted by madbomber

It will be found to be unconstitutinal.

#13 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-01-24 11:34 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

@Diablo, there is already something similar many new firearms come with a fired casing sealed in a small envelope initialed by someone at the manufactures which is required by some states.
While your suggestion, the current fired case implementation, and the micro stamping sound reasonable they are inherently flawed in that it is all too simple to make a minor alteration to a firing pin, or the rifling to make the comparison useless. Micro stamping is an unproven technology and raises many issues.
Most weapons sold today are semi-automatic and it's usually quite easy to replace firing pins.
Micro stamping can and would only apply to new firearms, it is not a technology which could be applied to the millions of used firearms already in circulation.
As with all gun control it's fighting symptoms not sources. Crime is perhaps the oldest profession controlling firearms will no more stop crime than traffic controls stop accidents.

#14 | Posted by kingcuke at 2014-01-24 11:38 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

That seems like a very simple and effective solution. Is paranoia (see #3) the only thing stopping it?

#5 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER AT 2014-01-23 12:40 PM | FLAG:

It's not practical. Many firearms are sold without ever being fired.

Explain to how how you are going to get digital ballistics from an AR-15 lower? That is the only part that is a registered firearm. It is a gun, despite the fact it has no parts installed. No barrel, no bolt carrier group, no trigger group assembly.

I'm using the AR-15 for a simple example, but it includes many, many firearms, especially pistols. It's quite popular to build a 1911 .45 pistol or any number of Glock models.

#15 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-01-24 11:42 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Good news for California. Now if the other gun makers follow, I'll consider moving there.

#16 | Posted by CrisisStills at 2014-01-24 11:43 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2

Why should any manufacturer pass on a significant cost of firearm ownership to the 99% that represent honest law abiding citizens, when the 1% who are the criminals steal their firearms anyway?

The biggest problem in California with shootings and firearms are the ethnic and immigrant (illegal and other) gangs, druggies, and gang bangers. They don't buy legal firearms. Yet the government does nothing to focus on them because it would offend the race baiters.

The goal from those like Feinstein and her pals that dominate and control California, NYC, MD, IL politics, is to ultimately take away firearms from the masses and especially from the Goy. They have the money and connections to have private security forces or police at their beck and call, and armed with fully auto AR15 actual assault weapons.

#17 | Posted by Robson at 2014-01-24 12:17 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#1 sounds reasonable.

Which is why it will never happen.

#18 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2014-01-24 12:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Isn't this a win for both free market proponents and anti-gun nuts.

yup! Win-Win!

Thanks for the gift S&W.

#19 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-01-24 12:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

#1 sounds reasonable.
Which is why it will never happen.

#18 | POSTED BY LIVE_OR_DIE AT 2014-01-24 12:47 PM | FLAG:

It shouldn't happen, because it makes no sense and sounds like it was written by somebody with no understanding of the current firearms market or firearm production laws.

This is a legal firearm that takes a background check to buy:
www.spikestactical.com

This is a legal firearm, with some parts installed (trigger group, stock & tube, grip):
www.spikestactical.com

Neither of those are capable of shooting bullets without parts that are not considered a legal firearm.

This is not a firearm, and can be bought without a background check:
www.spikestactical.com

There is no log the government can cal lon for serial numbers. They are just parts.

It is an assembly of all the parts that the bullets come out of. It is modular, able to switch onto any lower in seconds. It is just 2 pins with a spring-loaded ball detent to keep the pins in place. I can assemble one in my garage in under half an hour.

This exact same thing applies to pistols. On a 1911, the only registered part is the frame.

Recording ballistics is not just "every firearm load at the factory before it shipped", there are many more parts that would have to be tracked, and all of those transactions.

You'd be trying to track $6 (retail) metal pins that are easily machined, among many other parts, on a market where tens of millions of them are already out there.

I'm not saying I have some magic solution, but that one is simply not possible. Something impossible can not be a reasonable solution, that's religion.

#20 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-01-24 02:45 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I think we should all just be glad that the wingnut state is sticking to imposing idiotic legislation on the dummies who chose to live their. As opposed to trying to impose legislation on all of us.

#21 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-01-24 02:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

And if I ever decide to get into crime. California seems to be the place to go. They offer the most OSHA-like protections for criminal activity.

#22 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-01-24 02:49 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#1

Silly Diablo,

You know better, if there is a simple inexpensive solution of course the government will find a way to make it expensive and labor intensive. They have to find a way to hire a bunch of new employees rather than take the inexpensive way out. After all its not thier money, it is tax dollars, and if there are not enough of them we simply vote to raise taxes again.

#23 | Posted by gtjr at 2014-01-24 03:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Good news for California. Now if the other gun makers follow, I'll consider moving there.

#16 | Posted by CrisisStills

.
Then only the Mexican drug cartels along with gangbangers from every demographic, and California's assorted run-of-the-mill crazies will have guns. Feel safer now?

#24 | Posted by CalifChris at 2014-01-24 03:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

#1 | POSTED BY DIABLO

Unfortunately that would easily be circumvented.

Parts aren't "married" to the actual tracked part of the firearm (unless it's a revolver), so just changing out the barrel from the stock to a match grade will render that useless.

Hell, I have an AR-15 that I built using an 80% lower receiver that I finished the milling on and parts purchased from a handful of vendors that, legally, doesn't even have a serial number anywhere on it since I finished the milling myself.

All perfectly legal as long as I don't try to sell it.

#25 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-01-25 09:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

Most gun violence is perpetrated by angry people and drunk people, most of whom to not have the skills to tear down and replace gun parts. Micro-stamping seems to be a cheap and effective start towards a solution to the problem of firearms mayhem.

#26 | Posted by john47 at 2014-01-25 12:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Most gun violence is perpetrated by angry people and drunk people,..."

...belonging to gangs located in urban areas of Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles etc."

FTFY

#27 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-01-25 12:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

. Then only the Mexican drug cartels along with gangbangers from every demographic, and California's assorted run-of-the-mill crazies will have guns. Feel safer now?

#24 | POSTED BY CALIFCHRIS

First of all there are tons of legal guns in the state. They will just be worth more suddenly if no new guns are sold there. Second, its a huge market. Someone will always be there to take the money. Just follow state law and reap those profits. Third, I feel as safe today as I felt yesterday. Forth, decriminalize the drugs that feed the cartels profits. Fifth, get the crazies off the streets by putting them to work. Give them hope. If they have their own stuff they won't be taking yours.

-DB

#28 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-01-25 12:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

"They will just be worth more suddenly if no new guns are sold there. Second, its a huge market. Someone will always be there to take the money."

Wow...I'm really kinda surprised. A "progressive" with some brain cells, who would've ever thought....

"Fifth, get the crazies off the streets by putting them to work."

...or in jail if the won't work. I'm developing a new respect, Donnerboy. Are you committing heresy and turning conservative?

#29 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-01-25 12:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

#26 | POSTED BY JOHN47

Unfortunately, that's why I consider it "a feel good" control. Looks like you're accomplishing something, but not really because it's easily circumvented.

Did a little more digging and found this:
www.nssf.org is the results of a study by University of California, Davis.

Lot of good information on the subject there but the gist I got from it was that it's not all that reliable based on the tests and not only varied from one weapon to the next, but also on the ammunition used.

Also, since a very limited number of weapons were tested and the results varied so much, a recommendation was specifically made that the law not be implemented until tests on a wider range of weapons was conducted. (On page 9 and in more detail on page 39).

It's also expensive as hell for a company to implement. (starting page 42)

#30 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-01-25 01:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort