A Victory For Law Enforcement in California

California police got some welcome news this weekend.

On Saturday, October 13, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger sided with over 65 police chiefs, sheriffs and police organizations - representing cities and towns across the state of California - and signed the Crime Gun Identification Act of 2007 into law. This bill requires that, by 2010, all semi-automatic handguns sold in the state of California be fitted with a technology to help police officers solve gun crimes faster -- even when the gun is unavailable.

A fuller discussion of this technology, called "microstamping," is available here [.wmv file] in an excellent video presentation, as well as in a blog entry I posted back in August. In a nutshell, a firearm that is fitted with the technology has microscopic marks of the make, model and serial number of the weapon engraved on the firing pin, as well as other parts inside the weapon. Each time the handgun is fired, these engravings are impressed on the primer cap and other parts of the shell casing. These shell-casing marks are then visible under a scanning electron microscope -- standard equipment used in almost all crime labs.

Approximately 45 percent of all homicides in California go unsolved due to lack of evidence. Roughly 60 percent of homicides in California are committed with handguns, according to 2004 data, and about 70 percent of new handguns sold in California are semi-automatic. Oftentimes, the only evidence left behind at the scene of a gun crime are the shell casings. No gun to be found. The Crime Gun Identification Act is targeted at precisely this problem. Now, police will be able to use shell casings that the gun fired - marked with the make, model and serial number of the weapon - to trace the gun back to its first purchaser. That means more gun crimes solved - and fewer criminals on the street.

The Brady Campaign was proud to help the determined efforts of Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-42) and our California Brady Chapters, and join the overwhelming law enforcement support of this bill, including: the California Police Chiefs Association, the Orange County Chiefs' and Sheriff's Association, the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC), and the Los Angeles Police Protective League, in addition to 65 police chiefs and sheriffs throughout the state.

Sadly, the gun lobby - led the National Rifle Association, the gun manufacturers' trade association, and the extremist Gun Owners of California - fought bitterly to kill this bill. But Gov. Schwarzenegger saw past all that and found the clear preference of California police.

The choice was simple.

In his signing message, the Governor reaffirmed that "Public safety is one of the most important roles of government" and he is right. As a former mayor, I had the same duty to protect the public safety of my city and support police officers in their difficult work. It is gratifying to see a fellow Republican stand up to the gun lobby, support the needs of law enforcement, and do what's right for the people who elected him.

Saturday was indeed a good day for law enforcement - and for the people of California.

***

Note that tomorrow is the six-month anniversary of the Virginia Tech massacre. Survivors and surviving family members will make a trip to Capitol Hill here in Washington, D.C. tomorrow morning, and urge passage of the NICS Improvement Act (H.R. 2640), a bill designed to fill gaps in the Brady background check law that allowed the Virginia Tech killer to get his guns from gun stores. I will post a blog some time after the families' presentation is finished and describe the day's events.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

Comments

[motoboy]

Arnold is just ACTING like a governor, right? A REAL governor wouldn't do something like this to his subjects.

[molonlabe]

Congratulations, Kalifornia! Just one question:

When the 2007, 2008, ect... ATF trace statistics are released, is microstamping going to be blamed for the substantial increases in "crime guns" traced and recovered from neighboring states or are we going to drudge up that old "iron pipeline" argument again? For some reason, I don't think criminals will be champing at the bit to use a weapon equipped with microstamping technology for commission of their crimes.

[DMeadows]

This law commences January 1, 2010. Looking at data from before 2010 would be futile.

[molonlabe]

oops! Thinking one thing and writing another...you get my drift though...

[mike101]

Excellant point. When microstamping falls on it's face, the BC will still have something to propogandize about.

[mike101]

Thirdpower- Two more words. Brass Catcher.

http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=112864.

Hell, you could make a brass catcher yourself. But if I was a criminal, I'd just go with a revolver. Since this law can't apply to revolvers, how long do you think it will be before the BC tries to have them banned?

This legislation is designed to accomplish two things:

1- Ban new semi-auto handguns from Kalifornia, as the technology does not exist to stamp anything on the cartridge case, and is unlikely to exist in the next two years. Many manufacturers will simply refuse to sell guns to Kalifornia. The BC knows this, because it's happened in the past, when frame locks became mandated.

2- Make anti-rights folks feel good between now and 2010.

This is just another attempt to get more types of guns banned, folks. The BC thinks you are too dumb to figure that out. Since they haven't been able to pull off a blanket gun ban yet, they are chipping away at private gun-ownership, one type of gun at a time.

[zen21tao]

This actually far more of a victory for CRIMINALS than it is for law enforcement. The simple fact is, the vast majority of firearms used in crimes make it into criminal's hands by means other than a legal an in store purchase. Therefore, any trace date acquired through stamping will not trace back to them anyway.

But what criminals do get is their own manufactured "reasonable doubt" to use on their side if they do make it to trial. All they have to do is throw down brass used by someone else or swap their firing pin for another "registered" one. Now, they can point to their existing real evidence that suggests it was someone else (the lawful owner the firing pin that made used in the gun to commit the crime) that committed the crime.

On the other hand, if they don't want to bother with microstamping at all, they can defeat the stamping with a $0.02 piece if steel wool, use a brass catcher, or simply use a revolver.

The anti-gun community is widely aware that this technology is, at best, easily defeatable and, at worse, a tool to assist criminals at getting away with crime. However, the are so blind by their hatred of guns they are willing to rejoice over this legislation, which is nothing more than a back door attempt at banning guns, even if does aid the criminals that commit the very crimes they say they want to stop.

[FarSeeingArt]

The technology does not work on firing pins.
The usability of the imprint on shell casings is at best 20% under optimal conditions..
The etchings are easily removed with common material without any effect on the firearm.
Check out the study -

http://www.nssf.org/share/legal/docs/microstamping/Backgrounder-UCDavis.pdf

[1will]

There are alot of very knowledgable comment posters on this column. I'm glad to see that.
I hope you guys spend as much time educating anti gunners and those that just don't know guns as I do.
The anti gunners depend on an ignorant public in order to get their laws through. That's why machine guns are often portrayed when discussing semi autos. It's doubtful that any of us will change the minds of an anti gunner but we really need those that are undecided. A little knowledge goes a long way in bringing this group around to our side.
Keep up the good work guys.

[1will]

Didn't Maryland have a scheme like this? As I recall they wanted "Ballistic Fingerprints" for all new handguns sold in that state.
"Ballistic Fingerprints" were a spent casing (with all the unique marks each particular gun makes) and a fired bullet from every handgun sold.
It never helped to solve a crime.

[dragn1]

I am asking all gun manufacturers of all semi auto guns and manufacturers of ammo to immediately stop selling all items to Kalifornia.. This means to stores as well as Police departments. If Kalifornia wants to destroy the constitution and outlaw guns then let them do so and let them fend for themselves. Since outlawing guns would of course mean that no guns would be on the streets then Kalifornia would be the safest state going and all the rabid gun control freaks could move there.

[Misanthrope2]

Why injure the millions of gun owners in California?

[Misanthrope2]

Instead, do it like Barrett did with the 50 BMG.

Once the ban went into effect, they refused to sell and service 50 BMG for California police, sheriff and national guard.

No gun owners were hurt by this strategy.

[derby]

I hear that firearms carried by police officers are exempt from the new microstamping requirements. If true, then what happens if a cop's gun is lost or stolen? Or, worse yet, what happens if a cop becomes a murderer?

I don't see where this bill is going to do anything but make things harder on law-abiding gun owners. The only criminals that will be caught with this new law are those too stupid to pick up their own brass. Maybe some "gangsta" drive-by shooters will be nabbed by the new law, but that's it - and even they are probably hard at work trying to find a way around the microstamp.

[Misanthrope2]

Sandpaper. Just push the hammer from the back so it sticks out. Sand for ten seconds. No microstamp.

However, the new law requires an invention to place make, model and serial number on the side of the cartridge. Unless it is a mini-laser, you could probably sand it off, too.

[Mark0]

"Oftentimes, the only evidence left behind at the scene of a gun crime are the shell casings."

And now there will be no shell casing left at the crime scene. Its far too easy for the criminals to simply not leave the casings behind.

At it's best, this is feel-good, do-nothing legislation that raises far more questions than asnwers.

How does the state deal with handguns that do not eject expended casing, such as revolvers and single-shots?

How does the state deal with firearms manufactured pre-stamp?

When do the state law-enforcement agancies plan to change over to firearms using this technology ("over 65 police chiefs, sheriffs and police organizations..."), and what is the cost to the tax-payers?

How many, and at what cost, are the additional S.E.M. units ("marks are then visible under a scanning electron microscope") to the taxpayers?

How does the state intend to deal with a firearm that has had the firing pin replaced by the owner after purchase?

Can these markings can be effectively used as proof in a court-of-law (for what do they ctually prove)?

Won't criminals just plant brass from someone else's firearm at the crime scene as a red herring for law-enforcement?

Won't criminals simply claim that their brass was planted at the crime scene by someone else?

Ultimately the taxpayers and the good citizens will pay the high costs for this bit of feel-good legislation. The criminals will largely be unaffected.

[Misanthrope2]

The law only applies to the sale of semiautomatic handguns, not revolvers or single shots.

You will be able to keep pistols you owned before the date of the act. If it is handled like assault rifles, you will be required to register all semiautomatics you owned before the date of the law in 2010.

The state will probably require the registration of new firing pins but the law also requires another stamp on the side of the cartridge. No guns do this.

The cartridge would be admissable as circumstantial evidence in a court of law.

Yes, some criminals will use range brass to misdirect the investigation. Some will just use revolvers, which are exempt.

And yes criminals will lie in their defense.

It's the end of the sale of semiautomatic handguns in California.

[Mark0]

"The law only applies ..."
"You will be able to keep..."

These phrases will later be described as "loopholes" in the microstamping legislation. No doubt there will be a push to close these "loopholes" down the road.

Meanswhile, I sure am glad they might see fit to ALLOW me to keep what is mine.

[DMeadows]

Good luck, California!

Paul and the BC make the following guarantees*, which you should track closely:
--Microstamping can not be defeated, neither intentionally nor unintentionally (wear and tear, residue).
--This will just cost 50 cents to a dollar per firearm.
--This will impose no requirements on manufacturers of ammunition.
--This will create no monopolistic opportunity for any business.
--Due demonstrably to microstamping, the rate of solving crimes committed with semi-automatic handguns will go up.

http://www.csgv.org/atf/cf//{23E96A35-4C75-41EE-BDDD-4BD3A3B59010}/Top%2010%20Gun%20Industry%20Lies%20About%20Microstamping.pdf

[FarSeeingArt]

Consider the number of qualifying firearms per manufacturer. Restrict that number by manufacturer to those sent to California. The typical handgun manufacturer sends very few firearms to CA each year.

http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/stats/afmer/afmer2005.pdf

Either the equipment to stamp these parts is very,very cheap or the 'estimate' per firearm is bogus. More likely the latter. Considering the time and bureaucratic costs in addition to the cost of equipment and training the cost per firearm will be substantially more than $.50 - $1.00 per firearm. How much is this equipment anyway?

The technology doesn't seem to work anyway.

http://www.nssf.org/share/legal/docs/microstamping/Backgrounder-UCDavis.pdf

[tao53nyc]

The Gun Owners of California are an "extremist" organization?

This is typical of so-called "progressives" who would rather demonize their opposition than engage in honest debate.

I looked at the GOC's website, and found their statement of principles and goals:

"What We Believe at Gun Owners of California

• We believe the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are priceless documents based on the eternal truths. Both are as valid today as when they were drafted.

• We believe the Second Amendment to the Constitution is under severe attack and must be vigorously defended.

• We believe we are opposed by those who are as dedicated to abolishing the Second Amendment as we are to defending it.

• We believe the battle is primarily political and will be won or lost through the elective process.

• We believe we will never be secure in our rights to own firearms until the anti-gunners are swept from office and soundly defeated.

• We believe the victory can never be accomplished until gun owners recognize they are in a protracted conflict and organize for a long political battle.

• We believe our opposition will lie and distort the truth if it suits their purpose. Fighting them will be confrontational.

• We believe it is unwise, both politically and morally, to compromise principles for some temporal political gain. Worthy goals can never be permanently achieved by unworthy tactics. "

Yep, that's a real "extremist" group, all right...one that Thomas Jefferson and Sam Adams, et al, probably would have had no problems belonging to.

This law is just another fluff piece designed to perpetuate the illusion that CA is tough on violent gun crimes, while accomplishing nothing.

Most guns used in violent crimes are either purchased out of state or "underground". It will just encourage the more thoughtful criminals to continue that practice.

This law, like all the other 22,000+ laws governing gun ownership and use, just make it more difficult for otherwise peaceful, law-abiding citizens to obtain firearms, as is their right guaranteed by the Constitution.

[1will]

Most supporters of The Brady Foundation to Prevent Gun Ownership never actually check the facts in their statements. These guys count on that.

[Misanthrope2]

I'm a progressive. I probably shoot more than you do.

[tao53nyc]

Nobody shoots more than a Libertarian. ;^)

[Thirdpower]

One word:

Revolvers

[GenericBlogger]

The hammer on revolvers can be microstamped.

[1will]

True but revolvers don't throw brass (spent bullet casings) all over a crime scene like semi automatics do. Unless the criminal unloads his gun onto the ground when reloading microstamping a revolvers hammer is futile.

[Mark0]

The brass from a revolver is not automatically ejected.

All that is proved by stamped brass in a revolver is that it was fired (which can be borne out by the brass being empty). The stamping does not tie the revolver to a geological location or a timeframe.

Even stamped brass found at a crime scene does not prove (or even specifically indicate) that it was fired at THAT location, or that time, or from the firearm used to commit a crime. It is circumstantial...at best.

[Misanthrope2]

The new law requires two stamps, not just a hammer stamp. There are no guns that can do this.

[GenericBlogger]

Anything that helps solve more crimes is worthwhile. Another benefit to the micromarks is the lower chances of convicting the wrong person(s ) having similar gun(s).

The NRA, GOC, and other groups should realize that the greater the chances of identifying and capturing those who use guns illegally, the greater the chance of gun ownership by law abiding people. Gun ownership has been challenged but it's protected by the Constitution. They need to cure their paranoia and stop making it easier for criminals to have guns.

[Mark0]

"Anything that helps solve more crimes is worthwhile."

This is a statement easily made when YOU are not being wrongfuly accused. But since this is your belief, you should forego probable cause and submit all your personal information to law enforcement, including DNA and fingerprints.

"Another benefit to the micromarks is the lower chances of convicting the wrong person(s )"

Brass picked up at the shooting range can now be used to implicate a person who was not present or complicit to a crime. How does this lower the chances of convicting the wrong person?

This legislation does noting to make it more difficult for criminals to have guns. It gives them more opportunities to misdirect an investigation.

[DMeadows]

"Anything that helps solve more crimes is worthwhile."

Think carefully before you speak. "Anything" is a mighty big word. Anything that, in implementation, ends up costing too much or whose effectiveness doesn't live up to what was sold isn't worthwhile. You have to wait and see on this one.

"the greater the chances of identifying and capturing those who use guns illegally, the greater the chance of gun ownership by law abiding people."

What you are saying is unclear and/or doesn't make sense. A rise in the probability of ID'ing and capturing those who misuse guns corresponds to a rise in the probability that a law abiding person will be a gun owner? Please clarify what you are saying with more precise language.

"Gun ownership has been challenged but it's protected by the Constitution."

Gun-control advocates, including the BC, seem to have not received that memo. Their track record clearly demonstrates their advocacy for abolishment of lawful gun ownership and carry for any purpose, even self-defense. They are as dangerous today as at any other time.

"stop making it easier for criminals to have guns."

It is not proven yet whether microstamping makes guns easier or harder for criminals to obtain. Again, you'll have to wait and see.

[Thirdpower]

If it's "protected" then how was CA, NY, NJ able to pass laws banning and confiscating firearms?

So far, you've shown nothing to answer the questions that have been raised about microstamping (the same claims made about "ballistic fingerprinting BTW) and just keep repeating "it will help".

[Misanthrope2]

California has not passed laws confiscating firearms. When it banned assault rifles and 50 cal. rifles, you still got to keep the ones you owned before the ban.

I guess I will have to buy a few more pistols next year before the ban goes into effect.

[Misanthrope2]

It's all a fantasy. There are no semiautomatic handguns that can imprint a model and serial number in two places on the cartridge. They do not exist.

[Misanthrope2]

Our actor governor signed the law which outlaws the purchase and sale of semiautomatic pistols in 2010. Since there are no pistols that do what the law requires, they are effectively outlawed.

That was the real purpose, not law enforcement.

Since the guns won't be sold here, none will end up in crimes. Guns from other states will continue to be used in crimes, but they do not stamp the bullet either. There is no gain for law enforcement.

[1will]

It's just typical feel good/do nothing laws that the anti gunners love. If it costs the gun manufacturers more money or inconveniences law abiding gun owners then it's a win win situtation for the antis. Most anti gunners don't have enough knowledge of guns to even carry on an intelligent converstation of what they're against.
Basically anything endorsed by the Brady Foundation is suspect.