Microstamping

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/13/us...te.html?ref=us

has an article which seems to promote this technique. There is mention that the opposition cites expense and that it won't work. Major gun rights organization opposed it as would be expected. Interestingly, Remington would pull out of NY if passed in the current session but Cuomo thinks it unlikely.

Of course, Mayor Bloomers is for it. I propose microstamping all the big Gulps and preserving the containers for future lawsuites against pop companies when you drop dead from being fat. That makes sense too!

Big city mayors in the usual states are in favor. Unfortunately, gun crime is due to socio-economic conditions for the most part and after the fact solving of gun related crimes (if it worked) will do little to stem the murder rates.

[griz]

Of course I agree. High capacity assault cups are OK for politicians and fat cats, but they are dangerous in the hands of mere citizens.

[TMD]

Already been shot down in NY.

[Tom Servo]

Wait, what? Didn't they just have a bill on the table to get rid of CoBIS?

Yes. Yes, they did. And why?

It is the conclusion of two studies by the California Department of Justice conducted two years ago and a 2004 study conducted by the Maryland State Police that the ballistic database systems in these states are a waste of time, money and manpower. The Maryland report cited the complete failure of the New York Combined Ballistic Identification System (CoBIS) to produce a single "hit" on a gun crime as complete failure of that system. The CoBIS system is costing taxpayers approximately $4 million per year and it is a certainty that the State Police could find a better use for those millions.

As of 2008, SAAMI was reporting that CoBIS had yet to turn up a single hit. There's more on what a truly awe-inspiring waste of time and money the program is here.

The information would be worth forwarding to legislators voicing support for such a boondoggle.

[Al Norris]

The article referenced above was the lead front page story on the New York Times. The article was also published by the San Diego Union Tribune: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/...e-on-firearms/ The story was in the news because of a bill that is before the NY legislature. As reported, Remington Arms has threatened to pull their business out of the State if the bill should pass.

Meanwhile over in CA, which passed a microstamping law back in 2007, they were gearing up to implement the law as soon as the patents lapsed on the technology (the CA law mandated that any microstamping tech must be free of any encumbrances). In the referenced article, we find:

In California, legislation signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2007 has been held up while the attorney general’s office makes sure the technology is unencumbered by patents. A gun rights group, the Calguns Foundation, went so far as to pay a $555 fee to extend a lapsing patent held by the developer to further delay the law from taking effect. “It was a lot cheaper to keep the patent in force than to litigate over the issues,” said Gene Hoffman, the chairman of the foundation.

Gene opined a bit more over at CalGuns.Net:

Our very good friends at NRA made sure that the legislature kept to it's liberal values and didn't create a monopoly and we did our part to apply a superior understanding of intellectual property and litigation to exploit such excellent work.

We had kind of expected to never get credit, but thanks to the NYT for now letting us explain how we'd kept the handgun roster from banning more handguns!

Freedom isn't free, and we have to take the Roster down. Please donate.

Should the CA "Safe Gun Roster" fall to current litigation (see Pena in the current 2A cases thread), it will also take down the entire microstamping law, as microstamping is implemented through the roster.

It is good to see CGF in national news, and good to see them using IP practices against the anti-gunners. Bravo!!!

[maestro pistolero]

As reported, Remington Arms has threatened to pull their business out of the State if the bill should pass.

This is no small threat. If a company the size and stature of Remington stops supporting LE it's a BIG deal.

A few years ago, I believe it was Barrett that stopped supporting Hawaii LE because of the state 50 cal ban. He refused to service or repair their weapons.

I have long thought that an effective method of pressuring state governments who enact draconian bans would be for major manufacturers to stop supporting those state governments. Imagine a world in which the State of CA could not buy Glock, Smith and Wesson, Colt, Federal, Winchester, or Remington products, but the citizenry COULD!

[bikerbill]

Not sure Remington's action indicates they won't support LEO weapons. I believe they are threatening to move their factory to a more gun-friendly environment. I understand most firearms-related companies are where they are because they've been there for years ... but it still boggles the mind that gun companies -- and publishers of gun-related magazines -- have their headquarters in NY, CA or IL, states whose governments hate the 2A and those of us who choose to own and carry firearms ... Plenty of room for new facilities in Texas, guys, and we love ya'll down here ...

I guess it's possible that if they don't comply with the law -- if it's approved -- they won't be able to sell in NY ... a tangled web ...

[Fishing_Cabin]

If a company the size and stature of Remington stops supporting LE it's a BIG deal.

I doubt that Remington or other companies would stop supporting LE or the military. Too much money there. Not only would they loose the actual LE and military users of the firearms, plus they loose the "wannabe" market which is huge. Many people want a certain type/brand of firearm because its what LE/Military uses, so it has to be better, even if there is no difference but the packaging.

My take of the article posted was that Remington may pull out of the NY market, either meaning they will keep the factory there, but refuse to sell firearms in the state, or they would start the process for, and then move to another, more friendly state. When I say more friendly state, I dont mean that it would move just based on firearm laws, but on the entirety of the deal, firearm and tax laws, union issues, plus any subsidies or possibily tax breaks.

[CowTowner]

While I have no proof of this, the mill at the range is saying Mississippi is looking real good to Remington right now. Right to work state, tax breaks, etc.

[Stressfire]

On the plus side, the more restrictions, locks, and weirdo devices that are required to be put into newly manufactured guns - the more the old ones will be worth

Downside is pretty obvious...