Crime Gun Identification Act AB 1471. Why would anyone be against it?

Question

The Crime Gun Identification Act would require that starting in 2010, new models of semi-automatic handguns be equipped with technology that allows police to match bullet shells found at a crime scene to the handgun that fired the bullets. This technology, known as "microstamping" would substantially enhance law enforcement’s ability to rapidly identify and link shell casings found at a crime scene to the individual semi-automatic handgun from which it was fired.

The vote this year in the Senate is expected to be extremely close. WHY? Do some people care more about the money they get from the gun lobby than they do about the people they are supposed to represent? Why would anyone in their right mind be against a common-sense bill like this?

Wolf: LMAO!!! I guess I can count you as those NOT in their right mind.

Solaran: Your post makes little, if any sense. They would be able to track the gun to it's original owner. That's a lot better than we have now. And maybe they could even charge that owner with providing it to the criminals. Or for negligance, for not having it locked up securely.

CHA: Common sense not your strong point, is it?

I'm asking for a GOOD reason to be against this bill, and no one has come up with one yet.

Bobby> Quoting wikipedia? Please. Especially when that article does not cite any references or sources. 100% meaningless.

This law would do a lot of good. It would do no bad. There is no good reason I can think of to be against it.

51: I'd rather have my senator rid the country of handguns and the people who use them. Now THAT would be a good thing!

Your last sentence is senseless.

Wolf, I think you're very confused. It's the Republicans who have proven that they cannot be trusted, and are very Nazi-like.

Tater: I've read it, and still see no good reason for law-abiding people to be against it.

Bill D,

Your argument is so full of holes, it's laughable. Especially that last line. You obviously believe the neocon bullsh*t.

Solaran: Never said that. Your reading comprehension needs work.

Bobby: Your second link is as useless as the 1st one. Did you even read it? Obviously not. Either that, or you didn't comprehend what you read.

Wikipedia is full of mistakes and outright lies. The wikipedia link you provided did not cite any sources, as it says right at the top. No one with a brain uses wikipedia in an argument, because a good amount of what is there is just plain wrong. What part of that do you not understand? Just because you like it doesn't make it correct.

Answer 1

Of course politicians care about the NRA and gun lobby money/vote, all politicians vote with their wallets. The pro-gun crowd is against it because they always have the knee-jerk reaction of opposing anything to do with guns, even if it has an obviously positive impact on society. Why do you think people were against the assault weapons ban, there is no logical reason for the average person to have an automatic rifle, it's not even necessary for personal protection.

Answer 2

It does make sense, but the problem is that a lot of firearms used in illegal activities are acquired illegally themselves. No matter whether it's a stolen Colt .45 or an illegally smuggled in automatic MAC-11...it's still an illegal firearm.

This could make situations worse if someone's private handgun is stolen. Even if s/he reports it stolen, the microstamping would still show it to be their handgun and defeat the entire purpose of the program.

Good idea in theory.

Useless in practice.

[To OP]
So...if I kept my gun locked up securely and had a trigger guard on it, went on vacation, and came back to find my house broken into and my gun stolen AND reported it as stolen...you think I should be charged with negligence or material aid if it's used in a crime?

Well...I guess you think Ford should be sued when someone does a hit-and-run with a Mustang? After all...they made and sold the Mustang. Must be their fault.

Answer 3

Yes people can and should be against that law.

The law does not say "new handguns" it says "any" revolver or handgun. That means that if your grandfather had an antique pistol he wanted you to have that he by giving, and you by accepting, would be in violation of the law for transferring an "unsafe handgun." As you state the act no one would be against it, because it makes some sense. However if you read the act you see that it is an easy way to make law abiding citizens criminals but making their legal firearms illegal simply by flipping a page on a calendar.

Edit: How many of you people actually read the act? Probably none...

Answer 4

I'd be against it because the government is better of with as little information that is possible.

Any law they propose is always got a common sense cover story to it. What it means is we will lose / give up freedom in some way for them to have that. I say NO NO NO enough enough enough. . Give power back to the people !

Answer 5

First off it dosent work ny & md proved that. Also what about the existing 250 million guns already out there, Its not an exact science like dna testing, the guns dimensions are always changing, like barrel wear, firing pin & extractor. Dont believe the lib bullshit.

Answer 6

Why don't you pressure your local officials to punish these criminals instead of slapping them on the wrists?
Why don't you write your senators to rid our country of the illegals? We have over 300000 in prison at 30000 dollars a head to incarcerate.

The money saved would go well to have us all micro chipped so they can watch us pee

Answer 7

Because, look at the Anti-Gun Nazis that want it.

It is a trick.... a ploy.... a hoax.... And a lie, to fool the ignorant & gullible.
It's just another Democrat Trick.

NEVER trust Democrats.

(Democrats can't fool me. I used to be a Democrat, before I ESCAPED their Democrat Plantation.)

This is a Trick. Wake Up!!!!!!

Answer 8

the technology [as it exists] isn't foolproof...
the number of weapons would limit tracing ability.
the ''stamping'' will wear off or may be easily modified.

Sorry- it's poor law.
ADDITIONAL: to respond- just because you don't like wiki
does not change the physics of the answer...see new ref from
U C Davis... and it's still poor law.