Sometimes I wonder if Second Amendment or gun advocates object to any laws related to guns just because they can. Since the 1990′s a technology has existed called microstamping. Microstamping stamps a microscopic number on a bullet casing as it is fired from a semi-automatic weapon. This technology would supplement or replace ballistic analysis techniques that are currently used.
Matching a casing with a gun is key in solving many crimes where a gun was used and this technology may just help do this. California and Washington DC have passed laws and are stalled in implementing them. New York is in the middle of a battle on its proposed law.
Second Amendment advocates point to increased weapons cost, the unreliability of the technology and the fact that the technology maybe circumvented as reasons to say no. Increased cost estimates range from $12 to $200 per weapon. Reliability estimates range from less than 50% to “most” of the time. Circumventing the technology would require filing down the code or changing out the firing pin. (Is the run of mill criminal going to be able to do that or even think about it when they shoot someone?) I will give you one guess which group says the technology will cost $200, be unreliable and be easily circumvented. It’s not gun safety or gun control advocates.
Keep in mind that this technology can only be used with semi-automatic weapons. It can’t be used with handguns. With our incidents of gun violence being the highest in the world, don’t we owe it to our selves to at least try something that will make it easier for law enforcement to solve gun crimes?
I get your point and I know that sometimes we do have to pick our battles. However, as someone who believes in 2nd Amendment rights, I also understand the frustration of those on the front lines of Constitutional liberty. Sometimes it’s exhausting, feeling like every time we turn around there’s a new, expensive government mandate that makes it harder and harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights. Maybe this is a good idea, and maybe it’s not, but I would always err on the side of libertarianism – giving the citizens their rights in a more free way instead of killing our privileges slowly, though a thousand papercuts or “good” regulations.
The question here is does the right of a gun owner trump the rights of a crime victim?