MICROSTAMPING: WHAT IS IT? DOES IT WORK? WHY HAVE IT?

UPDATE:

In lieu of posting a separate Article to update information pertaining to microstamping technology as applied to firearms and, more particularly, as applied to a crucial component of guns, namely, firing pins, we have added pertinent information to the present Article. The additional information, included in this update, is highlighted in red, as seen here as well in this “update” paragraph and in the “erratum” paragraph immediately below, to distinguish it from original content. We did this to make the additional content readily discernible from the previously posted content. Visitors to our site who have previously read our Article on microstamping technology may wish to skip immediately to the additional content, set forth below, toward the end of the Article.

ERRATUM:

We inadvertently referred to “12” flaws or problems or issues with existent microstamping technology as applied to firearms, but we actually mentioned “11.” The additional content in this Article includes a twelfth issue.

OVERVIEW

Let’s take a look at two voices on the subject of microstamping as applied to firearms – always keeping in mind the possible impact of this technology on Americans’ Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear arms. Here’s one from the antigun crowd: “A technology called ‘microstamping’ has made comprehensive ballistic identification a reality. Microstamping . . . enables police to trace a gun without ever physically recovering it. A traced firearm is a valuable lead in a criminal investigation, because investigators can then connect that weapon to its first purchaser, who may become either a suspect or a source of information helpful to the investigation.” Source:  http://csgv.org/issues/microstamping/

And here, in part, is what the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) says about microstamping: “An independent, peer reviewed, study published in the professional scholarly journal for forensic firearms examiners proved that the concept of microstamping is unreliable and does not function as the patent holder claims. It can be easily defeated in mere seconds using common household tools or criminals could simply switch the engraved firing pin to a readily available unmarked spare part, thereby circumventing the process.” Source: http://www.nssf.org/factsheets/microstamping.cfm

We have two conflicting statements concerning microstamping:  one extolling the virtue of it and the other pointing emphatically to the failure of it. So, who’s right? Hint: it isn’t the statement from the antigun crowd. So, how does the antigun crowd get it wrong? To get a handle on this, we’ll take a close look at what legal scholars say. Expert views on matters of law aren’t colored by slogans, by emotional rhetoric or by simplistic, shameful, and ludicrous sound bites – all of which are the mainstays of news commentators and news analysts, politicians and their toadies, of antigun zealots of all stripes, including, inter alia, internationalists and billionaire elites, New World Order cabals bent on dismembering the Second Amendment, and, of course, frightened, ill-informed,  “low information” Americans who look to Government for their solace and for their protection and for solutions to all their needs and problems, whether perceived or real.

TO GET A GOOD GRASP OF MICROSTAMPING BEYOND THE  HOOPLA WE WILL DEAL WITH THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:

One, the nature of microstamping; two, whether microstamping is in fact a reliable forensic science tool in firearms identification; and three, how mainstream media extols the virtues of microstamping technology – using propaganda in lieu of sound reasoning – in a naked, shameful bid to sell that technology to the American public. In dealing with the above issues let’s ignore, for now, the fanfare and hysteria generated over microstamping. The salient question is: what does the legal community have to say about microstamping?  So, let’s look at the academic literature on the subject.

ISSUE ONE: WHAT IS MICROSTAMPING REALLY AND WHAT IS IT SUPPOSED TO ACCOMPLISH?

Before considering whether microstamping works, we need to get a precise handle on what microstamping, in fact, is. Vocalizations from the antigun crowd, cries and exhortations from allied members in Congress and in State Legislatures across the Country, and simplistic chants from the mainstream news media are — all of them — hardly credible sources of information an American citizen can safely rely on. We must dig a little deeper to get the true story. Let’s begin. From what can be gathered, there isn’t, to date, a lot of legal literature on the subject of microstamping technology as applied to firearms. And that, in itself, is telling. Still, legal literature that happens to be available is forthright and complete in explanation. One legal scholar Dorothy Kenney, provides a comprehensive, accurate explication of the technology, devoid of emotional rhetoric. She says, “Firearm Microstamping is a new technology invented by Todd Lizotte that can imprint serial numbers on spent ammunition casings by utilizing a solid-state ultraviolet laser to machine an array of microscopic characters onto the tip of a firearm’s firing pin. Similar to ballistic fingerprinting, it allegedly helps police identify what firearm might have been used in a crime. Microstamping uses precision equipment to remove microscopic amounts of metal from the tip of the firing pin. When a firearm trigger is pulled, there is no guarantee of one single identifiable mark on the bullet.  What the microstamp technology does is place intentional codes linked to the serial number of a firearm by using an optimized laser micromachining process. The basic theory behind the technology is that a firearm’s firing pin or other internal parts could bear microscopic codes unique to the firearm that could imprint the codes on fired cartridge cases. The codes then contain information like the gun’s make, model and serial number. This acts much like a fingerprint on the bullet. If the gun is then used in any crime, this allows law enforcement officials to enter the found shell casing codes into a database to determine not only the manufacturer of the gun, but even the licensed dealer who sold it, and ultimately the owner. The goal is to provide an improved piece of trace evidence for forensic investigators, so that they can track a firearm without having to recover it.” Dorothy Kenney, Firearm Microstamp Technology: Failing Daubert and Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 38, Rutgers Computer & Tech. L.J. (2012).

Now, concentrate on the author’s use of the term, ‘allegedly’ as it appears in the citation. The term, ‘alleged,’ means ‘questionably true’ or ‘supposedly true.’ Those expressions do not mean ‘true beyond doubt,’ which is what the antigun crowd and their allies in Congress and in the mainstream media would have you believe, falsely, about microstamp technology. Once again, the author, Kenney, says: “it {that is to say, microstamping technology} allegedly helps police identify what firearm might have been used in a crime. So, what can we infer from Dorothy Kenney’s article about what the technology actually is? We can infer from Dorothy Kenney’s Article that microstamping is a firearms identification technology using toolmarks to link a cartridge with the firearm that it was fired from.

But what is a toolmark? We need to get a handle on the notion of toolmark to appreciate whether microstamping technology is worth the apparent benefit as exalted by the antigun crowd through its sounding board, the mainstream news media. So, to get a handle on toolmarks, let’s take a look at what two other legal scholars have to say. “Toolmarks are created when a hard object (generally, a tool) impacts a relatively softer object. In the case of modern firearms and ammunition, those marks are generated in the incredibly quick and inherently violent steps of the firing process. The firing pin jabs into the metal at the base of the ammunition cartridge – the soft brass of the circular primer cup in common centerfire ammunition or the cartridge brass of the outer rim of the cartridge in rimfire ammunition – causing a chemical primer mixture to ignite. In turn, this ignition causes the propellant or powder to burn, resulting in a rapid and intense buildup of gas pressure that slams the cartridge walls against the internal surfaces of the firearm (particularly the breech face against which the base of the cartridge is impressed and from which the firing pin protrudes). The gas pressure also unseats the bullet from the cartridge and propels it outward through the barrel of the gun, the bullet scraping against and gripping the rifling grooves that are typically carved in gun barrels to impart a spin (and added stability in flight) to the bullet. Additional marks are created at the extractor or ejector mechanism, cycling a spent cartridge from the chamber and allowing a new cartridge to enter. There are several levels of hierarchy associated with the attributes of ballistics evidence exhibits. High-level class characteristics include gun caliber, shape of firing pin, number of lands and grooves, etc. These can be used to quickly screen out exhibits that could not have been fired from the same gun. At the other end, there are individual characteristics associated with a gun, such as the fine striations on a bullet’s surface or peculiar microscopic textures in the firing pin impression. There are also intermediate characteristics such as marks that arise from specific manufacturing techniques or flaws. These induce similar patterns on ballistics evidence even though they originated from different sources.” Daniel L. Cork, Vijayan N. Nair, and John E. Rolph, Some Forensic Aspects Of Ballistic Imaging, 38 Fordham Urb. L.J. 473 (2010). The authors of the Fordham Urban Law Journal Article point out that, absent microstamping, attempts to match a particular firearm either to the toolmarks on a cartridge casing or on a bullet are difficult.

The authors tell us that “the development of an objective, statistical basis for firearms identification is challenging due to the multiple sources of randomness present when a gun is fired. Shots from even the same gun are not fired under the same exact conditions. Ammunition, wear and cleanliness of firearms parts, burning of propellant particles and the resulting gas pressure, etc., can vary across firings. Therefore, an examiner’s assessment of the toolmarks and the decision on a match comes down to a subjective determination based on intuition and experience.” Thus, the goal of forensic examination – “the creation of a match between a casing or bullet to generate an investigative link from ballistics evidence to point of sale of the weapon or ammunition used in a crime” – is difficult because it is “a subjective determination.” Daniel L. Cork, Vijayan N. Nair, and John E. Rolph, Some Forensic Aspects Of Ballistic Imaging, 38 Fordham Urb. L.J. 473 (2010).

Did you grasp that? What it is that forensic specialists attempt to do in their investigation of a crime involving use of a firearm is to match a casing or bullet to a weapon that is used in a crime. We can conclude from this that standard forensics testing is difficult, and ultimately fallible, because it is ultimately a subjective process. But, then, is microstamping an improvement over standard methods of ballistics identification? Is microstamping the answer to the problem of ballistics identification? Those questions get us to the nub of the issue concerning ballistics identification as to whether microstamping is worthy of adoption by the firearms industry — specifically as to whether microstamping would really be of help to forensics specialists who are engaged in ballistics identification. If so, that question is still one that is separate and apart from the important question concerning the associated costs that must be borne by the firearms manufacturers who are forced to adopt microstamping in the manufacturing process; for that would require the retooling of an entire industry.

But, getting back to the methodology of microstamping, this is what the two authors of the Fordham Urban law Journal have to say about it, in relation to standard methods of ballistic testing: “But, suppose an unalterable and unique marking might be placed on a part of a firearm so that any cartridge fired from it could be rapidly traced back to the point of sale by reading the etched marking. A distinct advantage of microstamping is that the marks could be examined at a crime scene using equipment no more sophisticated than a magnifying glass, vastly simplifying and expediting the process of developing investigative leads. Microstamping, if feasible and practical, would have the advantage of imposing uniqueness as a characteristic of ballistics evidence, substituting known and fixed markings for microscopically fine individualizing characteristics that result from random processes in manufacture and weapon firing.” But, would it? The authors of the Fordham Urban Law Journal have their reservations.

Concentrate on the authors’ qualification of microstamping technology through their use of the phrase, “if feasible and practical,” as that phrase appears in the law journal article. The authors said, “microstamping, if feasible and practical, would have the advantage of imposing uniqueness as a characteristic of ballistics evidence. . . .” Now, let us, for a moment, go back to what the first legal scholar, Dorothy Kenney, says about microstamping, for she, too, expresses immediate reservations as to the usefulness of microstamping to forensics examiners as a ballistics identification methodology. But, she has a different take on the nature of microstamping. She says, “The primary difference between the traditional toolmark identification methods and the intentional microstamping is that the latter is geared more towards extracting information rather than a matching methodology.” Here we have some disagreement among legal scholars from the get-go as to what microstamping even is. They all provide an accurate and comprehensive account of microstamping technology, but one scholar says that microstamping is really an extraction of information technology, rather than a technology that involves the use of “matching” a cartridge to a gun. The other two scholars seem to be saying that microstamping is in fact just that — a “matching” ballistics technology” precisely because it involves the use of toolmarks: “the firing pin jabs into the metal at the base of the ammunition cartridge.”   Granted, the disagreement between these legal scholars may be due to semantics. Still, that semantic disparity bespeaks the ultimate complexity underlying forensics testing, which is as much an art as a science, regardless of the technology employed. What we really need to concentrate on now is the ultimate pressing issue, and that is: whether or to what extent microstamping ought to be employed at all by weapons manufacturers. For, if microstamping technology does offer decided advantages over existing ballistics identification methodologies, then why shouldn’t microstamping technology be employed?

Microstamping may sound plausible, useful, and preferable to existing ballistics testing. At least that is what the antigun crowd and its allies in Congress and in the State Legislatures would likely have you believe if you were to pointedly ask them — assuming they understand what ballistics methodology even means. Be that as it may, legal experts do have serious reservations about and concerns over microstamping technology. And those reservations and concerns are wholly apart from one critical matter: enactment of such restrictive firearms legislation, requiring firearms manufacturers to adopt microstamping technology in the firearms production process, would likely create a technological nightmare for the firearms industry. But so what? Certainly, the antigun crowd doesn’t care about that. And the antigun crowd’s allies in the U.S. Congress and in the State Legislatures obviously don’t care. For, if legislators did care, they would carefully consider the ramifications — all the ramifications — pertaining to adoption of such technology. But, the question for us, who do care about those ramifications, is: do these legal scholars conclude  from their critical assessment of microstamping technology, that such technology – which might in theory look good, regardless of what it really is – would in fact work in practice? And, a corollary to that question is: even if microstamping technology does work in practice — even if only marginally better than traditional ballistics identification methods — does that consideration override other problems that invariably arise through adoption of the technology?  For, if in fact the technology doesn’t work in practice and/or causes a myriad of other serious, associated problems if adopted, then there is no logical reason to use it – to mandate implementation of microstamping by firearms manufacturers in the manufacturing process.

So, what do these legal scholars conclude? Well, the bottom line is that the authors of these respective academic journal articles uniformly reject the idea that microstamping, as a forensic tool, is an improvement over present ballistics examination. The rub – as the two authors of the Fordham Law Journal article point out, as does the author of the Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal – is that, while microstamping sounds like a great approach to forensics firearms testing in theory — that is to say — from a purely theoretical technological standpoint, it isn’t feasible or practical — and that means it does not offer any advantage over standard ballistics identification methodology in actual practice.  In fact, in many ways, microstamping technology is decidedly worse than standard ballistics identification methodology. And this takes us now to the second issue.

ISSUE TWO: SO, IS MICROSTAMPING OF FIREARMS A RELIABLE FORENSIC TOOL?

No it isn’t. And, we aren’t looking at just one minor problem with the technology. There are a slew of major problems connected with the technology. Let’s take a look at them. This is what Dorothy Kenney says in her Article Firearm Microstamp Technology: Failing Daubert and Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 38, Rutgers Computer & Tech. L.J. (2012):

(1) “Microstamping has repeatedly failed tests. Results of {a UC Davis} study were consistent with earlier tests published by the Association of Firearms and Tool Marks Examiners. Firearm examiner George Krivosta, of the Suffolk County, N.Y. crime lab, found that the vast majority of Microstamped characters in the alphanumeric serial number could not be read on any of the expended cartridge cases generated and examined.” However, one of the greatest flaws that the two studies revealed was that the Microstamp codes were easily removed. Firing pins were removed in minutes, and serial numbers were obliterated in less than a minute with household tools.” So, if the serial numbers cannot often easily be read or, if criminals can, in any event, easily get around microstamping technology, then there is no point to the technology’s adoption.

(2) “Additionally, most gun crimes cannot be solved by micro-stamping, or simply do not require micro-stamping to be solved. Most gun crimes do not involve shots being fired, thus there are no cartridge cases for police to recover. Notwithstanding TV shows that portray crime-solving as impossible without high-technology, most crimes can be solved by traditional means. For example, of murders in which the victim-offender relationship is known, most involve family members, friends, and other acquaintances.” This makes a critical point. Technology is often not needed. In such cases, technology may often overshoot the mark. To adopt new, and expensive, technology for its own sake when it doesn’t offer an improvement over existing technology or over simpler non-technological ways of accomplishing a particular task is foolhardy. Its adoption creates unnecessary complexity. After all, technology is supposed to provide a service. If that service isn’t needed because an existing methodology works just fine, then there is no rational purpose for adopting such new technology.

(3) “Most criminals also obtain guns through unregulated channels. According to the BATFE, 88% of crime guns are acquired through unregulated channels, and the average time between a crime gun’s acquisition and its recovery by police is 10.8 years. There is also a very real risk that Microstamp technology would lead to gun thefts if legally purchased guns could link a criminal to a computerized system. It is argued that this technology would lead to an increase in black market sales of firearms.” And, if so, this would create both a headache for innocent owners of semiautomatic handguns that are stolen, and for the police, as the police are led on a wild goose chase, chasing after innocent firearms owners whose stolen guns end up being used in crimes. And innocent gun owners, for their part, would be caught up in a dragnet, forced to defend themselves against a crime they did not commit or would be otherwise forced to defend themselves against a trumped up charge of gross negligence for having lost a firearm in the first place. Again, if a new technology, such as microstamping, doesn’t offer any benefit to forensic police work, no reason exists for its implementation.

(4) “One of the biggest dangers is the possibility that anyone could collect Microstamped shell casings from firing ranges and plant them at the scene of a crime. This ultimately could lead to a false arrest or implicate an innocent person in criminal activity.” “Innocent people can be framed or implicated.” This is a corollary of “(3)” above, where innocent citizens are hounded by the police for crimes they did not commit. Thus, criminals would make fools of both the police and of innocent law-abiding Americans. This suggests that microstamping is not just irrelevant to ballistics science, but is actually an impediment to police investigation of crimes committed with guns.

(5) It’s unlikely that microstamping technology would be admissible in court because of the difficulty of maintaining written documentation. Dorothy Kenney says, “maintaining a proper chain of custody’ involves producing and maintaining written documentation, which accompanies the evidence and provides an uninterrupted timeline showing the secure location of the evidence from the time it was discovered until the present time. . . . Maintaining this chain of custody helps to ensure that the evidence will not be contaminated or compromised in any way. If the proper chain of custody is not maintained and the chain is broken, it may provide a potential reason for such evidence to be inadmissible in court. Thus, even if Microstamping was mandated, it would have limited value, because there would be no way to ensure that the evidence was not compromised, rendering it ultimately inadmissible in court.” The U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) ruled that scientific evidence produced at trial must be not only relevant but reliable.” “Since microstamping relies on toolmarks, the problem of presenting forensic evidence based on microstamping faces three challenges that at present cannot be overcome.” Kenney says,“. . . the challenges to forensic firearms and toolmark identifications have been that (1) the individual characteristics of toolmarks are comprised of non-unique marks, (2) subclass characteristics shared by more than one tool may be confused with individual characteristics unique to one and only one tool, and (3) the individual characteristics of the marks made by a particular tool change over time.” So, if issues of admissibility of microstamping evidence commonly arise, then the usefulness of the technology is dubious even if it is theoretically sound. So why have it? This is another critical consideration. If the conclusion of forensic examiners, based on use of microstamping technology, is doubtful, and if, then, such forensic expert testimony is inadmissible in a court of law, use of microstamp technology collapses in upon itself like a house of cards. The use of the technology is both pointless and worthless.

(6) As with any scientific theory, to be valid and therefore useful, the theory has to be subject to independent verification. The theory behind microstamping technology is no different. “This means that other examiners must be able to repeat the work and come to the same conclusions. Therefore, the data that we gather should provide a well-defined ‘roadmap’ as to what experiments we performed to answer the question(s) posed, what data was gathered, and a clear demonstration of the evidence from which we supported our conclusion(s). This mechanism of communication among scientists is a substantial part of the process of verification.  

Thus far, the results that Microstamp technology manufacturers claim to have attained have neither been duplicated nor verified.” Additionally, “Scientific knowledge must be more than a mere belief; it must be fact or theory grounded in methods or procedures of science. Because this new technology has not been thoroughly peer reviewed, the rate of error is so high, and there is no general acceptance among the scientific community, a judicial inquiry should bar admission of it as evidence. This runs in direct conflict with California’s new law requiring that all new models of semiautomatic pistols sold in the state be engraved with the Intentional Microstamp laser codes.” So, if independent verification of field tests is what microstamp technology lacks, there is no logical basis for forensic specialists to adopt it. And, if that is so, then there is no rational basis for State Legislatures to enact laws, requiring gun manufacturers to spend exorbitant sums of money to retool machines to fabricate guns, and there is no rational reason for the consumer to have to expend extra dollars to purchase semiautomatic weapons, incorporating the technology. In fact, to date, there are no credible estimates of the real cost of implementing microstamp technology either to firearms or, if extended, to that of ammunition. Further, were State Legislatures to mandate use of microstamp technology for the millions of firearms already manufactured, the additional expenses incurred by firearms manufacturers and by the consumer would be astronomical. Moreover, the logistics of handling such a massive undertaking would be unimaginably complex.

(7) At the time of the publication of Kenney’s law journal article, California’s microstamp technology law was in effect and had been in effect, thanks – or no thanks – to then Governor Schwarzenegger’s having signed it into law in 2007. And, Kenney said, that, “while the Microstamp technology law is currently in effect in California, it is owned solely by a company called Identification Dynamics, LLC, which recently acquired the U.S. patent. However, the California legislature required the Attorney General to certify that the technology was available to more than one [gun] manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions before it could take effect. In essence, the requirement does not activate until Microstamping is outside of patent protection but the manufacturing company has a patent on it that runs until approximately 2023. Thus far, this certification requirement has not been satisfied so the legislation is practically nonfunctioning.” Be that as it may, on May 17, 2013, Rochelle C. East, the Chief Deputy Attorney General did certify, under California Penal Code Section 31910, Subdivision (b)(7)(A), that very technology. The Chief Deputy Attorney General, Rochelle, said in important part: “The California Department of Justice has conducted a review of the known available patent restrictions applicable to the microscopic-imprinting technology described in §31910, Subdivision (b)(7)(A). Based on this review, the department certifies that, as of May 17, 2013, this technology is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by patent restrictions.” The certification has not, to the best of the Arbalest Quarrel’s knowledge and belief, been challenged; and we believe it should be. The public should have access to the facts and to the legal reasoning the Chief Deputy Attorney General relied on to support her certification of microstamp technology. A blanket statement in lieu of supporting arguments is suspect. Apparently, New York is relying on the certification report that the Chief Deputy Attorney General of California published, as New York drafts its own legislation, mandating adoption of microstamping technology in its own State.

(8) One law scholar, David Muradyan, in “Review Of Selected 2007 California Legislation: Penal: Firearm Microstamping: A Bullet with a Name On It, 39 McGeorge L. Rev. 616 (2008), is clearly enamored with microstamping technology, but, even he admits it falls short in a few critical respects. He notes, for example, without taking exception to the conclusion that: “According to experts, this technology would cost manufacturers somewhere between fifty cents and eight dollars per gun to implement.” Actually, the associated costs are completely unknown. State Legislatures as with the U.S. Congress often jump the gun. They act upon an event or a perceived event without properly considering the consequences of their action which, in many instances, as we have seen – and not just in respect to the matter of enactment of restrictive gun legislation – creates unanticipated and very real negative consequences. The antigun crowd is flippant in its suggestion that adoption of microstamping technology would have a minimal negative economic impact on the manufacturing of firearms. How would they know? From what hat does the antigun crowd pull a rabbit?

(9) David Muradyan states: “Some opponents of the law even suggested that manufacturers would stop selling new semiautomatic handguns in California. In fact. . . at least one manufacturer has stopped firearm sales in California.”  Smith & Wesson has stopped or will stop selling its semiautomatic handguns in California, and Sturm Ruger has or will follow suit. And it is likely that other firearms maufacturers, too, will refrain from selling semiautomatic handguns in California.

Muradyan, apparently, does not, appropriately, see this as a positive development although antigun zealots would, most likely, and, clearly, inappropriately, disagree with that conclusion. Actually, California’s microstamping law has a tremendous negative impact on free market capitalism, on the right of law-abiding Californians to freely exercise their Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and, indeed, on the very notions of American culture, heritage and National integrity. We see our Nation’s unity slowly, inexorably, methodically, and irrevocably warped by restrictive gun measures that have little, if anything, to do with reducing gun violence – regardless of the propaganda that is pumped out by the mainstream news media urging the public to think otherwise. This new law has everything to do with destroying the fabric of American conscience – of the American psyche – of laying waste to the idea of the sanctity of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

(10) Muradyan also asserts, “in addition, opponents argued that criminals could alter a firearm with a microstamping feature by removing, defacing, or replacing the firing pin.  {The California microstamping law} however, requires etching to occur in at least two different places inside the pistol, which presumably would make it more difficult for a criminal to alter. Further, according to supporters, ‘firing pins equipped with microstamping technology would be difficult to alter as they are nearly as hard as diamonds.’ Therefore, even if criminals were to successfully file the pin down, it would effectively prevent the gun from firing. However, at least one independent peer-reviewed study from a professional society of firearm examiners found that microstamp markings could be removed without rendering the firearm inoperable. This is a major flaw with microstamping technology that the legal expert, Dorothy Kenney, makes as well, as noted, supra. Once again, she says, and emphatically, “. . . one of the greatest flaws that the two studies {that she looked at} revealed was that the Microstamp codes were easily removed. Firing pins were removed in minutes, and serial numbers were obliterated in less than a minute with household tools.”

What we can reasonably conclude from the comments of these two legal experts is this: if the technology is flawed from the get-go or, if criminals can easily get around microstamping technology even if it were otherwise to have some advantages over traditional ballistics forensic methodologies, then why have it? There is no point to the technology’s adoption. Granted, legal experts are not in complete agreement whether microstamp technology can be defeated. The issue whether a firing pin can be “filed down” making the weapon inoperable is not conclusive. But the fact that controversy does exist ought to give one pause. For, if microstamping technology can be defeated — and experts do agree that this is not unlikely — then the justification for mandating its use on the ground that it is an innovative tool for the investigation of gun-related crimes loses all semblance of meaning. One gathers from Muradyan’s point that, at the very least, much more testing of the efficacy of the microstamping process should be undertaken, to ascertain whether the technology can be defeated, before laws mandating its adoption by gun manufacturers are enacted. But the legal scholar, Kenney, has no doubt at all about that. She makes abundantly clear, on the basis of her investigations, that microstamping can be defeated, as she so states. And one thing we can all rest assured about, and it is this: criminals will definitely attempt to defeat microstamping technology. Many criminals are very industrious and highly intelligent. No one should lose sight of that. To believe otherwise is to embark on the road of dangerous complacency. For, if (1) microstamping technology can be defeated, then, (2) there are criminals who are capable of defeating that technology, and, (3) criminals will defeat microstamping  technology. Of that, there can be no doubt at all. And, in the absence of any absolute guarantee by those who seek to require implementation of that technology that such microstamping technology cannot be defeated, this, then, is certainly reason enough to preclude adoption of it.

11) Lastly, Muradyan points out that, “according to the co-inventor of the technology, the reason that {the microstamping study} produced poor results and that markings {were} not fully legible was because the {microstamping study} did not use a more sophisticated method to read the markings known as, ‘Scanning Electron Microscopy.’” But, consider: if sophisticated scanning techniques are required, then the impetus to use microstamping, with the attendant compliance hell that it creates for firearms manufacturers, is lost and, in fact, it becomes self-defeating. For, as noted by the legal scholars, Nair and Rolf, if it works at all, then theoretically at least “a distinct advantage of microstamping{would be} that the marks could be examined at a crime scene using equipment no more sophisticated than a magnifying glass, vastly simplifying and expediting the process of developing investigative leads.” See, Daniel L. Cork, Vijayan N. Nair, and John E. Rolph, Some Forensic Aspects Of Ballistic Imaging, 38 Fordham Urb. L.J. 473 (2010).

If the “marks” cannot be readily examined at a crime scene, as readily admitted by a co-inventor of the microstamping technology, then a presumptive key advantage of the technology for use in forensic science is lost. And, of course, the singular danger is that the police may ultimately be drawn to an innocent gun owner, if shell casings are “planted” at the scene of a crime, anyway. So, then, why use such technology? Answer: there’s no rational reason at all to do so. “So, one of the unintended consequences of ballistic fingerprinting should be an increase in the value of revolvers with disparate implications for the black, gray, and legitimate markets. Revolver technology is older than pistol technology. The older portion of the handgun inventory is dominated by revolvers. Revolvers dominate the subcategory of early-inventory, no-paper handguns because there are more older revolvers than older pistols and more of them were sold before the 1968 Gun Control Act established nominal recording of sales by serial number. Ballistic fingerprinting will increase the gray-and black-market values of these revolvers.” “However, these early-inventory revolvers have another characteristic that might produce positive consequences. Many of them are chambered in smaller calibers, and thus potentially less lethal than many modern guns. For example, the antiquated .32 caliber cartridge makes up a substantial share of early-inventory revolvers. Many police agencies used the .32 before upgrading to the .38 Special revolver, which itself was replaced by more modern, ballistically superior sidearms. So while ballistic fingerprinting may have limited value as a crime solving tool, it might produce marginal extra-design benefits by creating black market preferences for early-inventory, lower-powered handguns.” But, contrary, to this last remark, a substantial number of relatively small but high powered caliber revolvers (.357 caliber) or large bore (.45 or .50 caliber) revolvers presently exist or are otherwise manufactured on a regular basis. So, Muradyan’s last comment is of dubious value in support of adoption of microstamping technology.

(12) Furthermore, apropos of the dubious value of microstamping technology in light of the existence of revolver handguns, even assuming arguendo (1) that microstamping technology were demonstrably superior to existent technology, and (2) that defeating the technology where implemented on newly manufactured firearms were difficult, the fact remains that criminals need not use such firearms that incorporate such technology. This point is made poignantly clear by Nicholas J. Johnson, Professor of Law at Fordham University Law School, in his “Article & Essay: Imagining Gun Control In America: Understanding The Remainder Problem,” 43 Wake Forest L. Rev. 837 (Winter 2008). Professor Johnson emphasizes that, “The technology only works for pistols – i.e., semi-automatic handguns that eject a spent shell casing when fired. It is irrelevant for revolvers where the spent cartridges remain in the cylinder until manually ejected. More than this, it only applies to the new pistols that enter the market each year in the handful of jurisdictions that have these laws. But even if it were a national program and captured all the new pistols (though none of the revolvers), it would only involve a small fraction of the full inventory. If layered with new requirements that all existing pistols had to be brought in for an official firing and collection of the spent case for the database, the scheme should encounter the same defiance impulses that fuel resistance to registration and confiscation. As explained in the discussion of registration, one impact of Heller should be to reduce the impulse to defy this type of measure, at least among the general population. Unfortunately, the target population, the class of criminal actors, will have very high incentives to obtain remainder guns withheld from the database, or replace the pistol’s barrel, or obliterate the microstamp, or change the firing pin contour or simply replace it.”

Johnson’s arguments, alone, ought be sufficient to silence anyone who thinks microstamping technology should be added to the ballistics testing repertoire. For, even assuming that microstamping technology were the sine qua non of modern ballistics technology – a technology that cannot be defeated in the firearms in which it were employed – which, as we have shown, isn’t the case at all – the technology can easily be defeated through the simple expedient of utilizing handguns that simply make no use of it. The millions of handguns presently on the market make no use of it, whether they are semiautomatic handguns or revolver handguns, and no sensible gun owner would freely hand over his handguns for modification of the firing pins to make use of it, in the absence of laws that require such modification of existing handguns. 

Secondly, even if the microstamping of firing pins of all prospectively manufactured handguns were required – revolvers as well as pistols – the technology is, once again, useless  and therefore pointless for revolvers, as made abundantly clear by Professor Johnson, because — as anyone who has any familiarity with firearms knows — revolvers do not eject cartridge casings. Thus, microstamping technology will never replace standard ballistic testing methodologies presently used by forensics experts. This simple matter-of-fact irremediable flaw inherent in microstamping technology is, apparently, lost on the mainstream news media that constantly sings, grandiosely, about the wonders of the “new” technology, conveniently overlooking its most obvious failing.

Perhaps most odd, though, is the fact that, as the antigun groups work to classify more and more semiautomatic handguns under the category of “assault weapons” –  making ownership and possession of more and more semiautomatic pistols unlawful, in a naked, unapologetic attempt to reduce the types of handguns available to the public – more members of the public who wish to buy a handgun will only be able to buy a revolver. Further, killers may be more inclined to use a high-powered .357 caliber revolver or a big bore .45 or even .50 caliber caliber revolver, rather than a semiautomatic, to commit murder, in any event. So, far from being a panacea for present-day fallibilities in ballistics testing, the utility of microstamping is reduced essentially to a nullity. So, why have it? When faced with these irrefutable facts, detailing the flaws of microstamping technology, antigun groups will undoubtedly still argue forcefully for adoption of the technology.  They will likely either offhandedly gloss over or altogether ignore the logical arguments that come to bear against adoption of the technology and that point irrevocably to the uselessness of the technology, or they will simply regurgitate general and meaningless slogans about how any antigun measure is a good measure for society.  

Clearly, microstamping technology has so many problems and issues, that, to say it isn’t as yet ready for adoption — if, indeed, it ever would be — is an understatement. As a tool of forensic science, it is of dubious worth. The attendant costs to firearms manufacturers who must retool machinery to accommodate microstamping is likely to be exorbitant. The logistics of implementation is a nightmare. The negative impact on the law-abiding, innocent gun owner caught in a web of misidentification is all too likely. The admissibility of expert testimony predicated upon microstamping, in a court of law, is doubtful. And, the mere use of a revolver handgun that doesn’t eject spent shell casings, in lieu of a semiautomatic handgun that does, defeats microstamping technology outright, and therefore renders the technology absolutely useless for forensic ballistics work. So, balancing costs and benefits of the technology, the benefits to be derived from adoption of microstamping technology in the manufacture of firearms come up abysmally short, if there are benefits to be derived from its adoption at all.

ISSUE THREE: MAINSTREAM MEDIA’S SUPPORT OF MICROSTAMPING TECHNOLOGY IS IRRATIONAL

When all is said and done, it becomes clear that the antigun crowd isn’t interested in whether microstamping technology actually helps to solve gun crimes or, for that matter, whether the technology even works in theory. The antigun crowd is simply interested in creating headaches for both firearms manufacturers and for the American public. And the antigun crowd will succeed on that score in any jurisdiction where microstamping legislation is enacted. Now, even assuming arguendo that microstamping of firearms and ammunition does provide some forensic benefits over standard ballistics identification methodology — which in fact it doesn’t — the mere adoption of microstamping technology is not and was never designed to be a mechanism to prevent gun violence. That fact seems to have been lost on those Legislators and on mainstream media journalists who advocate for it.

The problem of gun violence falls squarely on the psychopaths and lunatics who themselves are the cause of it. Solving crimes after the fact — which is all that microstamping technology does, if implemented, and, in fact, is all that microstamping technology, as with all ballistics identification, methodology, was ever designed to do — does not serve to detract from commission of crimes before the fact. And, compelling manufacturers to expend monies retooling machines for an unproven technology and requiring purchasers to spend additional sums of money to satisfy some will-o-the-wisp aspirations of antigun fanatics, is absolutely asinine. The mainstream media is but a useful tool of the Anti-American antigun crowd and its allies in Congress and in the State Legislatures – coughing up imbecilic slogans and rationalizations, and asides that are devoid of content, meaning and validity in order, merely and, indeed, solely to further a political and ideological agenda.

Honest debate must precede enactment of microstamping legislation and – indeed – of any restrictive gun legislation. But, the antigun crowd isn’t interested in debate. And, it isn’t interested in listening to reason. It has directed its efforts to one singular, limited objective: remove all guns from the hands of civilian American citizens. It will resort to chicanery and lies, to accomplish that singular objective, always tugging at emotions, never informing the public with truth. Microstamping is but one more deceptive trick in the antigun crowd’s arsenal. And the mainstream news media isn’t interested in telling Americans the truth about the antigun crowd’s singular objective. Quite the contrary; the mainstream media is in on the secret and it is actively involved in spreading lies. It is interested in manipulating the news; not simply reporting it.

Unsurprisingly the American public is deeply perplexed, as it plaintively asks: “What is true? “What is fiction?” “What is real?” “What is fantasy?” In the end the public gives up attempting to sort truth from fiction, reality from fantasy. The public doesn’t know anymore, which is understandable. But, worse, many members of the public don’t care. That however is unconscionable. For, what is at stake is no less than the loss of our sacred liberties. The puppet masters know this, and that, of course is, their goal. Guns in the hands of the American citizenry do not fit into their plans. For, nothing is deemed more dangerous to the puppet masters than the thought of an American citizen who cares about his sacred Rights and – more – has the means to secure them.