What I wonder is, what happens when either of these parts are broken, damaged, or otherwise rendered inoperable?
Since the bills, if enacted in law, specifically require this feature on "new" pistols, would it no longer be considered to be a "new" pistol after it has been purchased, if even a single shot had been fired?
My gun dealer doesn't think so, and the bill text offers no enlightenment on this point.
In the worst-case scenario (which is the only reasonable assumption, given the lazy thinking and perfidy of most politicians) I'll assume that for the purpose of this bill, any pistol purchased as a "new" pistol in these states will continue to be regarded as such no matter the degree of subsequent usage.
I put a lot of rounds through a pistol each year (your mileage may vary) and, as I have mentioned before, my experience is that it is not an uncommon incident that firing pins will bend, or become otherwise damaged to the point at which it is no longer usable.
I've even broken a slide ... big ol' crack from the ejection port to the LEFT side of the slide. It wasn't difficult, simple use can stress the most malleable metal to the point of breakage, and slides are not known for being malleable.
That's the reason why I carry a 'small parts' kit in my range bag. In it you will find extractors, firing pins, slide-locks, guide rods, "firing pin retaining plate" as well as various springs.
If a firing pin is rendered unusable during a match, I can fetch a replacement firing pin out of this box, replace it in about one minute, and go on with the match.
A broken slide is a more complicated (and expensive) proposition. I need to send the gun to a gunsmith or back to the factory to have a replacement fitted. This takes about a day to perform, not counting shipping time and the wait until the gunsmith can get around to it.
But what if I'm a resident where the "Microstamping Ammunition" bill has become law?
The law strongly implies that it is not legal to fire the pistol unless it is suitably accessorized with an encoded firing pin and/or slide.
That means that I can't replace my firing pin with a 'blank'. I have to use a firing pin which has been engraved with the appropriate microstamping information.
How do I get that unique part?
Regardless ofI will have to have the broken part replaced, with reference to the manufacturer (who is the 'only one' who is likely to have the necessary machinery, if it's a slide). If the broken part is the firing pin ... what do I do?
Can I just replace the broken firing pin with a blank, and continue shooting? That's against the law. I have to use an unique part.
It sounds as if I would have to ask the Manufacturer for a replacement part. Who knows how long that would take? Certainly it would prevent me from replacing the broken part from my small-parts box or from a gunsmith who could order up a blank, or who might already have one on hand ... unless I have already (showing great fore-though) asked for a 'spare' part from the manufacturer.
(I wonder how much that would cost, and how long it would take?)
REGISTRATION?
But wait! What if someone steals my spare firing pin from my range bag? How valuable would that be on the black market?
And by the way, how would the manufacturer know that I'm the legitimate owner of that make/model/serial number pistol?
Why couldn't someone else surreptitiously check out my pistol at a match, note the make/model/serial number, and send the request to the manufacturer? They could get their own part, and masquerade as "me".
Would the manufacturer be liable in this event?
You bet your bippy, in this litigious society. Do you remember how New York City and other municipalities tried to sue Manufacturers because a legally sold a firearm was later used in a crime? Do not doubt that city, county or state governments are still looking for an excuse to shut down firearms manufacturers.
The only way that the manufacturing company could protect itself is by requiring that the entire gun be sent for a 'fitting', at great expense to the owner and to the manufacturer (who would pass the costs on to the owner.) This would also cause a delay in returning the part/ repair to the owner, and greatly increase the cost to the owner of the firearm.
The alternative would be for the owner to have previously identified himself in a secure manner to the manufacturer, so a verification process would not be necessary.
Manufacturer records are available to the BATFE under existing law. This is de facto registration of firearms.
Thus the Microstamping Ammunition laws could be parlied beyond the point of a time-consuming inconvenience to registration ... which is the penultimate step before confiscation.
This process may not have been intended as a means to enact a firearms registry, but it is certainly subject to the ultimate abuse, in the hands of an agenda-driven legislature (and what other kind is there?)
MANUFACTURING PROCESS:
The current method of assembling firearms at the manufacturing level is that there are a number of parts in 'bins' at the station of the person who is responsible for the final assembly of a firearm.
Somewhere at this station, the firearm serial number is stamped on the frame, which is the part which legally constitutes a "firearm" (and is subject to governmental control).
This legislation would require that the corresponding firing pin and slide be mated to the serialized frame. This constitutes a trifecta of trouble for the manufacturer, who is legally responsible for insuring that the serial number encoded on both the firing pin and the slide be accurately (100%) mated with the frame bearing the same serial number.
This requirement magically transforms the manufacture of firearms from an "assembly line process" (a la Henry Ford) to a "cottage industry". And the manufacturing expenses increase not alphabetically (see below), not geometrically, but exponentially .. as does the exposure to legal problems if the match is not absolutely correct, all day, every day.
We've just added another hand-fitted step in the inspection step of the manufacturing process, requiring workers to view the serial number on the firing pin and the slide breach to verify the serial numbers ... using microscopes.
MANUFACTURING COST:
Mr. Todd Lizette, inventor (or "co-inventor") of the Microstamping technology, makes much of the idea that the cost to the manufacturer would only be a minimal expense, not worth thinking about:
Microstamping is a one time cost to the firearm. If you figure a cost of $6.00 per firearm, than you are talking the price of two cups of coffee at Starbucks, divide that over a year and your talking about $.50 a month in the first year to cover the cost. If you figure that it costs about $15 for a box of .40 cal ammo, it means sacrificing half a box of ammo one time to provide law enforcement with an opportunity to track and target people who traffic firearms to criminals.[Letter from Lizotte, 2-May-2008]
Well, that may or may not be true. Considering the problematic situations described above, Mr. Linette must be counting only the cost of the machinery, pro-rated at an undefined production level. As we have seen, the manufacturing process would be dramatically slowed down, resulting in dramatically increased production costs and dramatically reduced production rates.
Pretty dramatic, eh?
I think we've easily moved from "Starbucks" to "Cadillac" in one easy step.
In point of fact, I question the original "$6.00 per firearm" figure. The manufacturer would have to purchase microstamping equipment.
I understand the personal interest issue. That is why I offered a royalty free license to the technology, to the firearms industry (that manufacture in the US). Remember, we import more than 50% of the firearms purchased in the US. I figured I would give a leg up to US manufacturers who employ people.and ...
I have agreed to give a free license to use the technology in support of the legislation. I am sure you are aware, only about ~900,000 pistols are manufactured each year for the US market. Many of those are law enforcement or military. Civilian markets, which the technology is targeting is very small in comparison.(Both citations from Lizotte Letter of 2.5/08)
Although the technology is generously provided "... a free license to the technology ...", one can only assume that the actual machinery will not be available under such grandiloquent terms. After all, the statements are made in the context of patent rights.
As consumers, we are left with the impression that there is a dollar to be made here.
Cui Bono?
What we have here, is a failure to communicate.
Efforts have been made to generate quasi-gun-control legislation at the state level. This legislation requires that firearms manufacturing processes be altered to accommodate arbitrary standards which are not supported by current, proven technology, and which have not practically been proven to provide a benefit to society.
This is coupled with what is essentially a sole-source of the technology (read: machinery which can perform the necessary manufacturing functions), at an undefined increase in manufacturing costs.
When combined with the after market costs, and considerable inconvenience and delay of individual implementation for parts replacement to firearms owners, it is difficult to determine what the ultimate cost may be.
We know
- This technology will slow production rates;
- firearms will be more expensive;
- delivery dates will be later;
- firearms manufacturers will be unable to meet market demands;
- manufacturers will be driven out of business;
- parts production will suffer;
- another step will be taken closer to a national Firearms Registry;
- because the bills are so ineptly written, the proposed system is rife with abuse and misinterpretation;
- people will go to jail, or be fined, because the resultant laws will be enforced arbitrarily;
- gunsmiths will be unable to meet the needs of their customers;
- Todd Lizotte will make a ton of money because manufacturers are forced to buy his machinery;
- no Crime Reduction goals will be met by enaction of these laws.
Do you?
No comments:
Post a Comment