Microstamping: Reader Responses

Yesterday's publication of the defense of Microstamping Ammunition Technology by Mr. Lizotte has already generated some reader response.

I'm not prepared to present a counter-argument at this time, and frankly I see some merit in some of the justifications there presented.

You may be interested in some comment which I received today from readers by email.

"Jim":

Read all of this hype from the inventor of micor stamping, but I am not convinced that the reloading issue was addressed well. The idea that everyone always tumbles their brass before reloading thereby making it possible to identify older micro stamping is ridiculous. I certainly don't always tumble my cartridges and if I shoot one weekend, reload during the week and shoot the next weekend I would have some serious doubts about them being able to determine which was the oldest after the cartridge had been exposed to dirt, weather and other elements of nature for any time.

In the case of reloading, you could conceivably have 8 to 10 or more micro stamps on any one cartridge if the micro stamp is added at any place but the firing pin. And if placed on the firing pin so the micro stamping would be removed each time the cartridge was reloaded might answer the reloading issues, but it would be simple to replace the firing pin. The inventor of microstamping didn't address this well. Also the idea that guns used in crimes are not usually used very much really is a stretch as far as I am concerned, while that may be true in the majority we are more concerned with the minority who will be affected by a faulty reading.

I still don't agree with "intentional" micro stamping unless they can better answer reloading questions. In fact, I would suggest that the unintentional marking of bullets and/or cartridges is a better way of identification and if micro stamping were in fact to become law, should be used in conjunction with the "intentional" marking.

Jim presents some pertinent arguments.

To expand on this position, I agree that Mr. Lizotte dismisses the reloaded-ammunition question with an almost cavalier manner.

He approaches the entire subject of ammunition usage with a certain set of preconceptions, entirely ignoring that not-inconsiderable set of people who shoot a lot of ammunition and, because ammunition is (increasingly) expensive, are encouraged by economic pressure to retain their expended brass and reload it ... often.

Mr. Lizotte's position seems to be that:

• it is a simple manner for forensic technicians to determine the "most recent" microstamp on frequently microstamped ammunition;
• In a relatively short period of time, Microstamping will become the norm;
• The scenario where a potential violent criminal will glean expended cartridges from a shooting range, and re-use them to be used in a crime, is insignificant because ...
  
• Criminals are too lazy, too indifferent, or too stupid to dump microstamped cartridge cases from someone else's gun at a crime scene as a foil to the police.
  

However, I'm still skeptical about this last assumption. When police track ammunition found at a crime scene to an innocent gun owner, the least ill effect is that their attention has been distracted. It's easy to imagine that police become complaisant because they have been assured that the scenario is unlikely, or at least that the probability is "insignificant".

The owner of the gun that actually fired that cartridge is forced into the position of proving his innocence, because the available 'evidence' is that he is the owner of the gun which fired shots at the scene ... even though neither he nor the gun were there.

Next, from "Paul":

You say the handguns already micro stamp the brass in their own way. First what about steel cases.... The second question, for years NY and Mass have been saving a factory fired case from each handgun bought, or in those states cases registered. The states are spending $4 and $7 million per year in this endeavor. With all these cases and data on file they have yet to solve a shooting case. What will make yours any different.

This looks like more buearacracy, [sic] registration and more fees for each state that takes it on. You are playing to the ignorant, in this case the state legislatures who will buy into anything that gets them votes and where they can make the public all touchy feely safe which as we know is a real misbelief.

Hmmm, I hadn't thought about steel cases. Or about aluminum, or nickel-brass cases. Do these metals take a microstamp?

Mr. Lizotte's interview responses seem to accept 'toolmarks' to be a currently legitimate and helpful tool to firearms forensics. How is Microstamping an improvement on the that technology?
________________________________

It's clear that one man can't properly evaluate such a complex innovation, and I do invite your comments. In fact, I encourage you most strenuously to contribute to the dialogue. Just in one day I have all of these 'issues' that I either haven't conceived or thought through.

I remain skeptical of the technology, although I do recognize that Mr. Lizotte didn't just make up the technology without researching the supporting systems which allow the police to follow up the information provided there. He has done his homework and is quite prepared to defend the concept.

Ultimately, I think the flaw ... whether or not it is a 'fatal' flaw remains to be seen ... in the system is that it embraces the technology and the legal aspects, but disregards what we may think of as the 'social' aspects.

And it absolutely dismisses the effect it may have on marketing of firearms. Although it is easy to fall into the "if it saves just one child" fallacy, this is not a crime-prevention system. The most obvious objections are that it imposes a requirement on manufacturers to incorporate new manufacturing processes at a not-insignificant expense, for a market which is not universal, and for a social benefit which has been no more proven by actual experience than has been the technology.

California has enacted this into law. We will see, over time, whether the benefits expected by the progenitor and the firearms-fearing State of California are justified by the actual crime-solving results.