In the video above, msnbc’s Rachel Maddow goes on and on and on about TASER’s AFID system in relation to a Milwaukee mugging. Skip to 10:22, where the infinitely sarcastic liberal commentator goes on and on and on about microstamping. Apparently, a code is stamped “on the bullet as the bullet is fired.” Uh, that would be the shell casing. Rachel admits microstamping’s “not perfect.” After spending so much time explaining the TASER ID system (with a Brainstorm-like video loop), perhaps Ms. Maddow could have spent a few moments explaining the difference between TASER’s confetti and the easily defeated microstamping misegos. Nope. Coalition to Stop Gun Violence jefe Josh Horwitz appears at 13:00 to give microstamping his stamp of approval. The blind leading the lame. Or something like that.

90 Responses to Microstamping Saves Lives! Or Not.

  1. I’m actually not against the operating theory of microstamping – a unique marking is made on a shell casing that links it to a particular gun.

    My biggest issue is that the technology, which seems to be extremely expensive to implement and gives so-so results, is defeated in less than 10 seconds with a metal file.

    • My biggest issue is that the technology, which seems to be extremely expensive to implement and gives so-so results, is defeated in less than 10 seconds with a metal file.

      Or even a brass catcher…

      Maybe they’ll tack on extra charges if you deface a micro stamper from a firearm (like defacing a serial number) but what are they gonna do about brass? Charge you for not leaving evidence?

      And what about reloads? Or does micro-stamping go on a primer? I don’t know, haven’t bothered to do enough research into technologies oppressors want to implement on my property so they can track me.

      Lastly… what stops ANYONE from easily framing someone else? Discreetly grab someone else’s brass at the range and throw it at a crime scene. Bam, now they’re the prime suspect.

      So many holes in such a terrible idea.

    • Or double and tripled stamped reloads. Or picking up some same caliber brass randomly at the range and spreading it on the crime scene. The lawyers will have a field day.

      Whoever thought about this microstamping thing needs some IQ pills.

      • I was thinking the same thing…a fistful of spent brass from the bucket at the range (if microstamping was widespread).

        An ex-con told me that, back in the 1970s, he used to load his mags with mixed-up ammo from multiple manufacturers. When the cops initially looked over the scene, they would start out thinking there were multiple shooters.

        I’ve never seen a microstamping firing pin. Does anyone know if you can tell it microstamps with the naked eye?

    • I could be wrong, but isn’t there already a pretty unique stamp on every casing made by every gun? Isn’t that one of the ways in which the police tie a gun to a particular crime?

      • I believe you are referring to ballistic fingerprinting wherin the fired bullet bears residual markings from its contact with the lands and grooves in conventional rifling. The idea is that you can identify the barrel a bullet was fired from by examining the suspect bullet against a comparative bullet that is known to be fired from the barrel in quuestion under a microscope. There are two main issues with this, 1, you have to have a suspect gun, or you have to have a catalogue of fired bullets (which new york et.al. Mandate in some cases if im not mistaken), and 2, the unique toolmarking on the bore will change with # of rounds fired, filing, or a total barrel change. The other form you may be referencing is the inspection of fired cases which may exhibit unique .markings from contact with tool marks or damage to chambers or breech faces. Analysis of this follows same protocol as the ballistic fingerprinting and is subject to the same flaws. Microstamping is basically engraving the face of the firing pin with an easilly readable identifier unique to the gun. Microstamping is defeated with a file, b normal shooting that eventually wears down the marking, c replacement of the pin, d use a revolver…..you get the idea. So, clear as mud?

        • New York ironically scrapped theirs.

          Maryland however still has their program going strong nevermind the fact it hasn’t helped in solving a single crime.

      • Yeah, imagine the problem with that. A bad guy shoots up some people with a .22 wheel gun, then drops microstamped .22 shell casings he picked up at the local range. The bad guy eventually gets arrested based on circumstantial evidence. His lawyers argue that it couldn’t have been him because he doesn’t own a gun (which he already disposed of) and the shell casings at the scene were from a gun linked to someone else. Would a jury consider this “reasonable doubt”?

  2. “IF YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND GAYS AND ABORTIONS, DON’T REGULATE THEM.”

    “I DON’T NEED TO UNDERSTAND GUNS TO REGULATE THEM.”

    (Coming from someone who is 100% pro gay marriage and pro abortion, because if you are for gun rights you better be for ALL rights.)

    • Sir, I couldn’t agree with you more. Hypocrisy about an individual’s rights is troubling.

      And more importantly, if she’s using the TASER system as an example wouldn’t nano tags or what ever the hell you call it be a better analogy? Ignorance is bliss for the ignorant, annoying as sh-t for the rest of us.

      • Well if they’re so enthusiastic about the tasers and their confetti systems, why do antigun places like Maryland, DC, and NYC ban them?

        • In Maryland it is up to the county or city if it is banned. Only a few jurisdictions ban tasers even here in the oppressive state that is Maryland.

        • Look up spousal privilege, then explain to me how a gay couple, in a state without marriage equality, could ever benefit from that basic, and extremely important protection.

        • EVERY single public vote in EVERY state (including Calif) has turned down gay marriage I would imagine that all those votes would have voted in the affirmative for spousal privileges. Don’t be a leftist and purposely try to mix and confuse the issue. Spousal privileges of gays are routine in many states without gay marriage.

        • Except that’s not true anymore. Marriage equality ballot measures have passed in several states, including Referendum 74 in Washington.

          Stop living in the past.

        • Marriage is not a right. It is a covenant between two people and God that is rightfully administered by the church and fraudulently used by the government.

      • Sure it is. If I mix up a test tube of 10,000 eggs, and then fertilize them, then put it in the garbage disposal, am I guilty of genocide? If yes, you’re a moron. If no, then what about life starting at conception?

        • Bingo… it’s all about drawing lines, and conception and birth are the only two clear ones. Although there are people who would suggest you are indeed guilty of genocide.

        • No, because fertilized or not, unless they are placed in a receptive human womb they were NEVER going to grow into human babies.

          And as I understand in vitro fertilization you would have to do these 10,000 ova one at a time, which I would suggest is a very creepy hobby.

          Aborting 10,000 individual fetus’, in the womb, with a high probability of completing gestation and being born, now THAT would be genocide.

        • So what you’re saying is that only certain fertelized eggs are human? So why is human life drawn at fertilization, not at when the egg moves down the fallopian tube which is when it is actually viable?

    • I agree whole heartedly, the argument “but this is a right,” falls apart if the person using it does not support other human and civil rights.

    • I’m for rights outlined in the constitution, not ones imagined by progressives. Gay marriage and abortion have to do with the underlying morality of the United States, not rights in the constitution. They are and should be regulated by the states, not Federal Law.

      So no, I’m not for those “rights” – I don’t recognize them as rights.

      I don’t say this to start a flame war, just to provide a counterpoint to the idea you espoused in your post. Like it or not conservatives remain a large part of the Pro-2nd Amendment movement. You have no right to tell them they “must” share your view, just as they have no right to say you “must” share theirs.

      Tolerance cuts both ways, otherwise it is not tolerance.

      • Just what does the Constitution have to do with morality? predominantly, it outlines a system of three branches of government, and the manner in which two of them are to operate. Then, in ten short amendments, it outlines the rights of citizens vis-à-vis the government. It is all about power, and who is granted which power, and how abuses of power are to be remedied. There is nothing in there about religion or moral codes. There is certainly nothing in there adopting the moral views of the Catholic Church or the Moral Majority.
        Do you want to talk about morality? Under orthodox Judaic (Talmudic) principles, a fetus is not a human until it draws its first breath. If it is aborted, miscarried, or born dead, it is not human. Pretty easy line to observe. Given that Christianity is an outgrowth of orthodox Judaism Jesus, indeed, was an orthodox Jew condemning the hypocrisy of the then current religious hierarchy), one must necessarily question why the Church in the modern era has so completely abandoned its founding legal principles, views that surfaced when it appeared that women might succeed in shaking the shackles of male chauvinism.

        Another thing I could never understand. Why is it that so many men who are so adamantly opposed to abortion are also adamantly in favor of the death penalty?

        • “Just what does the Constitution have to do with morality?”

          While the Constitution may not address the issue of morality directly, the entire concept of the founding of the United States of America was to bring to fruition in the governance of men the concept of the morality of personal liberty and personal rights, the most important of which were enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

          While other human rights may exist and be identified it would seem specious to claim after the fact that they are somehow Constitutionally protected unless an amendment to that effect has been ratified.

          Since the concepts of Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were addressed in The Declaration of Independence, one of our founding documents, and the 5th Amendment states, “…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” I would argue that the artificial and intentional ending of a potential human life (the fetus) is covered by the Constitution, all pro or con religious arguments notwithstanding.

          Point two – abortion is the death of an innocent who has committed no crime, sin or transgression. Capital punishment is the death of a person convicted of a particularly heinous crime by a jury in a court of law. No comparison.

          Why are so many Liberals who are in favor of abortion so opposed to capital punishment?

      • DeFacto, using “morality” does not compute with secularists and atheists. If you want to properly argue your position please read up on articles and videos by Dennis Prager. There are few people who can properly articulate the position consistently and convincingly and he by far is the best.

      • Mr. De Facto, please remember that the constitution does not, and was never purported to grant rights to the citizenry. Rather, it was to intentionally constrain the federal government to a set list of tasks. The Bill of Rights was added to ensure that what the Founders believed to be the most important of the pre-existing human rights were specifically protected from infringement by the Federal government. That being said, the direct answer to your assertion regarding “progressive rights” is the existance of the Ninth Amendment which (paraphrased) states that just because a particular right is not enumerated, it is still a protected right retained by the people.

        All consenting, sound minded, adults have the right to engage in contract (which marriage, as treated by the state, is) with whomever they choose (again provided they are a consenting sound minded adult). I will not attemt to force you to agree that Homosexual behavior is correct, godly, wonderful, etc. I only ask you to recognize that the packaged benifits of a legal marriage (tax status, death benifits, implied power of attourney) are either applied to everyone equally, or no one.

        The consideration of a pre-existing right that the BOR states shall not be infringed is one of the only non violent protections we the people have against the overreach of government. My personal beliefs regarding other peoples’ behavior, so long as it does not cause harm or deny human rights to others, will not preclude me from welcoming all comers to the civil rights battle. I long to see the right to keep and bear arms no longer a liberal/conservative/republican/democrat thing. ALL of us have a right to keep and bear arms. We can argue about the other stuff later. IF we are to defeat microstamping and other incrimental gun laws, we need to keep winning hearts and minds. I am not willing to write-off large sections of the population in my arguments by framing the discussion as “agree with me completely or not at all”

      • They don’t have a voice or consciousness, so they won’t even know the abortion happened.

        Just like how you don’t remember before you were born.

        • Your arguments could be used in the justification of the murder of a newborn. I certainly hope that you are not arguing for infanticide.

          They don’t have the ability to voice their opinions. Nobody remembers the actions of the first 6 months of their life. Just because they are defenseless does not mean that they are worthless.

    • I am for all political rights specified in the Constitution. “Social rights” like sex rights and drug rights are nowhere to be found in the document. Those rights are real of examples of righrs that are mere social conventions.

    • That’s just Maddow’s voice. Happens to everyone. Watch
      the video without audio and you only go crosseyed from
      imagining the stupid.

  3. So how will micro stamping solve crimes? Someone fires a round, the case hits the ground. The police come and get the brass and trace the gun…right back to the owner who reported the gun stolen three weeks ago. Idiocy at its finest.

    • We need microstamping because criminals use guns that can be traced back to them. NOT!

      There are like hundreds of millions of guns out there already that don’t have microstamping technology. What about those?

      These people really thought this thing through.. NOT!

      • Actually they did. They know that in order to implement microstamping they will have to create a gun registry. Once they create the registry they can confiscate the sh!t out of guns and abuse gun owners with government agencies to their hearts content. It is just one more hurdle they want to throw into owning a gun.

        • Not quite. Microstamping was first adopted in California, which has had a registry for all handgun sales for many many moons. The part that they didn’t think about is the millions of pistols that are already in circulation in the state, firearms that could be around for a century or more, and that will never be stampers.

  4. Anything to F up the sport. Next up, “why a blunderbuss stock on an AR will save the children”. Although from what I seen on that last AR this might be an improvement. They must spend 24 hours a day dreaming about ways to piss off gun owners.

  5. According to Hillary Clinton, the media have “big egos and no brains.” She also claimed that her team (when she was FL) had figured out a way to “work” them. Apparently, they shared the wisdom.

  6. This works well for tazers. However you can not put that confetti into a bullet or a firearm. As to the micro stamping of the shell, not practical, nor cost effective, to the firearm companies.

    • Just wait a few years, once they learn microstamping isn’t solving enough crimes they’ll move on to confetti.

      “heeeeey, gun owners, don’t worry! If you have nothing to hide, what’s the problem? Besides, how many times do you need to kill someone! Don’t worry about the cost…”

  7. I can’t fast forward to the microstamping part, and I can’t stand to hear over ten minutes of her idiocy until it gets there.

    Robert, this article was a fail…

  8. I take issue with the fact that the entire concept hinges on registering the code stamped by the firing pin to a particular owner.

    What do you do when your shells show up at a crime scene?

    • get arrested and have all of your firearms seized before anyone can even offer any conclusive evidence that you’re involved.

  9. “Rachel admits microstamping’s not perfect.”

    How true, Mr. Maddow; it won’t work with revolvers. Criminals will be driven to turn to revolvers. Another epic fail.

  10. I….I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t finish. I tried, God I tried. I always choke through the videos, articles, senseless drivel that TTAG links to….but I couldn’t do it. I can’t handle Rachel Maddow. I made it about 5 minutes before I was overwhelmed by smug. The woman emanates it.

  11. I’ve got a simple technology to reduce violence. It’s called “birth control”, and it should be used by anyone who isn’t willing to actually raise their children so they don’t become violent criminals.

  12. Ironically if I wanted to tase someone without leaving AFIDs all over the place I could just remove the cartridge. To defeat micro stamping is equally as easy. Komrade Maddow you fail again.

  13. Key word: registered

    Other observations-Does that revolver have a hammer or a firing pin? Does that 9mm ammo go in the revolver?

    I guess I’ll call the FBI the next time I have to recover AFIDs because I can’t ever find them without getting on my hands and knees. In the grass. Or on gravel. At night.

  14. I can’t stand Fox news because of the persecution complex they all seem to have (someone at Macy’s didn’t say “Merry Christmas” AHHH we’re dooomed!) but the reason I can’t stand MSNBC isn’t even the content, it’s the smirkyness and smugness that just drip from the talking heads.

  15. I was interested to hear about the Taser “confetti” system, but I couldn’t make it past the first minute the way Maddow kept talking about the “barrel” of the Taser. “You look down the barrel”, “you attach the cartridge to the barrel”. She immediately proved that she did not understand what she was talking about, and if she’s going to give a presentation on television without even bothering to do the most basic research- or have it done for her- about what she’s going to discuss and make recommendations and pronouncements on, she does not deserve an audience. Robert, next time don’t give us any incentive to watch Rachel Maddow, just tell us what’s being discussed so we don’t have to. Plus, I am loath to give her any traffic.

    • I’m sure her advertisers are happy. I’d bet they got more exposure with her video being posted to TTAG than they do on her own site…

      • I wouldn’t be surprised if The Truth About Guns was responsible for half of Mayors Against Illegal Guns’ YouTube views and a significant amount of their pageviews. TTAG, please mirror the text of anti-gun content here when possible so that we don’t automatically have to reward their advertisers in order to read about what the rights infringers are doing.

  16. This is amazing in that this show passes for journalism and is held up by some as intelligent discussion.

    Take it in for a second. She spent 10 minutes smugly setting up the later discussion with her talk of confetti from tasers. She then mentions ruger and S&W pulling out of California and asks “what could possibly be the reason for opposing this?”

    She then brings on as a guest…a person representing the group who proposed this idea in the first place.

    There are no counter opinions. There is no person to give the reasoning behind these major gun manufacturers pulling out of this huge state (it would seem to be a viable thing to find out…you know…the reason that they would seemingly give up business…)

    Thats the whole thing. Let me talk forever about this gun control idea that i have. Let me set it up as the only possible reasonable opinion…and then let me confirm that by bringing on a guest who not only completely agrees with me but invented the idea.

    Why is this anything but rank propaganda?

    • Well yeah, that’s what her show is – opinion.

      I mean it would probably take her a couple hours to contact someone at Ruger or S&W and, you know, just ask why they refuse to play in the microstamping sandbox. She is a big name for a big media outlet, surely one who would get a callback at the very least, but apparently she didn’t even bother trying.

      • What’s funny is if you look for her interview of Jon Stewart, she tries to razz him for somehow treating MSNBC unfairly compared to Fox… as if she’s a beacon of fact.

  17. You all realize that the anti’s don’t care if the technology works, right? It actually works better for them if it doesn’t work. Look at the Situation in California with the “approved” list. California required micro stamping technology, S&W and Ruger said no, and now none of those handguns will be sold in California. California politicians will see this as a huge win – they essentially shut down sales from two huge gun manufacturers.

    It’s perversely clever – they don’t have to make the technology work, they don’t need to do the required R&D. All he have to do is make a law that requires an expensive technology that is impossible to implement. It makes selling guns in their state a money losing proposition for gun manufacturers. And gun companies are for-profit businesses like all other businesses.

    • This, and California’s recent ban on led ammo. As the YouTuber ZombieTactics described: Tyranny Through Triangulation.

      • Lead ammo is required only for hunting, and the mandate does not go into effect for a number of years. So all your target shooting and SD rounds will remain perfectly legal.

  18. I could get behind micro stamping if you could pick what goes on the “bullets”

    Mine would say: Liberty or Death. You chose death.
    Or
    Instant Kama
    Or
    Maybe a Hello Kitty face

  19. If you want to read scary, read the posts at the MSNBC site. People are downright gleeful that microstamping may mean the end of sales of semiautomatic pistols, their hatred for guns runs so deep.

  20. Maybe my memory is wrong, but I don’t think they found shell casings on the ground during the DC sniper lockdown as they were fired though a hole from the trunk of the car. I’m sure Mr. Malvo (sp?) didn’t open the trunk lid and just drop them willy nilly for the police to find.

  21. The sad thing about this is that Rachel Maddow is a highly intelligent person who can sometimes be quite insightful. It’s a shame she so often skates across the surface of a subject on wishful thinking.

    But I guess that’s the nature of the game. She’s paid to have an opinion, and whether it’s right or wrong or deep or shallow is irrelevant as long as she has an approving audience.

  22. I just had a thought (I know, dangerous at best). This hasn’t even been passed through my own B.S. detector yet, so here goes….

    Wouldn’t knowingly using a firearm with microstamping that ties a cartridge back to you be self incrimination, and therefore be unconstitutional?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *