I’m trying to figure out how a handgun would microstamp a bullet. My understanding of guns is that the magazine pushes the ammo up and the slide pushes it in the chamber. Then, the striker sets off the powder. The only place the bullet(the projectile) might come in contact with the gun would be as it’s pushed into the chamber.
Comment on Judge blocks California law requiring safety features for handguns
SilentCal@lemmy.basedcount.com 9 months agoLoaded chamber indicators and magazine disconnects are fine to call safety devices. They are comparable to cars with tire pressure lights and automatic braking. Some people will still debate them…
However microstamping is a feature that has never been economically or technologically feasible. It’d be like passing a law that in CA only cars that leave unique tire prints everywhere they go could be sold. And then Californians could only buy cars models from before the law was passed.
baldingpudenda@lemmy.world 9 months ago
SilentCal@lemmy.basedcount.com 9 months ago
Theoretically there would have to be a printing mechanism either on:
- the firing pin
- the bolt face
- the chamber
- the extractor
- the ejector
Those are the only direct contact surfaces between the gun and the cartridge I am aware of. It would be better on the firing pin so that unfired but loaded cases don’t get double stamped and obscure the print.
The problem is that all of these parts are smaller than your pinky finger and must withstand ~2500 bar of pressure, extreme temperature, and mechanical stresses. The print also must be uniquely identifiable on a thin piece of brass, hopefully for an equivalent duty cycle as the part it’s replacing (assume 5-15k cycles).
I’m not sure if anyone has actually made a device to do this in the 10 years this law has been around. But I’d be impressed just for the engineering of the thing.
starman2112@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microstamping
It’s a proprietary technology. I’m sure Todd Lizotte hasn’t made any massive financial contributions to the politicians who want him to make money off of every handgun sold in the state.
FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 9 months ago
The real problem is that all of those parts would print on the shell casing, not the bullet. What good would that do?
dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I guess they’re assuming most hoodlums don’t pick up their brass. Jury’s out on revolver users.
starman2112@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
In defense of this awful law, it would at least help catch anyone careless enough to leave their casings at the crime scenes and get caught with the weapon.
Optimistically, maybe everyone who’s been put in jail because of the pseudoscience of forensic ballistics could get a retrial, when the state admits that actually forensic ballistics is fake and we need serial numbers stamped on the bullets in order to identify them
SilentCal@lemmy.basedcount.com 9 months ago
Provide forensic evidence? Idk, it’s one of those feel good “at least we’re doing something” laws.
If CA Dems had any balls and actually wanted to solve gun violence, they’d lobby congress to amend the 2nd to ban handguns entirely. Then they’d set up a working social safety net for at risk youths and poverty stricken families. Rifles despite being scary and in CoD are something like 1-2% of murder weapons. The leading cause of homicides is gang violence driven by desperation but no one wants to talk about that.
But instead they’ll try to ban something that will get them a good sound bite: “ghost guns” “bump stocks” “binary triggers”
Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 9 months ago
Technical feasibility is a valid (but separate) issue but it does not negate my question.
SilentCal@lemmy.basedcount.com 9 months ago
I believe the OPs point was that because one of the features they required is not possible, and the law required all the features to be implemented, the intent of the lawmakers was not safety.
But let’s assume that the feature is possible and that politicians always have the best of intents. Microstamping itself does not prevent malicious or accidental use. It provides a detective value for after the fact review, rather than a preventative value. So in the most technical of ways, the OP has a valid position in my opinion.
starman2112@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
It is definitely possible, and has been done
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microstamping
My problem with it is basically the same as OP’s: it makes guns more expensive, which means only wealthier people can legally own them. On top of that, the technology is presently only available from a single company, making it even more expensive.