BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Gloria Romero, Chair A
2007-2008 Regular Session B
1
4
7
AB 1471 (Feuer) 1
As Amended April 10, 2007
Hearing date: June 26, 2007
Penal Code
SM:mc
FIREARMS - MICROSTAMPING
HISTORY
Source: Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Prior Legislation: AB 352 (Koretz) - 2006, died in conference
SB 357 (Dunn) - amended to remove relevant
provisions
Support: Alameda County Board of Supervisors; Alameda County
Sheriff's Office; American College of Emergency
Physicians, California Alliance for Consumer
Protection; California District of the American Academy
of Pediatrics; California Chapters of the Brady
Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence; City and County of
San Francisco; City of Sacramento; Coalition Against
Gun Violence; Friends Committee on Legislation; Grover
Beach Police Department; Legal Community Against Gun
Violence; Los Angeles County District Attorney's
Office; Los Angeles Sheriff's Department; Mayor of San
Diego; Mayor of San Francisco; Orange County Chiefs of
Police and Sheriff's Association; Orange County
Citizens for the Prevention of Gun Violence; San
Francisco District Attorney's Office; Stockton Police
Department; Superintendent, Alameda County Office of
Education; Violence Prevention Coalition of Orange
(More)
AB 1471 (Feuer)
PageB
County; Women Against Gun Violence; Youth Alive; Chiefs
of Police of the following cities: Anaheim; Antioch;
Bell; Beverly Hills; Brentwood; Burlingame; Capitola;
Chino; Clayton; Clearlake; Concord; Costa Mesa;
Emeryville; Fresno; Glendale; Glendora; Grover Beach;
Hawthorne; Healdsburg; Huntington Beach; Huntington
Park; Irvine; Los Alamitos; Monrovia; National City;
Nevada City; Newport Beach; Oakland; Piedmont; Pinole;
Pittsburg; Pleasant Hill; Pomona; Sacramento; Salinas;
San Diego; San Francisco; San Ramon; San Mateo; Santa
Barbara; Seal Beach; Seaside; Stockton; Tustin; Twin
Cities Police Authority (Corte Madera/Larkspur);
Ventura; Vernon; Walnut Creek; West Covina; Westminster
Opposition:Amador County Sheriff; Berreta U.S.A., Corp.;
California Association of Firearms Retailers;
California Outdoor Heritage Alliance; California Rifle
and Pistol Association; California Sportsman's Lobby,
Inc.; Crossroads of the West Gun Shows; Gun Owners of
California, Inc.; Mendocino County Sheriff; National
Rifle Association; North State Sheriffs; Orange County
Sheriff; Outdoor Sportsman's Coalition of California;
Riverside County Sheriff; Safari Club International;
San Bernardino County Sheriff; Sporting Arms and
Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI); Tehama
County Sheriff; Kahr Arms
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 44 - Noes 31
NOTE: AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED (See Comment 6.)
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE EXISTING "UNSAFE HANDGUN" LAW, AS OF JANUARY 1, 2010,
INCLUDE REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW MODELS OF SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOLS THAT
THEY BE EQUIPPED WITH A MICROSCOPIC ARRAY OF CHARACTERS THAT
IDENTIFY THE MAKE, MODEL, AND SERIAL NUMBER OF THE PISTOL, ETCHED
INTO THE INTERIOR SURFACE OR INTERNAL WORKING PARTS OF THE PISTOL,
AND WHICH ARE TRANSFERRED BY IMPRINTING ON EACH CARTRIDGE CASE WHEN
(More)
AB 1471 (Feuer)
PageC
THE FIREARM IS FIRED, AS SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to add to the existing "unsafe
handgun" law, as of January 1, 2010, requirements for new models
of semiautomatic pistols that they be equipped with a microscopic
array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial
number of the pistol, etched into the interior surface or
internal working parts of the pistol, and which are transferred
by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired,
as specified.
Existing law provides that commencing January 1, 2001, no
"unsafe handgun" may be manufactured or sold in California by a
licensed dealer, as specified, and requires that the Department
of Justice prepare and maintain a roster of handguns which are
determined not to be unsafe handguns. Private party sales (used
or previously owned) and transfers of handguns through a
licensed dealer or sheriff in smaller counties are exempted from
those restrictions. (Penal Code 12125-12133.)
Existing law does the following:
Defines "unsafe handgun" as any pistol, revolver, or other
firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, as
specified, which lacks various safety mechanisms and does not
pass listed tests, as specified. (Penal Code 12126.)
Requires any concealable firearm manufactured in California, or
intended to be imported for sale, kept for sale, or offered for
sale to be tested within a reasonable period of time by an
independent laboratory, certified by the state Department of
Justice (DOJ), to determine whether it meets required safety
standards, as specified. (Penal Code 12130.)
Requires DOJ, on and after January 1, 2001, to compile,
publish, and thereafter maintain a roster listing all of the
pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being
(More)
AB 1471 (Feuer)
PageD
concealed upon the person that have been tested by a certified
testing laboratory, have been determined not to be unsafe
handguns, and may be sold in this state, as specified. The
roster shall list, for each firearm, the manufacturer, model
number, and model name. (Penal Code 12131(a).)
Provides that DOJ may charge every person in California who
is licensed as a manufacturer of firearms, as specified, and
any person in California who manufactures or causes to be
manufactured, imports into California for sale, keeps for
sale, or offers or exposes for sale any pistol, revolver, or
other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in
California, an annual fee not exceeding the costs of
preparing, publishing, and maintaining the roster of firearms
determined not to be unsafe, and the costs of research and
development, report analysis, firearms storage, and other
program infrastructure costs, as specified. (Penal Code
12131(b)(1).)
Existing law provides that the sale, loan or transfer of
firearms in almost all cases must be processed by, or through, a
state licensed dealer or a local law enforcement agency with
appropriate transfer forms being used. (Penal Code 12072(c)
and (d) and 12084.) In those cases where dealer or law
enforcement processing is not required, a handgun change of
title report must still be sent to the Department of Justice
(DOJ). (Penal Code 12078.)
Existing law provides that, on request, DOJ will register
transactions relating to handguns in the Automated Firearm
System Unit for persons who are exempt from dealer processing or
are otherwise exempt by statute from reporting processes.
(Penal Code 12078(l).)
Existing law requires handguns to be centrally registered at
time of transfer or sale due to various transfer forms centrally
compiled by the DOJ. DOJ is required to keep a registry from
data sent to DOJ indicating who owns what handgun by make,
model, and serial number and the date thereof. (Penal Code
11106(a) and (c).) Law enforcement agencies must promptly
(More)
AB 1471 (Feuer)
PageE
report to DOJ all reports they receive of lost, stolen, and
found property. (Penal Code 11107 and 11108.) DOJ must keep
a centralized and computerized list of all lost, stolen, and
found serialized property reported to it. (Penal Code
11106(a).)
Existing law makes it a crime for any person with knowledge of
any change, alteration, removal, or obliteration described
herein, who buys, receives, disposes of, sells, offers for sale,
or has in his or her possession any pistol, revolver, or other
firearm which has had the name of the maker, model, or the
manufacturer's number or other mark of identification including
any distinguishing number or mark assigned by the Department of
Justice changed, altered, removed, or obliterated, punishable as
a misdemeanor. (Penal Code 12094.)
Existing federal law provides that it shall be unlawful for any
person knowingly to transport, ship, or receive, in interstate
or foreign commerce, any firearm which has had the importer's or
manufacturer's serial number removed, obliterated, or altered,
or to possess or receive any firearm which has had the
importer's or manufacturer's serial number removed, obliterated,
or altered and has, at any time, been shipped or transported in
interstate or foreign commerce. (Title 18 USCS 922(k).)
This bill requires that commencing January 1, 2010, all
semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the "not
unsafe handgun" roster shall be designed and equipped with a
microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model,
and serial number of the pistol, etched into the interior
surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and which are
transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the
firearm is fired.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION ("ROCA")
IMPLICATIONS
California currently faces an extraordinary and severe prison
and jail overcrowding crisis. California's prison capacity is
(More)
AB 1471 (Feuer)
PageF
nearly exhausted as prisons today are being operated with a
significant level of overcrowding.<1> In addition, California's
jails likewise are significantly overcrowded. Twenty California
counties are operating under jail population caps. According to
the State Sheriffs' Association, "counties are currently
releasing 18,000 pre and post-sentenced inmates every month and
many counties are so overcrowded they do not accept misdemeanor
bookings in any form, . . . ."<2> In January of this year the
Legislative Analyst's office summarized the trajectory of
California's inmate population over the last two decades:
During the past 20 years, jail and prison
populations have increased significantly. County
jail populations have increased by about 66
percent over that period, an amount that has been
limited by court-ordered population caps. The
prison population has grown even more dramatically
during that period, tripling since the
mid-1980s.<3>
The level of overcrowding, and the impact of the population
crisis on the day-to-day prison operations, is staggering:
As of December 31, 2006, the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) was
estimated to have 173,100 inmates in the state
prison system, based on CDCR's fall 2006
population projections. However, . . . the
department only operates or contracts for a total
of 156,500 permanent bed capacity (not including
out-of-state beds, . . . ), resulting in a
shortfall of about 16,600 prison beds relative to
the inmate population. The most significant bed
shortfalls are for Level I, II, and IV inmates, as
--------------------
<1> Analysis of the 2007-08 Budget Bill: Judicial and Criminal
Justice, Legislative Analyst's Office (February 21, 2007).
<2> Memorandum from CSSA President Gary Penrod to Governor,
February 14, 2007.
<3> California's Criminal Justice System: A Primer.
Legislative Analyst's Office (January 2007).
(More)
AB 1471 (Feuer)
PageG
well as at reception centers. As a result of the
bed deficits, CDCR houses about 10 percent of the
inmate population in temporary beds, such as in
dayrooms and gyms. In addition, many inmates are
housed in facilities designed for different
security levels. For example, there are currently
about 6,000 high security (Level IV) inmates
housed in beds designed for Level III inmates.
. . . (S)ignificant overcrowding has both
operational and fiscal consequences. Overcrowding
and the use of temporary beds create security
concerns, particularly for medium- and
high-security inmates. Gyms and dayrooms are not
designed to provide security coverage as well as
in permanent housing units, and overcrowding can
contribute to inmate unrest, disturbances, and
assaults. This can result in additional state
costs for medical treatment, workers'
compensation, and staff overtime. In addition,
overcrowding can limit the ability of prisons to
provide rehabilitative, health care, and other
types of programs because prisons were not
designed with sufficient space to provide these
services to the increased population. The
difficulty in providing inmate programs and
services is exacerbated by the use of program
space to house inmates. Also, to the extent that
inmate unrest is caused by overcrowding,
rehabilitation programs and other services can be
disrupted by the resulting lockdowns.<4>
As a result of numerous lawsuits, the state has entered into
several consent decrees agreeing to improve conditions in the
state's prisons. As these cases have continued over the past
several years, prison conditions nonetheless have failed to
improve and, over the last year, the scrutiny of the federal
courts over California's prisons has intensified.
---------------------------
<4> Analysis 2007-08 Budget Bill, supra, fn. 1.
(More)
AB 1471 (Feuer)
PageH
In February of 2006, the federal court appointed a receiver to
take over the direct management and operation of the prison
medical health care delivery system from the state. Motions
filed in December of 2006 are now pending before three federal
court judges in which plaintiffs are seeking a court-ordered
limit on the prison population pursuant to the federal Prison
Litigation Reform Act. Medical, mental health and dental care
programs at CDCR each are "currently under varying levels of
federal court supervision based on court rulings that the state
has failed to provide inmates with adequate care as required
under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The courts
found key deficiencies in the state's correctional programs,
including: (1) an inadequate number of staff to deliver health
care services, (2) an inadequate amount of clinical space within
prisons, (3) failures to follow nationally recognized health
care guidelines for treating inmate-patients, and (4) poor
coordination between health care staff and custody staff."<5>
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison and jail
overcrowding crisis outlined above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
California has an enormous and diverse problem of
unsolved homicides committed with handguns. No arrest
is made in approximately 45% of all homicides in
California because police lack the evidence they need.
Of the approximately 2400 homicides in California per
year over 60% are committed with handguns (2004 DOJ
data). Approximately 70% of new handguns sold in
California are semiautomatics ("Handgun Commerce in
California 1999," Sacramento: Violence Prevention
Research Program, 2002)
----------------------
<5> Primer, supra, fn. 4.
(More)
AB 1471 (Feuer)
PageI
Microstamping technology would give law enforcement a
tool that will provide evidence to help investigate,
arrest and convict more people who use semiautomatic
handguns in crimes. It will provide rapid leads in
the first crucial hours after a homicide.
AB 1471 will help law enforcement identify and
apprehend armed gang members before they inflict more
harm on others, including innocent bystanders. In
instances of drive-by shootings, where the only
evidence at the crime scene may be a spent cartridge
case, law enforcement could quickly obtain a critical
lead.
2. What is Microstamping?
The following information from NanoMark Technologies (Hitachi
Via Mechanics USA, Inc. in Londonderry, New Hampshire) is taken
from their website
(http://www.nanomark.com/Ballistic-id-tagging/ballistic-id.htm.)
NanoMark Technologies has developed a PATENTED
BALLISTIC TAGGING TECHNOLOGY. The technology places
an identification mark on each cartridge casing
ejected from a properly outfitted firearm at the
moment of firing each bullet. The idea is to have
this technology integrated in firearms as an
alternative to the ballistic "fingerprinting" methods
currently under such hot debate.
Today's common "ballistic fingerprinting" technology
is the computer automation of the science practiced by
Forensic Firearms Examiners. These specialists have
honed the science of comparing the signature of two
bullets and/or cartridges, and have shown an extremely
high degree of success as long as two physical
specimens are available for the match. In ballistic
fingerprinting, it is hoped that a computer can
(More)
AB 1471 (Feuer)
PageJ
compare one physical piece of evidence to a virtual
picture of the first ammunition fired by a firearm.
Relying on a vast database containing tediously large
image files, the computer systems have fallen short in
delivering accuracy and repeatability. This has
called into question the concept of ballistic
fingerprint database technology's readiness by some of
the most respected Forensic Firearms Examiners in the
world.
Our technology eliminates the need for national gun
registration or a national database for new guns sold.
The ID marks delivered by Ballistic ID Tagging can be
simply viewed by utilizing imaging equipment commonly
found at local, state and federal forensics
laboratories. Because of its uniqueness, it does not
require extensive cross-jurisdictional ballistic image
databases or a national ballistic image database
containing the files of new guns sold every year.
Our technology imparts a unique, indelible, and
microscopic code onto the cartridge casings when a
bullet is fired and the cartridge case is ejected from
a properly outfitted firearm. This code takes the
form of encrypted symbols, bar codes or simple
alpha-numeric characters (such as a serial number or
some type of tracking number) that can be accessed at
the individual manufacturers' level. This type of
identifier would immediately and unquestionably lead
investigators to a specific gun without requiring the
manpower and expense associated with the creation and
maintenance of a ballistic image database containing
millions of images. Furthermore, it has been shown
that as a gun wears over time, its fingerprint changes
enough to confuse the current generation of database
search routines.
(More)
AB 1471 (Feuer)
PageK
(All emphasis in original.)
3. What This Bill Would Do
AB 1471 provides that, after January 1, 2010, semiautomatic
pistols that are not already listed on the "safe handgun list"
maintained by the Department of Justice would be required to be
designed and equipped with "a microscopic array of characters
that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol,
etched into the interior surface or internal working parts of
the pistol, and which are transferred by imprinting on each
cartridge case when the firearm is fired." This would apply
only to new models of semiautomatic pistols that a manufacturer
offered for sale in California after January 1, 2010 . Handgun
owners would not be required to turn in their previously
purchased handguns and gun dealers would still be permitted to
sell all the existing models that could be legally sold in
California (i.e., were on the "safe handgun list") prior to
January 1, 2010, that do not have this microstamping technology.
4. Questions of Efficacy
Opponents of this bill raise a number of issues regarding the
efficacy of the microstamping technology. Many of these
arguments address the possibility that the microstamp could be
defaced or otherwise defeated by a determined criminal. While
these claims are open to debate, they are somewhat beside the
point because most people who use firearms in a crime would, in
all likelihood, not exhibit enough determination or skill to
either file down the firing pin or plant pre-fired cartridges at
a crime scene or engage in any similar form of subterfuge. The
real question is, would this technology help law enforcement in
a significant number of cases to trace a crime bullet to the gun
that fired it? If so, while there might still be questions
relating to the ability to positively establish a
chain-of-custody in relation to the gun or other limitations of
the evidence, it seems clear that this information would provide
an extremely useful lead for investigators to follow in their
(More)
AB 1471 (Feuer)
PageL
attempts to solve gun-related crimes.
The most significant question regarding the efficacy of the
technology is whether the stamp would actually work the way the
manufacturer claims; that is, would the stamp be legible under
most real-life circumstances? In the Winter 2006 issue of the
peer-reviewed journal of Association of Firearm and Toolmark
Examiners (AFTE Journal),<6> George Krivosta, Suffolk County
Crime Laboratory, Hauppauge, New York, published the finding of
his tests of the NanoMark microstamping technology. Krivosta
tested two different firing pins engraved with NanoMark
microstamps placed in, "one of the most popular pistols made":
Each of the two firing pins was placed in a Colt .45
auto caliber semiautomatic pistol, customized
Government Model. Each firing pin was test fired
using Winchester and Federal brands of ammunition, to
generate a total of ten cartridge cases for
microscopic examination and comparison. Initial
testing with one of the pins required an examination
of all ten test fired casings to determine that the
NanoTag" serial number of this pin was "0H5K B4M3".
The other pin was NanoTag" engraved with many, much
----------------------
<6> The publishers state: "All papers published in The AFTE
Journal are reviewed for scientific validity, logical reasoning,
and sound methodology, where applicable. The editor, assistant
editors, and the editorial review panel conduct a detailed
review of all papers prior to publication. Papers in which the
author engages in experimentation or testing from which
conclusions are drawn, or those that present an opinion,
technique, or method having scientific significance are all
subject to post-publication review by the members of the
Association of Firearm & Toolmark Examiners. The "AFTE Peer
Review and Letters to the Editor" section of the Journal
provides a forum for post-publication review."
(More)
AB 1471 (Feuer)
PageM
smaller, fonts. It was found to have "NanoTag"", the
numerals 0 to 9, and the entire alphabet engraved into
the pin's tip. The vast majority of this pin's
characters were never visualized in the firing pin
mark of any of the expended cartridge cases generated
and examined.
Krivosta concludes, "[c]ertainly this research has shown that
implementing this technology will be much more complicated than
burning a serial number on a few parts and dropping them into
firearms being manufactured."
Todd Lizotte, co-inventor and Board Member of NanoMark
Technologies, when contacted by Committee staff, correctly
pointed out that Krivosta had set out to test whether
microstamped images left on cartridge casings in normal
conditions using the NanoMark microstamping technology, would be
legible without resorting to the "use of highly trained and
skilled individuals." To test this, Lizotte states, Krivosta
attempted to read the markings using a method known as "Optical
Microscopy Stereo with Polarization." Lizotte explained that
the results Krivosta observed would have been different, and the
markings would have been "fully legible," if a more
sophisticated method had been used to read the markings known
as, "Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) (Standard and
Backscatter Methods)."
IS THIS TECHNOLOGY SUFFICIENTLY EFFECTIVE TO REQUIRE THAT IT BE
UTILIZED IN ALL NEW MODEL SEMIAUTOMATIC HANDGUNS SOLD IN
CALIFORNIA AFTER JANUARY 1, 2010?
5. Can Broken Parts Be Replaced ?
Penal Code section 12090 states that it is a felony to change,
alter, remove or obliterate the name of the maker, model,
manufacturer's number, or other mark of identification,
including any distinguishing number or mark assigned by DOJ to
any firearm, without the written permission of DOJ.
Additionally, Penal Code section 12091 states that possession of
a handgun upon which the name of the maker, model,
(More)
AB 1471 (Feuer)
PageN
manufacturer's number or other mark of identification has been
changed, altered, removed or obliterated is presumptive evidence
that the person in possession is responsible for the alteration,
removal, etc. However, the California Court of Appeal found
Penal Code section 12091 unconstitutional in 2001. (In re
Christopher K. 91 Cal. App.4th 853 (2001).) Nonetheless,
section 12090 would appear to prohibit, as to any gun sold with
microstamping technology, any replacement of the firing pin or
any other part of the pistol that stamps the cartridge casing
with the identifying information, unless that replacement part
has the same microstamping characteristics as the broken part.
For the replacement part to bear the pistol's unique identifying
information, it would have to be specially made by the gun's
manufacturer.
6. Is This a Sole Source Technology ?
Microstamping technology is a patented technology belonging to
one company, NanoMark Technologies. Does it present public
policy concerns to mandate a manufacturing industry's use of a
product when that product is only provided by a single source?
In response to these concerns, Todd Lizotte, Board Member of
NanoMark Technologies, issued a press release on June 15, 2007,
stating the following:
NanoMark a wholly owned division of ID, LLC is issuing
this press release to clarify that a royalty free
license will be provided and cover its patented
microstamping technology as applied to semi-automatic
handguns sold for civilian use within the United
States and its territories, as stipulated and in
support of AB1471.
Highlights:
Royalty free license for semi-automatic firearms (as
stipulated in AB1471) for civilian use over the entire
United States and its territories. The license will
provide options for process outsourcing or job-shop.
Microstamping job-shops across the United States
currently outfitted with the equipment will provide
(More)
AB 1471 (Feuer)
PageO
processing services to the industry as an alternative
to purchasing the capital equipment. (No capital
investment required by large and small manufacturers
as an option.) No sole source, the License will
provide the firearm industry a variety of options for
selecting pre-qualified equipment suppliers and
job-shop services or they will have the option of
building their own equipment or use existing equipment
to perform the microstamping process.
AB 352 (Koretz) of the 2005-2006 legislative session was
substantially similar to this bill and the same concerns
regarding the sole source issue were raised in both the Assembly
Public Safety and Senate Public Safety Committee analyses. To
address those concerns AB 352 was amended on the Senate floor to
include the following language (new amended language is
highlighted):
(7) Commencing January 1, 2009, for all semiautomatic
pistols that are not already listed on the roster
pursuant to Section 12131, it is not designed and
equipped with a microscopic array of characters that
identify the make, model, and serial number of the
pistol, etched into or otherwise imprinted onto the
interior surface or internal working parts of the
pistol, and which are transferred by imprinting on
each cartridge case when the firearm is fired , and
further provided that a technology to create the
imprint, if reliant upon a patent, is available to
more than one manufacturer. A method of equal or
greater reliability and effectiveness in identifying
ammunition fired from a firearm than that which is set
forth in this paragraph, via an imprint on a cartridge
may also be approved by the Attorney General and
thereafter required as otherwise set forth by this
paragraph. Approval by the Attorney General shall
include notice of that fact via regulations adopted by
the Attorney General for purposes of implementing that
method for purposes of this section.
(More)
AB 1471 (Feuer)
PageP
NOTE: The author will propose the following amendment in
Committee:
after the word "fired" on page 3, line 14, insert:
provided that the Department of Justice certify that
the technology used to create the imprint is available
to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any
patent restrictions. The Attorney General may also
approve a method of equal or greater reliability and
effectiveness in identifying the specific serial
number of a firearm from spent cartridge casings
discharged by that firearm than that which is set
forth in this paragraph, to be thereafter required as
otherwise set forth by this paragraph where the
Attorney General certifies that this new method is
also unencumbered by any patent restrictions.
Approval by the Attorney General shall include notice
of that fact via regulations adopted by the Attorney
General for purposes of implementing that method for
purposes of this paragraph.
DOES THIS BILL REQUIRE A MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY TO BUY A PRODUCT
THAT IS PATENTED AND ONLY MADE BY ONE COMPANY?
IF SO, DOES THE AUTHOR'S AMENDMENT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE SOLE
SOURCE ISSUE?
7. UC Davis Press Release
On May 3, 2007, UC Davis issued a press release under the title,
"Microstamping Guns Feasible but Flawed, Study Finds." As it
turns out, the press release was both inaccurate and misleading.
In a letter to the author of AB 1471 dated May 15, 2007, UC
Davis Chancellor stated:
First, this is an "Author's Report" and was posted by
California Policy Research Center (CPRC), which funded
the study, before CPRC's usual academic peer review
and state legislative briefings, which violates CPRC's
(More)
AB 1471 (Feuer)
PageQ
own policy. As well, public release of the report and
issuance of a press release by UC Davis was premature.
Second, contrary to the press release, the Legislature
did not commission the study. The study was
faculty-initiated with the CPRC.
Finally, I understand that you have concerns about the
relevance of the specific contents of this study to
your pending legislation, especially with respect to
(1) the age and kinds of guns used in the study as
compared to those that are covered in your
legislation, (2) the technology tested in the study as
compared to the technology called for in the
legislation, and (3) differences in the amount of
microstamping examined in the study compared to the
amount of microstamping required in your legislation.
While the accuracy of the findings can and must be
assessed by the upcoming peer review, the press
release should have not connected the study results
with the legislation.
I regret the issuance of this press release, premature
posting of the report, the implication that the study
pertains to your legislation, and the inaccurate
statement about the legislative origins of the report.
Please accept my apologies for complicating, rather
than elucidating, a sensitive public policy issue on
which you have taken statewide leadership.
8. Arguments in Support
The California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence state:
Assembly Bill 1471 would require that newly designated
semi-automatic handguns sold after January 1, 2010, be
equipped with "micro-stamping" technology. This
technology consists of engraving microscopic
characters onto the firing pin and other interior
(More)
AB 1471 (Feuer)
PageR
surfaces, which would be transferred onto the
cartridge casing when the handgun is fired.
Micro-stamping technology would substantially enhance
law enforcement's ability to rapidly identify and link
shell casings found at a crime scene to the individual
semi-automatic handgun from which it was fired and to
the gun's last lawful possessor.
Nearly half of the homicides in California are
unsolved and the majority of homicides are committed
with handguns. In this time of escalating gang
violence in our state, new tools for finding and
apprehending armed criminals are needed. AB 1471
would help law enforcement solve murders and other
handgun crimes as the information provided by a
microstamped cartridge casing gives police important
leads in the first crucial hours after a crime.
In addition, AB 1471 would help reduce trafficking of
new semi-automatic handguns by creating
accountability. Legal purchasers who buy guns for
traffickers ('straw' buyers), will be deterred when
they realize that microstamped casings can be traced
directly back to them. Consequently, this big source
of crime guns, which rapidly fall into the hands of
criminals and gang members, would be disrupted.
Curbing the flow of illegal guns to prohibited
purchasers, including felons and violent teens, would
reduce gun violence in our streets and protect the
innocent bystanders.
Microstamping will not impose a new cost on the state
of California as no new database or procedures are
required. California already has a system for
tracking guns and their owners and after a crime, law
enforcement will simply check the existing database.
Buyers of micro-stamping handguns will notice no
change in the purchasing process as no new permitting
or information is needed. Existing handguns and
existing handgun owners will not be impacted by this
(More)
AB 1471 (Feuer)
PageS
bill since the law only applies to new handguns.
The microstamping technology is highly tamper
resistant. The redundant markings are durable and
routine maintenance and servicing of the firearm will
not affect the technology. Criminals will find it
extremely difficult to defeat the technology. AB 1471
has broad support from police chiefs around the state,
who want this new tool for solving handgun crime and
curbing the flow of illegal weapons to prohibited
purchasers.
The Stockton Police Department states:
The Stockton Police Department believes that AB 1471
would allow law enforcement to positively link used
cartridge casings recovered at crime scenes to the
crime gun. Further, AB 1471 would help law
enforcement solve handgun crimes, reduce gang
violence, and reduce gun trafficking of new
semiautomatic handguns.
* * * * * * *
One of the benefits of microstamping technology is
that it does not require any new database or
additional information from gun purchasers and will be
virtually cost free for law enforcement. The
cartridge casings expelled from the firearm will
indicate the serial number of the firearm, which is
already available through the dealer record of sale.
Using California's current handgun database, the owner
of the gun can then be identified. Finding the guns
and identifying its owners are critical pieces of
information for violent gun crime investigation.
9. Arguments in Opposition
The North State Sheriffs' state:
(More)
AB 1471 (Feuer)
PageT
As we see it, the technology to implement the
micro-stamping is flawed, there would be an increase
in the potential for civil liability for law
enforcement agencies that continue to use handguns
which will be placed on the "unsafe" handgun list,
there would be an increase in law enforcement training
costs due to not being able to reuse spent cartridge
casings, the technology could be easily defeated since
the stamping is only 25 microns deep and the cost of
the technology would be passed on to law enforcement
agencies and citizens alike.
The California Association of Firearm Retailers state:
The technology which this proposed bill seeks to
promote has not been shown to work under actual field
conditions. Mandating its implementation by law at
this time would be excessively premature as it cannot
be scientifically justified, and it has not been
proven to be practical in application. Impartial
testing to date has raised very serious questions
relative to whether this technology could actually
work in the field given all the variables and other
factors that are present outside of the laboratory.
(More)
For example, criminals can easily defeat it in a
number of different ways, and it is well known that
the overwhelming majority of handguns used in crime
are stolen. Fired casings from them found at crime
scenes in most cases would not lead law enforcement to
the actual perpetrator. Placing micro-stamping on
semi-automatic handguns, even if the technology was
reliable, would be ineffective as a law enforcement
tool.
Furthermore, micro-stamping is a "sole source"
technology at the present time. It is owned by a
single company. If micro-stamping did work, a matter
that the results of recent independent scientific
research casts in doubt and highly questions, it would
probably continue to be "sole source" as other forms
of cartridge case marking have reportedly been proven
to be more difficult and costly to engineer.
This increases the likelihood that the sole source
problem would in fact continue and that the costs of
using it would not be contained by realistic
competition. The result would be higher costs for
retailers and their customers for a system that is not
reliable and would not be of much assistance to law
enforcement.
The California Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc., states:
Though the mechanical technology this proposed
legislation seeks to promote has been shown to
sometimes work under tightly controlled and limited
laboratory conditions, it has not been adequately
tested for the actual conditions under which it would
be utilized. In fact, testing to date shows that [it]
would not work well in real life application.
Whether the technology actually and consistently works
(a matter that has not been proven) is just one factor
(More)
AB 1471 (Feuer)
PageV
to consider. Regardless of the technology,
legislation should not be enacted that would be
ineffective in achieving it purported purpose.
For example, how many rounds of fire ammunition can
the proposed markings endure before being worn off?
[] [W]hat about lacquered primers or dirt and debris
filling or fouling the characters making them
unreadable? [] [W]hat happens when a firing pin
breaks and the local gunsmith does not have the
expensive micro-engraving equipment necessary to mark
the replacement (in such a case would the customer and
gunsmith be subject to felony prosecution for
violations of Penal Code sections 12090 and 12091)?
[] [W]hat about the fact that this technology can be
readily defeated by a criminal using a file, sand
paper, hone, or other implement? The list of
applicable unanswered questions is a long one.
***************