Help us find Annie
Bad Political Marksmanship
California's Assembly Bill 1471 has passed both houses of the state legislature, and is headed to the desk of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, where it is feared the measure may actually be signed into law.
If you have not been following this issue, AB 1471 would require the re-design of all semi-automatic handguns so that a gun would "microstamp" its identifying information (make & serial number) on each shell casing during the firing cycle. This, ostensibly, would enable police investigators to scoop up spent casings found at a crime scene, and identify the gun that fired them. Presumably, the gun's owner could be identified through state sales records (used as a de facto registration system), and the owner charged with the crime. If I understand correctly the press accounts of the law, it would become illegal to manufacture, sell or transfer a handgun in California that did not have this feature.
This measure will produce far more problems than it solves. Any manufacturer--including small custom gunsmithing operations that produce only expensive target pistols--would effectively have to re-tool or go out of business, if located in California. All existing semiautomatic pistols would be required to stay with the people who owned them at the time the bill was enacted. You could not bequeath to your closest relative the Luger that Granddad took off a dead German soldier at the Battle of Berlin, the Colt Woodsman that your father used to teach you basic marksmanship, or any of the expensively engraved commemorative Colt 1911s and Ruger Mark IIs that are sold strictly to collectors. This requirement would apply even if you were "transferring" the gun to someone not living in California. Presumably, such firearms would be delivered to the state for destruction. Mass manufacturers of firearms would need to re-engineer any gun they hoped to sell in California to incorporate the "micro stamping" feature: a feature that has not been proven to work. Certainly the cost of redesign, exotic materials and new manufacturing processes would be passed on to gun buyers.
Finally, there's no reason to think the measure would be an effective crime-solving tool. A black market in pre-microstamping pistols would immediately emerge. Some criminals would simply take to using revolvers, which don't eject spent casings as they are fired. Others would be cagey enough to go to a public range, gather up some spent brass from the ground, and salt a crime scene with casings that could be associated with innocent gun owners.
Moreover, how likely is it that evidence gathered this way would pass muster in the courts? Even if it can be proven that a particular firearm was used in a particular crime, prosecutors are bound to identify the person pulling the trigger, within range of a reasonable doubt. The law could create an entirely new class of criminal: the owner who "knew or should have known" that his gun was stolen or used by some unauthorized person, regardless of how that person gained access to the gun.
Worst of all, the law can be expected to exempt the firearms of law enforcement agencies from the micro stamping requirement. Not only would this confuse the investigation of any crime scene in which police fired their weapons, it would reinforce the notion that law enforcement officers are a special class of citizen, endowed with rights that are denied the majority of us. An occupying army, in short.
This morning's batch of email brought two separate messages urging me to phone Schwarzenegger's office opposing this bill: one from the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, and the other from the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
I find this especially ironic, since one of the ironclad rules of gun safety is "Know your target and what lies beyond it." All of NRA's training material stresses this rule.
I have had direct experience with lobbying politicians outside my own political subdivisions; it simply does not work. Nearly thirty years ago, I and two colleagues presented a well-reasoned argument against motorcycle helmet laws (not against the advisability of wearing a helmet, mind you) to two of our state delegates, one of whom was Theodore Levin, perenneial sponsor of the bill. After ninety minutes of generally cordial and intelligent discourse, as we were leaving, Levin said sarcastically, "That's all very nice gentlemen. But remember, I do not represent you, because none of you live in my district."
That's a common response, and I have found that in any similar situation, your appeal must be crafted in a fashion that carries consequences for the person being appealed to.
Know your target and what lies beyond it. What can it possibly matter to Schwarzenegger that a few hundred, or even tens of thousands of people who do not live in California don't like AB 1471? Absent a Constitutional amendment, Arnie is more or less at the pinnacle of his political career: he is at the end of his term limit as governor, ineligible to run for President, and very unlikely to be elected to the US Congress.
A more effective approach would have been for gun enthusiasts all across the country to write to the manufacturers of firearms used by California law enforcement. Kimber, Springfield and a few others count on selling more product to civilians around the USA than they will ever sell to California police agencies.
The net result of such a campaign would have been that Schwarzenegger might have received a half dozen or ten letters from the owners of the companies that arm California police, stating in no uncertain terms that their companies would no longer supply either new firearms or repair parts to California government agencies if the bill were enacted. I would venture to say that a single letter from Frank Brownell would carry more weight than a thousand from irate gun owners outside California.
One could speculate endlessly over why "we" have been encouraged to mount an ineffective, "feel-good" letter writing effort, instead of one that would have worked. But I believe it is more important that people who cherish the Right to Keep and Bear Arms learn a degree of critical thinking about this sort of issue, and act on their own, rather than waiting for an urgent advisory from NRA, CCRKBA or even JPFO to do something.
I played at cowboy-action shooting for about two years, and at those matches I ran into numerous people with far more money invested in guns than I, who would demur from discussing this kind of stuff, saying "I am not political."
Alas, the truth of the matter is that if you are a gun owner who expects to keep his weapons, or even someone who just supports the right of others to own guns, you had better damn soon "get political," before time runs out altogether.
Your comments are invited, subject to moderation.