All written testimony submitted to the
Judiciary Committee for public hearing is available on line. SB 603 & SB 607
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/CommDocTmy.asp?comm_code=JUD&date=03/17/2008
NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION, INC.
-
FLINTLOCK RIDGE OFFICE CENTER
-
-
11 MILE HILL ROAD, NEWTOWN, CT 06470-2359
-
-
TEL (203) 426-1320 • FAX (203) 426-1087 •
www.nssf.org
-
LAWRENCE G KEANE, SENIOR VICE
PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL
-
-
March 17, 2008
-
Joint Committee on Judiciary, Legislative
Office Building Room 2500, Hartford, CT 06106
Re: Raised Bill S.B. 607
- An Act Concerning the Identification of Certain Firearms (Microstamping)
Position: Oppose
Dear Members of the Joint Committee on
Judiciary:
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (''NSSF'')
is the non-profit trade association for America's firearms, ammunition,
hunting and recreational shooting sports industry. Our manufacturer members
make the firearms used by law-abiding Connecticut sportsmen, the U.S. military
and law enforcement agencies throughout Connecticut. This letter is to express
our opposition to raised bill SB 607. There is no rational basis upon which to
justify the enactment of this proposed legislation.
The supporters of SB 607 greatly exaggerate
the capabilities, if any, of this technology. SB 607 would mandate the use of
a patented, sole-sourced technology, called "firearms microstamping," to micro
laser engrave the make, model and serial number of the firearm on the tip of
the firing pin and a second location on the firearm so, in theory, that
information would be imprinted onto the cartridge case when the gun is fired.
This technology is unproven and has been independently tested to confirm this
conclusion. We are writing to ask you to oppose SB 607. Independent testing of
this nascent technology has shown that a) the technology does not function
reliably and b) the very shallow markings can be removed in mere seconds using
common household tools. In addition, the marked parts can be removed and
replaced with unmarked parts. The NSSF does not oppose raised bill SB 607
because it is "gun control." Our opposition is based on the fact that this
technology has so far been shown by independent testing to be unreliable and
easily defeated. NSSF has consistently supported further independent testing
of the technology.
Just last week scientists at the National
Research Council (NRC), an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, released a
report that among its findings expresses concerns about sole-sourced
technologies and recommends "that for such a technology to be implemented
successfully, in-depth investigations on several topics are needed." Joint
Committee on Judiciary March 17,2008
These investigations need to focus on "the
cost implications and feasibility of adding these technologies to established
manufacturing processes." The NRC expressed concerns with these alternative
technologies and stressed the necessity for further study to determine the
susceptibility to tampering and countermeasures. The Council does not want to
see any implementation of technology that is maintained by a single vendor
since the "potential for advancement and innovation is limited." The NRC
believes that an extensive study needs to be conducted before mandating any of
these technologies as an answer to solving crime.
An independent peer reviewed study of micro
stamping by Professor George G. Krivosta, published in the Journal of the
Association of Firearms and Toolmarks Examiners (AFTE) (Winter 2006),
concluded, "At the current time, the technology functions unreliably and
can be easily defeated in mere seconds using commonly available household
tools." This AFTE study recommended further study.
A more recent study of micro stamping by
experts at the University of California at Davis found this patented
sole-source technology "flawed" and concluded, "At the current time
it is not recommended that a mandate for implementation of this technology in
all semiautomatic handguns in the state of California be made. Further
testing, analysis and evaluation is required "
Raised bill S.B. 607 also requires that a
second location be microlaser engraved with the make, model and serial number
of the firearm. Yet, to our knowledge, there have been no independent tests
done to determine where those markings might be placed (there are only limited
places where they could be placed and transfer the marks on the cartridge
casing) and whether the technology will work reliably on those parts - all of
which can be removed and replaced with unmarked parts widely available.
Mandating the use of this unreliable and
easily defeated technology is predicated on the faulty assumption that most
criminals obtain the firearms they use to commit crime from federally licensed
firearm retailers. A 1997 survey of prison inmates shows criminals rarely
obtain firearms from retail dealers. They obtain firearms primarily - about
80% from the illegal black market and from friends and family.
The cost to implement this questionable
technology will substantially increase the price for firearms for law-abiding
consumers and taxpayers as the law enforcement agencies throughout the state
will be forced to pay perhaps as much as $200 more per firearm. It will also
dramatically reduce the product selection available to law-abiding consumers
as some manufacturers will stop selling firearms in the state rather than make
radical changes to their manufacturing and assembly processes. There is
precedent for firearms manufacturers stopping the sale of firearms into a
state. Several years ago Massachusetts adopted vague regulations that made it
impossible for manufacturers to know whether their products complied. Rather
than risk selling non-compliant products, they stopped selling into
Massachusetts.
The cost of compliance is not a dollar a gun,
as claimed by the patent holder and gun control groups supporting this
legislation -- all of whom are ignorant of the manufacturing complexities
involved and the associated cost. A number of manufacturers have estimated the
cost could approach $200 per firearm.
The implementation of micros tamping in
Connecticut and other states will not only adversely affect the market but also
will award to one individual company exclusive rights to use its sole-sourced
patented technology. Throughout the entire process, Todd Lizotte, from
ill Dynamics, has
continually made statements to the contrary. The patent still is not in the
public domain, and Mr. Lizotte has an obvious financial stake in this technology
and stands to profit handsomely with the passage of legislation even though he
refutes this in much of his testimony.
Allowing one company to monopolize an
unproven technology that will only burden Connecticut's law-abiding citizens is
neither the best public safety policy nor economic decision for the State.
Even if the technology functioned well- and
it does not - it is questionable whether it would be a particularly useful law
enforcement tool. ATF has determined that most firearms traced by law
enforcement in Connecticut were not handguns and were originally sold at retail
over 12 years earlier, which is greater than the national average by over two
years. In addition, most were not pistols.
We would urge you to oppose SB 607 and
instead support the recommendations of the researchers around the country who
unanimously support further in-depth study of this nascent technology.
Sincerely,
Lawrence G. Keane
'Stamping’ would link weapon to crime
By Gregory B. Hladky, Capitol Bureau Chief
WEST HARTFORD — Key state lawmakers called Monday for
legislation to require all semiautomatic firearms sold in Connecticut to employ
new technology that would help police identify guns used in crimes.
The "microstamping" technology uses lasers to mark code
numbers on the firing pins and ejector mechanisms of semiautomatic guns. When
those weapons are fired and the empty shell casing is ejected, the code is
stamped in two places on the expended metal cartridge.
Police could then use the microscopic code markings to
match the serial number of the gun that fired the round, thus tracing the weapon
back to its last legal owner. It also would show links between crimes where the
same gun was fired.
The co-chairmen of the legislature’s Judiciary
Committee, state Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, D-East Haven, and state Sen. Andrew J.
McDonald, D-Stamford, said microstamping technology would offer law enforcement
officials a "very powerful" new anti-crime tool.
Lawlor compared the microstamping requirement to
"putting license plates on a car" and insisted the measure wouldn’t have any
impact on law-abiding gun owners.
"This is the equivalent of a fingerprint for a gun,"
said McDonald.
California passed similar legislation last year, which
would take effect in that state in January 2010, and six other states are also
considering passing their own versions of the requirement.
But Lawlor noted that the National Rifle Association and
other anti-gun control groups are already mounting a campaign against the
proposal in Connecticut.
Bob Crook, a spokesman for the Coalition of Connecticut
Sportsmen, said there is no evidence that the proposed microstamping requirement
would actually help law enforcement.
"I don’t know why we’re adopting stuff when we don’t
know what the impact is and we don’t know whether it works or not," said Crook.
According to NRA officials, studies have shown the
microstampings can easily be removed and that tests indicate the codes stamped
on the used cartridges are often illegible.
Crook said members of his coalition are already
referring to the measure as the "emery cloth bill" or the "replace the firing
pin bill" because of the ease with which criminals could circumvent the system.
The bill being proposed in Connecticut’s General
Assembly would apply only to semiautomatic weapons because other types of
firearms don’t have the automatic ejector mechanism the microstamping system
requires. It would apply only to firearms sold in Connecticut after Jan. 1,
2010.
The lawmakers acknowledged that the proposal wouldn’t
help police with firearms purchased out of state, revolvers or older weapons.
But they insisted Connecticut’s adoption of such a system could help trigger a
national trend that would eventually provide police with a major new law
enforcement tool.
Lawlor and McDonald were among the lawmakers who
attended a demonstration of the microstamping identification system at a police
firing range in West Hartford. The demonstration involved firing a semiautomatic
pistol equipped with the microstamped firing pin and ejector mechanism and then
showing how the codes on the cartridge shell could be read under a microscope.
Joshua Horwitz, director of the Washington, D.C.-based
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said using the microstamping technology would
add $1 to $6 to the cost of manufacturing a semi-automatic firearm.
Horwitz rejected the results of a 2006 study by the
University of California Davis that recommended against California adopting the
technology because of problems in identifying codes stamped on shell casings.
According to Horwitz, the codes were easily identifiable when looked at under
higher magnification.
"This is not the end-all or be-all," said Horwitz,
arguing it is intended to help police deal with things like youth gang
shootings, which often involve shell casings being left at the scene.
Horwitz said young, unsophisticated gang members don’t
have the skills to remove the microstamping and rarely have the presence of mind
to pick up shells from bullets fired at a crime scene.
Gregory B. Hladky can be contacted at ghladky@nhregister.com
or (860) 524-0719.
http://www.nhregister.com/WebApp/appmanager/JRC/BigDaily;jsessionid=gn94HNhS4dK1LLWjBGh55nGpSqzXMslQphNpc56LQv2wll9nv8Qn!706679087?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pg_article&r21.pgpath=%2FNHR%2FHome&r21.content=%2FNHR%2FHome%2FTopStoryList_Story_1681478
