Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Arizona | Main | Article on Va Tech and fighting back »

Brady Center on study of microstamping

Posted by David Hardy · 11 May 2007 04:49 PM

I blogged the study here. Brady Center just came out with a press release critiquing the critque.

It "utilized vintage firearms that had never been considered for testing previously because of their model age (10-50+ years) and mechanical condition" The guns used were S&W .40 calibers -- hardly a cap and ball!

"NanoMark Technologies, which holds the patent for microstamping technology, provided firing pins for the study, but they were not optimized due to Beddow's budget constraints." Hmm? No details on what this optimization would have been, or why it would have affected wear on the firing pin. That it was so expensive as to prevent the manufacturer from undertaking it does not bode well for the argument that the expense of microstamping would be reasonable.

The whole debate omits the simple point that a commenter made in the earlier post. A crime-fighting technology that a criminal can negate with a few swipes of a file is not a very good one.

3 Comments | Leave a comment

Letalis | May 11, 2007 6:11 PM | Reply

I graduated much higher than 6th grade, but I still don't know what "optimized" means in the context of the story.

gattsuru | May 11, 2007 9:36 PM | Reply

utilized vintage firearms that had never been considered for testing previously because of their model age (10-50+ years)

They're joking, right?

Please, tell me they're kidding. They can't possibly be that stupid.

They honestly think 10-50 years is enough time for a firearm model to be 'vintage'? What do they think the m1911 is?!

KRL | May 12, 2007 8:34 AM | Reply

Does this mean that all 10-50 year old firearm designs would be exempt from their stupid little micro-stamp?


;)


Hurray for the 1911!

Leave a comment