"60 Minutes" tonight (Glock might not be our friend)

[St. Gunner]

The big question to me with all of this, is what happens if they get it in place, have it all set-up, and then spring on all of us that it doesn't work because they have no way to trace private transfers? Hasn't it already happened in states with a requirement for the ballistic fingerprint?

Some of us spend to much time trying to look for the silver lining in all the crap that gets thrown at us daily. Gun control issues are progressive by nature, they don't come out and ask for all of em at once, they work it piecemeal. Today it is a ballistic fingerprint, come on guys it solves crime. The next day it is, but the ballistic fingerprint doesn't work when the guy on the 4473 sold the gun in a private transfer. So in order to help us solve crime we need to stop private transfers, everyone has to go through a dealer, and hey it is a good thing the dealer can make a little money and stay in business.

All this as the BATF runs more and more guys out of the business.

It has to end, they have encroached and encroached and it is time to not only kick the camel, but to eviscerate the stinkin thing. What if 10,000 gun owners told Glock, "why don't you talk to S&W about kissing up to BATF. Ask them what it did to their bottom line."

But the gun rag writers(we all know who they are) will beg us to reconsider, not kill a company that is just trying to survive a brutal time. Tell ya what guys, any of you esteemed writers ever heard of the goal of feeding the tiger, all it does is ensure it eats you last. I don't want to spend my money on a company that refuses to stick their heads together with the group with integrity and realize a way to not appease the tiger, but beat the sucker to death. Charlie Beckworth is quoted as saying, "I'd rather travel up the river with 7 studs than a 100 sh*theads." Well that sumarizes my feelings on this matter totally and most of life in general.

I'm sick and tired of having supposed leaders of the culture tell me things could be worse, yep we keep saying that they will be.

 

[El Rojo]

What a mess.

 

[rock jock]

After reading Paul Januzzo's clarification, I take back some of my earlier criticism. I have changed my mind. I DO NOT believe anymore that this is registration. It is still a bad idea, but it is not registration. The only way it could hurt a gunowner is if the situation 4th Horseman comes up (i.e., a SHTF scenario). If that happens, they have already got your name from the 4473's. Think about it, let's say the Feds want to confiscate handguns. The BF system will give them nothing, no info to go on. Your name will not be part of the BF system. They will not rely on the BF system to find out you have guns; rather, they will have to use the existing 4473 database.

 

[JeremyIA]

Okay, I'll even concede that this does not necessarily mean that BF will lead to confiscation considering the "yellow forms" that are already in the hands of dealers and the federal gov't. However, this is going to be a massive waste of taxpayer dollars that will lead to little if nothing with regards to solving gun murders. The antis DON'T want any of the new or existing laws to work. That's right. The Violence Policy Control Center does not want any of our gun laws to work. If the gun laws work then they can't make cases for more gun laws that won't work. Ultimately, they want to show that absolutely no gun laws work which will, in the minds of many, mean that confiscation is the only solution. Americans will blindly play into the hands of the confiscation nuts and ignore the failures of confiscation laws that have passed in places like Austrailia and the UK. If this law plays out, it will be another MAJOR gun law that will be another LANDMARK case to be made by the antis on why NO laws work. Hence.....confiscation....

 

[stephen_g22]

OK, so who is the enemy?

Okay, the liberals and their ilk seem to think that BF is the latest great thing to make our world safer for the childruuuun.

Most of the debate seems to be is Glock with us or against us. Where is the line in the sand? For some it is the support of a hypothetical BF database that is tied to the serial number of a pistol, not the owner. For others the line was crossed when the personal ownership of machine guns was banned. For others it will be when their hunting arms become the next pariah.

Gun owners argue about which gun organization, NRA, GOA, JFPO etc. best protects our 2nd Amendment rights. While all of them do some good, no one organization is right by all gun owners. Why?

Gun owners are diverse. We like to argue about 9mm vs .45, Glock vs. Sig, revolver vs. autoloader etc. Our tendenancys to lock horns over things like this work against us when the liberals come for our guns. We fight with each other rather than the enemy.

Is Glock with us or against us? There is no national legislation pending related to BF that Glock is supporting. They are not entering into agreements with government agencies. They are not testifying that no one needs a handgun that holds more than 10 rounds. They are trying to make a "non-PC" product in a PC world. They have to appear as warm and fuzzy to the sheeple as possible. IMHO

I just think that as gun owners if we boycott every manufacturer that doesn't issue a "from my cold dead hands" level of statement whenever questioned about a particular issue, we will soon run out of gun manufacturers to purchase guns from and the anti's win.

When Glock supports a bill before Congress that erodes our 2nd Amendment rights, I will be the first to call for a boycott. If they go on CBS and come across neutral to supportive about a hypothetical ballistic fingerprinting database, I think I will wait and see what happens.

United we stand and divided we fall. The liberals will try to get us fighting amongst ourselves and we will doom our own cause.

I know I am rambling and not making any sense, but we, as gun owners need to pick our battles and our enemys. I don't think this is a battle (yet) and I don't think Glock is our enemy.

:banghead:

 

[MitchSchaft]

Obviously, a national database or DNA registry could be a great crime-solving tool, but will we as Americans allow that level of intrusion into our personal privacy?

This guy really does have the wrong idea!

 

[MitchSchaft]

Is Glock with us or against us?

Some people don't like to wait until it gets worse. Others will wait until the very end. The way I see it is you can either nip it in the bud now or when it may be too late; at the end.

 

[ahadams]

just a couple of comments:

1. Taurus USA - which told the clintonistas to take a hike, and also manages to produce the first DA .45 acp I can both afford *and* fits my hand.

2. Kimber - if you have either a Taurus or a Kimber why bother with a swiss plastic gun?

and hey - S&W ended up being bought out by real Americans, maybe glock USA will be too!

 

[mdsteele]

Actually, stephen_g22, Your post makes alot of sense. Thanks.

 

[Boats]

I cannot abide all of the "moral complexity" that is being imbued into this issue, which in reality is pretty easy to figure out:

Either you are on the parapets facing down the enemy or you are not. If you need a check of the compass on this one, you're too lost to help.

Then again Gaston is a French name non? Vivé l'esprit du lâcheté, eh Gaston?!?

 

[Master Blaster]

First it will be Only new guns, then It will be the old ones you send in for repair, the regulation of all gunsmiths will follow, soon it will be that you are not allowed to buy parts for your existing guns cause it might alter the fingerprint.

Then once this has had time to gel, they will be asking that you have a fingerprint done on every gun you own, at your expense, then you will need to show a certificate before you can buy any ammo or reloading supplies, a certificate indicating that you own a gun in the caliber of the ammo being purchased, and that it has been fingerprinted. Next it will be a felony to have an unfingerprinted gun in your possession.

You cant fingerprint a shotgun, shotguns will become illegal LEO only weapons next.

Yes it will happen one small step at a time this is the ultimate goal.

Boycott GLORK and send a clear message, that traitors will not be tollerated.

I called Mr. Januzzo, and of course was transferred to the leagl department I suggest you do the same.

Unless of course you dont care about your rights.


One step at a time

 

[Leatherneck]

No Glocks for me. And I was thinking of trying on a small .40 for CCW. You screwed the pooch on this one, Januzzo.

TC
TFL Survivor

 

[BenW]

Well, I stated we shouldn't jump to conclusions without checking around first. Checking around seems to be sinking Glock, as evidenced in this thread:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8383

 

[jar]

Forget the 60 Minutes interview. Maybe that was edited.

But this is from his faxed statement

and since there is no intrusion into our personal freedom and there is a potential for it to be a crime-solving tool, the equation clearly comes down on the side of waiting to see if the technology has any viability.

If THAT is GLOCKs attitude then they are in deep kimshee.

 

[Braz]

We spanked S&W,

They're still in business. Just under a new ownership. You keep falling back to re-group, if that's what your heart tells you to do. My line in the sand is here.

 

[4thHorseman]

What the H*LL is this idiot. Januzzo, thinking?!?
Glock will not always be a LEO primary gun. Others will follow. They always have. Glock will need the support of the civilian population soon. It won't be there.
I expect Glock to make a job replacement real soon.
Maybe Januzzo can work for one us? NO WAY!

 

[hops]

First, grateful thanks to the person who made the 60 minutes segment available for downloading!

Overall, in trying view the piece from an unbiased point of view, the BF segment was not 'too' bad. Could have been a lot worse. 60 mins at least made 'some' effort to show both sides 'pros and cons' of the issue.

Having said that:

1) Glock screwed up big time! I was looking at a 10mm toy and Glock just lost a potential sale!

2) BF gives 'them' a potential list of suspects. Wayne did ok in explaining that part of BF BS. I feel that a lot of honest people will get to explain their whereabouts to Law Enforcement.

3) BF is going to cost us in $. Tax on guns, tax on what ever. All it means is more money to the Feds and less of my hard earned money for me.

4) I see lots of ways to defeat BF, if I ever were to even consider using a gun in a criminal venture. Would be quite easy to give LE a decoy to just send them the wrong way.

5) Yes, we'll all get to take our hand guns in possession to a federal testing center once this BF BS is up and running for all new guns. Give gov.org and nanometer and they'll take a terameter.

Disclaimer: I own no Glocks, but think they are ok handguns. Also, I do not watch 60mins ever since the Audi butcher job many years ago. I'm very baised against what ever 60mins does. They are scum bags.

 

[rock jock]

BF gives 'them' a potential list of suspects.

Please explain this. BF gives the police a list of potential matches, that must then be investigated by going to the dealers that sold those potential matches.

We need to be careful about how we categorize BF, as presented in the 60 Minutes segment. It is a very bad idea because of all the other reason you list (costs too much, can easily be defeated, may lead to a system which cross-matches names which this proposed system does not). However, it is NOT registration. If we continue to blather on about how this is registration, we look stupid. Argue against the system based on what it is, not what it is not. I think many here are having a knee-jerk reaction, as I first did when I heard about the story. Further examination reveals that it cannot possibly lead to confiscation on its own. I also retract my earlier comment - I don't think Glock has violated our rights by supporting this program.

 

[Monkeyleg]

rock jock, let's say it doesn't lead to registration, that it just has the "fingerprint" of the gun tied to the serial number. It's not going to lead to just one gun, it's going to lead to dozens, perhaps hundreds. And, when it does, you may be one of those who gets a visit from the Law.

They're not just going to be able to look at you and say, "have a nice day." They're going to need to take your gun to test-fire it for ballistics. When you'll get it back is anyone's guess. Will it be rusted, scratched?

And what if They are in such a rush, and are so certain, that they use SWAT tactics to visit you?

The cost of this system is going to be at least in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Let's say it's going to cost $500 billion. How much will that add to the cost of a new gun? There's roughly 240,000,000 guns in the US right now. That's $2083 per gun. While the gubmint probably won't charge that for every gun, the public is going to want gun buyers to pick up some of the cost. How much?

It's a taxpayer boondoggle, and just another senseless infringement on gun owners.

And I never could warm up to Glocks, either.

 

[rock jock]

Good points, monekyleg. And I don't disagree with any of them (with the exceptoin of your cost estimate - there is no way this would cost hundreds of billions). I simply want us to argue intelligently aginst the system. I would also reiterate that while it is a bad idea, it does not necessarily violate our rights and I think a boycott of Glock at this stage is unwarranted.

 

[riverdog]

The cost of this system is going to be at least in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Let's say it's going to cost $500 billion.

Where on Earth did you arrive at those numbers? $500 Billion with a "B" like in Bull?

I don't like the idea of a national data base either for a number of reasons, including the great potential for false positives. However, throwing out $500 Billion as the program cost is BS. There's obviously a lot of emotions running rampant right now. I'd suggest you all look at this a lot more rationally and stick to facts. That said ...

Incrementalism will lead the gun control types out there to want all guns (new, used and currently owned) "fingerprinted", the data base has too many holes without having every firearm included. Without all firearms listed, a shell casing from a firearm not on the list will be compared only to firearms listed. There will be a couple or more potential matches in a given geographic area and all of those matches will be false. Therefore all firearms must be listed or there's no point in starting down the path.

For those of you who think that the list does not constitute registration, how will all the not-newly-manufactured handguns get on the list? In order to get the fingerprint of a not-new handgun, you first need the handgun, which requires a serial number put to a current owner so the firearm can be obtained for testing. Names >>> Serial Numbers >>> FP.

How can they avoid having a registration list as part of the complete firearm fingerprint database? Beats the hell outta me. So for those who think that they can limit this database to just new firearms ... that too is BS.

 

[P12]

We all know who will bear most of this cost. US!! Let's just go ahead and call it a "Ballistic Fingerprint Tax" Because that's what it will be.

So;

BF Tax = Class III Tax = Poll Tax = INFRINGEMENT

I can't see this any other way.

SCROOOUM

 

[Monkeyleg]

"Where on Earth did you arrive at those numbers? $500 Billion with a "B" like in Bull? "

A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money.

Yeah, hyperbole got the best of me. Looking up some numbers, I found that it cost Maryland $1.1 million to start up the system and $750,000 annually to keep it running. NY's system cost $4.5 million, and there's no numbers for annual operational costs. So, we're talking somewhere between $50 and $100 million to start, and sums close to that for upkeep. Tack on whatever percentage you want for federal incompetency, and it's still a lot of money for nothing.

 

[Boats]

I would also reiterate that while it is a bad idea, it does not necessarily violate our rights and I think a boycott of Glock at this stage is unwarranted.

I think a boycott of Glock is entirely warranted. They are actively participating in an attempt to create a viable BF technology scheme. It is not the canard of having the BF only matching a serial number--hence no confiscation that alarms me, it is something else.

Something that Glock shooters have in common with 1911 fans such as myself is the amenability of the respective platforms for DIY gunsmithing. National BF, to have any systemic integrity at all, absolutely requires constancy of conditions. No breechface mods, no extractor claw shaping, no firing pin change, no custom ejector, no match barrel for you. Either aftermarket "tinkering" will be outlawed, or replacement parts installation will have to be performed by a licensed smith who will refingerprint your weapon, everytime it is modified. Such a scheme is plausible and a necessary outcome of BF. This infringement would drive many away from the increased "hassle" of owning a firearm. When there aren't as many people to protest, then you get into the talk about type banning until our Olympic shooting team has to travel to the Third World to practice.

Which brings us back to Glock. Say you are manning the perimeter of a besieged position. How much or how long would you tolerate one of your "trustworthy" fellows traipsing through the wire to conduct actions that further the strength of the enemy against your position?

Glock needs to be shot for treachery.

 

[tetchaje1]

I've never liked Glock's corporate policy in regards to continually turning out ergonomic bricks, refusals to address the kB!-non-problem, recalls...er...voluntary upgrades, out-of-battery firing, etc...

It was for those reasons that I have never bought a Glock, though I do admit that I have eyeballed the 33 and 26's many, many times and have nearly purchased one several times.

This just solidifies my position that I will NEVER own a Glock.