Marlin Marketing Rep Testimony: "We'd support microstamping if it worked"

[30 cal slob]

I was watching the CT Judciary Committee hearings online yesterday, as two anti-gun measures - Ammo Serialization and Handgun Microstamping were discussed.

Was impressed to see many pro-gun private citizens as well as major gun and ammo manufacturers testify.

Winchester and ATK basically said they wouldn't sell ammo to the state of CT if ammo serialization was passed. (Winchester sells $1 MM worth of ammo to LEO's in CT annually).

I was pleasantly surprised by Sturm Ruger's general counsel (whom you could tell was a shooter), who did a good job describing what a compliance nightmare microstamping would be. He said that as the microstamping law was written "Sturm Ruger wouldn't be able to comply" with the law.

Colt issued written testimony that outlined their concerns about a sole-sourced patented microstamping technology.

But I was shocked to hear the Marlin marketing rep ... who admitted that his company would support microstamping if the technology was proven.

I don't own any Marlin guns, but Marlin's standing just dropped a few notches IMO.

I believe transcripts are available for yesterday's (3/17) Judiciary Committee hearings which started at noon.

 

[tinygnat219]

This is why I am not exactly a big fan of large private equity groups.

Private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management bought Remington Arms for $118 million. Remington bought Marlin.

So, if Marlin is expressing support for a Microstamping law if the technology could work is that a view coming down from Cerberus Capital Management?

Hopefully, we can get the message across to the owners of both of these companies stating that we won't do business with them if this happens.

 

[MakAttak]

So, if Marlin is expressing support for a Microstamping law if the technology could work is that a view coming down from Cerberus Capital Management?

Actually, I would support microstamping technology if it would work.

The problem is it CANNOT work. Despite the fact that firearms could be easily modified to deal with the microstamping (like serial numbers can be removed), it is also the case the simply stamping a serial number on a case will not let you know who fired in that area. Simply pick up someone else's brass and drop it after you shoot someone with your 9mm revolver.

Look, I just beat microstamping.

Now, is this marlin's position? I have no idea, I'd have to have heard them.

 

[romma]

The thing that this whole thing overlooks is infringment. On this basis: If the 2nd ammendment is our doomsday clause to overthrow our government and restore freedom and liberty, then things like micro-stamping let them know exactly who the revolutionaries are engaging the goverment.

Unmitigated gall by any government entity attempting to shove this legislation down our throats should be met by fierce resistance.

 

[MakAttak]

The thing that this whole thing overlooks is infringment. On this basis: If the 2nd ammendment is our doomsday clause to overthrow our government and restore freedom and liberty, then things like micro-stamping let them know exactly who the revolutionaries are engaging the goverment.

The question for me is whether there is a REGISTRATION along with the microstamping.

Registration we should oppose on principal. Microstamping we should oppose because it's stupid.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

Not to mention adding such huge costs to the guns that it would essentially only be affordable to movie stars and professional athletes.

 

[oldgold]

MakAttak has it right, the only way micro stamping would be of any value would be for them to know whose firearm it was. Thus registration would be required.

Registration is where micro-stamping is headed.

 

[wuchak]

Cerberus currently owns the following firearms brands:
-Remington
-Bushmaster
-DPMS
-Marlin
-NEF
-H&R
-Cobb

 

[woodybrighton]

nice simple answer we would support it if it worked
like communism sounds fine in theory practice sucks
its a technical fix too far

 

[psyopspec]

Politically, it's a good play. It points out the ridiculousness and impracticality of the technology in solving crimes or keeping people safe, while at the same time giving a wink and a nudge to those in favor of "reasonable gun control." Hopefully MakAttak's theory is correct and they meant it in that sort of way.

 

[Rob G]

Here's one for you. Since the fifth ammendment grants you the right against self incrimination then wouldn't it be unconstitutional to require anybody committing a criminal act to use a "microstamped" gun or serialized ammo? I think somewhere in the fereral court system there has been a case with an outcome like that only the issue was gun registration instead of microstamping. Something about you can't charge them with having an unregistered gun because if they did register it you'd be forcing them to admit that they're committing a criminal act by having a gun they're not allowed to. :banghead:

I guess criminals really do have more rights than us.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Since the fifth ammendment grants you the right against self incrimination then wouldn't it be unconstitutional to require anybody committing a criminal act to use a "microstamped" gun or serialized ammo?

You might be on to something

THAT is an argument even the ACLU could get behind.
I nominate you for the Supreme Court.

 

[bogie]

I think Marlin's statement is fine.

We are experts. It doesn't work. Show us something that -does- work that will take a bite outta crime.

 

[XDKingslayer]

Here's one for you. Since the fifth ammendment grants you the right against self incrimination then wouldn't it be unconstitutional to require anybody committing a criminal act to use a "microstamped" gun or serialized ammo?

No, because serializing the ammo would be akin to taking a blood alcohol test. Taking one would essentially be incriminating yourself if you're drunk and nobody has challenged that successfully.

 

[230RN]

I think somewhere in the fereral court system there has been a case with an outcome like that only the issue was gun registration instead of microstamping. Something about you can't charge them with having an unregistered gun because if they did register it you'd be forcing them to admit that they're committing a criminal act by having a gun they're not allowed to.

Did you mean "feral" Court system?

As I recall, that criminal lost on appeal and went to the pokey anyhow.

 

[LaEscopeta]

Here's one for you. Since the fifth ammendment grants you the right against self incrimination then wouldn't it be unconstitutional to require anybody committing a criminal act to use a "microstamped" gun or serialized ammo?

No, because serializing the ammo would be akin to taking a blood alcohol test. Taking one would essentially be incriminating yourself if you're drunk and nobody has challenged that successfully.

Also akin to a criminal leaving his fingerprints at a crime scene. The 5th amendment protects against being compelled to TESTIFY against yourself. Physical evidence, like fingerprints, blood alcohol tests, spent shell casing, etc are not testimony and are not protected by the 5th.

 

[jakeswensonmt]

"Sturm Ruger wouldn't be able to comply" with the law.

And that is the whole intent of the law. To make it impossible for gun/ammo manufacturers to comply. If they can't comply, they sell no guns/ammo. You buy no guns/ammo. Game over.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

'Since the fifth ammendment grants you the right against self incrimination then wouldn't it be unconstitutional to require anybody committing a criminal act to use a "microstamped" gun or serialized ammo?'

There was a case, I believe it was DC where they required registartion of all firearms where prohibited persons were exempt since to do so would be admitting to a crime. So only the law abiding were required to register their guns. I can't remember the name of the case; it is mentioned in Wayne LaPierres column in this months NRA mag.

 

[Werewolf]

was pleasantly surprised by Sturm Ruger's general counsel (whom you could tell was a shooter), who did a good job describing what a compliance nightmare microstamping would be. He said that as the microstamping law was written "Sturm Ruger wouldn't be able to comply" with the law.

Pleasantly isn't a word I'd have used. Once again the SOB's at Ruger are giving the ANTI's exactly what they want.

They might as well have said, "Go AHEAD! Pass microstamping - it'll put us out of business". AND that is exactly what the ANTI's want. Gun manufacturers that either won't sell or can't sell which leads inevitably to less guns in the hands of law abiding citizens and less gun manufacturers.

WAY TO GO RUGER!

 

[bogie]

Restraint of trade?

 

[boilingleadbath]

If one follows the presumption that there are two types of antis:
the "evil" antis who know the facts but hold the position anyways the "ignorant" anti-gun people, who generally support "reasonable restrictions" because they don't realize that they arn't reasonable

We find that Ruger admitting that serialization would put them out of business can only help us; it doesn't teach the "evil" antis anything, and it may show the ignorant that the restriction isn't as reasonable as they thought.

Unless, of course, it feeds into an individual's perception of the gun industry as an all-powerful death-dealing monstrosity.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Hi 30 Cal,

To tell you the truth, I would support microstamping if it could be proved to work. However, I see far too many scenerios where the process could be defeated and know it can't work. I'm sure the Marlin execs she the same things I do as well as more.

However, maybe he should have put it Marlin will not support microstamping UNTIL it has been proven to work. In my mind the statements are the same.

Selena