To The Editor:
Conspicuously absent from Kenneth J. St. Onge’s article (“Number One With a Bullet,” August 27, 2007) discussing California legislation that would mandate the patented technology of firearms microstamping, was any mention of the peer-reviewed study by Prof. George G. Krivosta published in the Journal of the Association of Firearms and Toolmarks Examiners (Winter 2006).
This study, along with the University of California at Davis study, came to substantially the same conclusions – that, at the current time, the technology functions unreliably and can be easily defeated in mere seconds using commonly available household tools.
The Krivosta study proved that the technology of microstamping is unreliable and does not function as the patent holder claims. It can be defeated by criminals through simply switching the engraved firing pin for readily available unmarked spare parts, thereby circumventing the technology.
Krivosta concluded, “Certainly this research has shown that implementing this technology will be much more complicated than burning a serial number on a few parts and dropping them into firearms being manufactured.”
The reason why microstamping is opposed by so many, including those in law enforcement, is because it does not work. The industry would be forced to comply with this onerous legislation or make the business decision to abandon an entire market.
Lawrence G. Keane
Senior Vice President & General Counsel
National Shooting Sports Foundation
Newtown
