On August 12, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) sent a letter to U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology Chairman Brian Babin (R-Texas) reiterating what gun rights supporters have long understood – that firearm microstamping is a flawed and ineffective policy.
The purported theory behind “microstamping” is that firearms could be equipped with a firing pin or other internal firearm part that could imprint unique microscopic identification marks (alphanumeric characters) onto ammunition cartridge cases when the gun is fired. Each firearm and its corresponding markings would be entered into a computerized database accessible to law enforcement before leaving the factory. According to microstamping proponents, when police recover a spent ammunition case from a crime scene they could then examine the markings on the case and use that information to identify the firearm used in the incident, as well as its owner. Gun control advocates seek to mandate that whatever firearms they aren’t insisting be banned at the moment be equipped with this technology.
Understanding gun control advocates’ civilian disarmament agenda, gun rights supporters are aware that this “theory” is merely another means of imposing prohibitive costs and other prior restraints on exercising Second Amendment rights.
Any debate over the efficacy of firearm microstamping technology should be moot on constitutional grounds.
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms “‘in common use at the time’ for lawful purposes.” As none of the hundreds of millions of firearms Americans own and use for self-defense, hunting, target shooting, and other lawful purposes utilize this technology, the right to acquire, keep, and bear firearms without microstamping components is protected by the Second Amendment.
Moreover, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) the Court’s held that for a firearm regulation to pass constitutional muster it must fit within the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment right. The opinion stated,
[w]hen the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”
It should be obvious to all that there is not, and could not be, a historic tradition of requiring the manufacturing and sale of firearms that impart distinguishing alpha numeric characters onto ammunition casings, with the government keeping a database by which to track such firearm ammunition casing characters to individual firearms.
Still, the Court’s clear commands haven’t stopped anti-gun lawmakers. California, New Jersey, and New York all have laws requiring microstamping in some form upon determination that the technology is viable or available.
Further, directly athwart the Court’s emphasis on “historical tradition,” microstamping proponents have stressed the gun control scheme’s “innovative” quality.
In a February 28, 2024, press release announcing his finding that microstamping technology was viable, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin declared, “This technology gives law enforcement an innovative tool.” Another official from the attorney general’s office was quoted in the release as stating, “Attorney General Platkin has made this work a priority, and he recognizes that solving such a far-reaching problem requires bold steps and innovation.” A 2022 press release from gun control group Brady (formerly Handgun Control, Inc.) quoted Platkin referencing, “innovative policies and legislation like microstamping.”
On their websites, gun control groups Giffords and Everytown have described microstamping as “an innovative technology.” Addressing microstamping mandates, Everytown noted, “the California and New York laws are innovative.” In 2020 Brady President Kris Brown said, “microstamping is another such innovative policy that other states should take up.”
The NIST examined microstamping as a policy matter. In drafting the letter, NIST inspected the literature on microstamping to provide “a comprehensive summary of the best available evidence in the field.”
The letter explained that whether microstamping technology can reliably operate as intended has not been proven. NIST noted that “researchers found that legibility is inconsistent and that transfer rates vary by firearm and ammunition type.”
The letter also explained,
The Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners (AFTE) and the New York State (NYS) Firearm Technical Working Group (TWG) note that firing pins naturally wear over time. Furthermore, firearms produce residues such as propellant (gunpowder) and primer particles that can accumulate in the microscopic engravings, potentially obscuring the code.
…
Studies showed that firing pin motion, such as repeated strikes and drag, during discharge, can significantly impact the readability of microstamps.
…
Forensic science organizations and industry groups have voiced concerns about the technology’s inconsistent performance across different firearms and ammunition.
Then there is the most obvious flaw in the microstamping gun control scheme - circumvention.
The letter noted,
The technology is highly susceptible to deliberate circumvention. Microstamps on firing pins can be defaced or obliterated with basic household tools such as a sharpening stone, hammer, or small file. The research demonstrated that the firearm remained fully operational after removing the microstamp. Furthermore, because firing pins are replaceable parts, a user could easily swap a microstamped pin for an unmarked aftermarket version. It is important to note that replacing a firing pin can be part of routine maintenance or accommodate an owner’s preference. No realistic mitigation strategy currently exists to address these modifications, and critics argue this vulnerability undermines the technology’s effectiveness as a crime-solving tool.
Addressing the research on how criminals obtain firearms, NIST explained,
Further concerns point to government research that shows that “criminals do not typically obtain firearms through retail sources, opting instead to acquire firearms through theft, ‘Off the street/underground market,’ or ‘from a family member or friend, or as a gift’”. Therefore, efforts to trace back to the original purchaser may not lead directly to the perpetrator, limiting their investigative value.
Microstamping requirements are bad law, and as the NIST made clear in their letter, also flawed policy.
More Like This From Around The NRA
