Despite the failure of the NY SAFE Act to prevent any violent crimes in New York in the two years since it has been passed,  the practical inability to implement parts of it, and an utter refusal of some law enforcement agencies to enforce it, New York’s rabid anti-gun Democrats are calling it a success, and demandig more gun control laws in it’s wake.

They never quit.

Despite 2013 passage of the SAFE Act, gun control advocates in the Legislature on Monday said they believe there is still a lot to do when it comes to weapons safety.

“Passing the SAFE Act was an achievement. Most politicians in New York state feel we have conquered gun violence,” Long Island Democratic Assemblywoman Michelle Schimelsaid at a rally sponsored by New Yorkers Against Gun Violence.

Schimel, along with fellow Democratic Assembly members Brian Kavanagh,Amy Paulin and Patrica Fahy, spoke to a group of students who were visiting the Capitol to push for additional gun control measures.

Some of the proposals, such as a plan to mandate microstamping, which would put etched identifiers in shell casings, have been around for a while. Others, such as proposal put forth by Kavanagh and Democratic Sen. Daniel Squadron to treat .50 caliber guns as assault weapons, have recently been offered up but haven’t gotten out of committee in the Senate.

We covered last year’s attempt by NYGV to push microstamping, and nothing has made the fatally-flawed pipe-dream philosophy any more viable today than it was then. In theory, microstamping puts a very small and unique code on the boltface and the firing pin of firearm that them imprints that code on a cartridge case when the weapon is fired. The ejected shell case can then (theoretically) be tied to a specific gun in a government database.

There are only a few problems with the idea.

  • Microstamping is not commercially viable. No manufacturing technology currently exists to impart these incredibly small unique codes on firearms.
  • Microstamping is easily defeated. These unique microcodes are easily obliterated by several passes with a metal file, or by swapping out inexpensive parts.
  • Microstamping is inconsistent. Variables in firearms and ammunition design keep codes from consistently being imprinted even in sterile, carefully controlled laboratory conditions.
  • Microstamping cannot survive the environment. Any amount of training or normal fouling accumulation in the action of the firearm can render the code unreadable.
  • Microstamping is fragile. Microstamping wears away easily, in just hundreds or thousands of rounds.
  • Microstamping is easily “spoofed.” Shell cases collected at firing ranges from microstamped guns can easily be salted at crime scenes, sending law enforcement on wild goose chases.

And of course, mirostamping only works on semiautomatic handguns. As revolvers do no eject shell casings, microstamping cannot be ever be used on them.

There is also the simple fact that most firearms used in crimes are not “original owner” guns, with the national average “time to crime” for a firearm being 11.08 years (XLS).

You’ll note that the gun-grabbers are also targeting .50 BMG rifles based entirely on paranoia.

It won’t surprise you at all to discover that a .50 BMG rifle hasn’t been used to murder anyone in American history.