Ball at firearms demonstration
-
- May
- 19
State Assemblyman Greg Ball apparently made his feelings known today on a piece of legislation that would require every semi-automatic weapon manufactured in the state capable of stamping a unique code onto the cartridge case of fired ammuntion. The information, proponents say, can help police link the ammunition to the gun it was fired from without having the gun.
Ball, R-Patterson, showed up at the event at a State Police HQ firing range, which was hosted by Assemblywoman Michelle Schimel, D-Great Neck. He brought along Jake McGuigan of the National Shooting Sports Foundation and Greg Costa, a representative of the National Rifle Association and National Shooting Sports Foundation and board member of NYS Rifle and Pistol Association. Microstamping, they contend, is flawed, needs further testing and its cost is greater than any possible public safety benefits.
Read Ball’s press release after the break.
FOR RELEASE: IMMEDIATELY
May 19, 2008
BALL SUPPORTS SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS
Stands Up for Gun Owners Against Microstamping
Assemblyman Greg Ball (R – Carmel) knocked another one out of the park today, for New York’s sportsmen and law-abiding gun owners, as he brought with him representatives from the National Rifle Association and National Shooting Sports Association to a microstamping demonstration and press conference hosted by Assemblywoman Michelle Schimel (D – Great Neck) at the State Police Headquarters in Albany.
Although the event was held at a public building and Assemblyman Ball was invited by Schimel, members of the manufacturing sector and other second amendment advocates were not invited. Amazingly, Ball’s guests were actually refused admittance to the event. Bringing this to the attention of the invited media, and after his guests were asked to leave, Ball pointed out the hypocrisy of today’s event and why this measure infringes on the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
“If this was an unveiling for a brand new brake technology, one would certainly invite representatives from the automobile industry. To think that this was billed as an open event, but then key members of the second amendment and gun manufacturing community were excluded, is absolutely and undeniably wrong. Sportsmen, hunters and gun owners throughout New York should know that we busted up a dog and pony show today, and made sure their voice was heard,” said Ball. “The Assembly needs to begin focusing on the real criminals. This plan is just another way for the government to tax and track law-abiding, registered gun owners.”
Today’s event combined a demonstration of the microstamping technology by the inventor, Todd Lizotte, with a press conference by Assemblywoman Schimel, who is on the board of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence. As Ball stated, “Sadly, they tried to only present one side of the story and worse, people who work in this industry were purposefully excluded from attending the event.”
Jake McGuigan of the National Shooting Sports Foundation echoed Assemblyman Ball’s sentiments, stating “Clearly, there are some politically and economically motivated groups and individuals who would like to see the major failures of microstamping covered up. It is imperative that this not be allowed to happen. New Yorkers, and lawmakers, have a right to know the ease with which microstamping can be defeated, the independent studies calling for further review of the ‘flawed’ technology and the views of professional forensics examiners opposing microstamping. I remain gravely concerned that the real cost of implementing this concept is astronomical compared to any reasonable public safety benefits that might possibly materialize.”
“Even the state police were manipulated today into hosting a purely political event or they were complicit. Either way, they allowed themselves to be politicized. Looks like just another example of the politicization of the New York State Police,” stated Greg Costa, a representative of the National Rifle Association and National Shooting Sports Foundation and board member of NYS Rifle and Pistol Association.
Both McGuigan and Costa joined Ball at the event today. Costa said of the microstamping legislation, “It is based on unproven technology at a great public expense and has zero public safety application. The fact is that this cannot be used as an investigatory or prosecution tool, the object is simply just to build yet another database of legal gun owners.”
Just last week, the University of California at Davis re-released their study on microstamping (now peer-reviewed). The researchers concluded, “At the current time it is not recommended that a mandate for implementation of this technology be made. Further testing, analysis and evaluation is required.”
The U.C. Davis researchers also cited another study from the National Research Council (NRC) – an arm of the national academies of engineering and science – that said, “Further studies are needed on the durability of microstamping marks under various conditions and their susceptibility to tampering, as well as on the cost impact for manufacturers and consumers.” The NRC reached this conclusion after a presentation to the study panel by renowned John Jay College of Criminal Justice professor and forensic examiner George Krivosta.
Professor Krivosta conducted his peer-reviewed microstamping study with the Suffolk County Crime Lab right here in the Empire State. The results were published in 2006 in the professional scholarly journal for forensic firearms examiners. Professor Krivosta proved that microstamping technology does not function reliably and the shallow micro laser engraved marks can be removed in mere seconds using common household tools. Professor Krivosta concluded 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.”
Assembly Bill 9819-A, sponsored by Schimel, mandates that every pistol legally sold in New York State be designed to micro-stamp ammunition with unique markings. Named “State Legislator of the Year” by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Ball is a leading advocate of Second Amendment Rights in Albany and has taken a vocal stand against bills that infringe on law-abiding gun owners’ rights. Accordingly, he led the debate against the microstamping measure when it came to the Assembly floor, raising such questions as “How many guns used in crimes are used by the person to whom they are registered” and asked about reloaded ammunition, often used, which would already have a microstamp on it? Ball also asked about the economic impact of this bill, specifically, if gun manufacturers would rather do business elsewhere than comply with this new mandate, if enacted.
Despite Ball’s vocal opposition leading the debate on the bill, it was ultimately passed by a vote of 94-47. The Senate has not addressed this measure. To learn more about Greg Ball’s position on microstamping and other gun legislation or to watch this debate, please tune into his television show, “Assembly Calendar” – check your local listings.
This entry was posted
on Monday, May 19th, 2008 at 5:43 pm by Mike Risinit.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Share and Enjoy: 
| 
| 
Email This
I’ve met Ms. Schimel and while she is a nice lady, if brains were dynamite she wouldn’t have enough to blow her nose.
The simple fact is that microstamping technology will not work, and mandating its use will just toss more millions of dollars down a rathole like the unless COBIS system and database that Pataki saddled us with.
Speaking of which, why don’t you intrepid Journal News reporters do an expose on just how much money has been wasted on COBIS—a system that has never caught a single criminal and likely never will.
Should be “useless COBIS system.” Spell-check misfired.
Why does Greg Ball continue to state (R-Carmel) ???
He does not live in Carmel. His partner kicked him out and he is now back living in Pawling claiming his residence as Putnam Lake… Just one more example of how sloppy Greg Ball’s office is. They can’t get anything right and they lie to cover up all wrongdoing.
Why does everybody who gets close to Ball end up seperating themselves from him?
Ball jumps onto any news that will gain him attention that he is doing something then he will issue news releases as though he has. What has he done is nothing.
Where does Ball live? Back with Mommie and Daddy? If that is true, shame on him for being so dependent on his parents. Time to move on and be independent.
I do not care one bit about who raises the flag on this junk science, politic driven legislation. I am just happy to see that someone forced the media to give an honest review of this panderous event.
If NY feels so strongly about passing more laws, then they should come up with a few that address criminals and stop infringing upon law-abiding free citizens.
Schimel, Silver, Schumer, and Clinton among others should all be dismissed from their duties for violating their oath of office—to uphold the United States Constitution.
If microstamping worked,the proponents wouldn’t be so quick to muzzle those who oppose the pointless mandated use of the technology when the scientific testing of the method shows so little promise.We know they oppose the 2nd amendmentThe 1st must also be an inconvienience.Apparently working in the legislature as a gun-grabber dulls the mind as easily as a file dulls microstamping on a firing pin.Will criminals use microstamping guns without using a file first?Nope.Will they use gathered reloaded shell casings to cast guilt elsewhere?Yep.Will this microstamping law catch a single criminal?Nope.Look at the ‘success’ of the Sullivan law in stopping New York criminals.Look at Bloomberg’s efforts to blame his inability to stop them on other states whose crimes are largely committed by Bloomberg’s free-ranging criminal class.Ms. Shimel is a schmo.
Do people think criminals will micro stamp their ammo????
Of course Ball jumps on this. I still will not vote for him. Being a veteran I find Ball misleading to us as a group and a disgruntled person.
Greg Ball has been pushing a piece of legislation that would lower the age requirement to purchase a firearm from 18 to 15.
After Columbine & Virginia Tech we don’t need to be making it easier for children to have access to deadly weapons.
Just one more extreme position adopted by Greg Ball. This guy doesn’t care about his community, he cares about making news and promoting himself and his hyper-partisan agenda.
I have a question for all those against microstamping
if a handgun automatically microstamps any round it
fires, regardless of who the registered owner may be
why wouldn’t you want that information if a crime is
committed with that particular hand gun..how does
this interefere with the lawful ownership of a handgun
since if it is used legally the microstamp is irrelevant
and if not used legally than the microstamp is helpful
for law enforment…as i understand it virtually every
police agency supports this bill,and if that is the
case why wouldn’t you want to enact a bill supported
by those on the front lines of protecting the citizens
of new york….
watching greg ball in this video, i almost feel bad for him. he’s a very sad individual who barely won election last time around and now prances around the capitol as though he is 1) relevant and 2) knowledgeable enough to crash events and start scenes…
Edelman’s ignorance and naivete is astounding. First, rank-and-file police groups rarely support gun control. Police groups comprised of politically motivated chiefs and executives (you know, the political appointees) support the gun control policies of their mayors and other political bosses.
And here’s why such legislation should be opposed (via NSSF). Recent independent, peer-reviewed, studies published in the professional scholarly journal for forensic firearms examiners proved that the technology of microstamping is unreliable and does not function as the patent holder claims. It can be easily defeated in mere seconds using common household tools or criminals could simply switch the engraved firing pin for readily available unmarked spare parts, thereby circumventing the technology.
Experts at the University of California, Davis, recently finished a study of the technology which was requested and funded by the California State Legislature. The conclusions about the technology are straightforward and direct. The researchers found this patented technology “flawed” and concluded that “At the current time it is not recommended that a mandate for implementation of this technology in all semiautomatic handguns in the state of California be made. Further testing, analysis and evaluation is required.”
Sport shooting and other groups, including major law enforcement organizations, are opposed to this unproven and unreliable technology. The cost of this dubious technology is a great concern to firearms owners and taxpayers alike. Microstamping legislation in California would not only have forced consumers of firearms to pay exorbitant price increases ― as much as $200 per firearm ― to cover the increased cost of microstamping, but substantially higher taxes for the cost of microstamped law enforcement guns.
To date, three comprehensive studies have been done on firearms microstamping: Professor George Krivosta, for the professional scholarly journal for forensic firearms examiners; The University of California at Davis; and most recently the National Academy of Sciences. All three of these independent studies concluded that the patented, sole-sourced technology of firearms microstamping is easily defeated by criminals, flawed, unreliable and must be studied further before any legislature even considers mandating the technology.
“Further studies are needed on the durability of microstamping marks under various firing conditions and their susceptibility to tampering, as well as on the their cost impact for manufacturers and consumers.”—National Academy of Science Study
“Implementing this technology will be much more complicated than burning a serial number on a few parts and dropping them into firearms being manufactured.”— Professor George Krivosta, The professional scholarly journal for forensic firearms examiners
“At the current time it is not recommended that a mandate for implementation of this technology be made. Further testing, analysis and evaluation is required.”—University of California at Davis on Firearms Microstamping
Microstamping is easily defeated with a $2 file, or the simple replacement of a firing pin. Even in cases where the technology works, records of stolen weapons obtained from shell casings may lead the police not to the criminal, but to the rightful owner, whose rights and reputation will be in jeopardy. In the alternative, police might be led to the owner of the gun from whom a cartridge was fired, but recovered and purposely dropped at a crime scene at another time and place.
As with all gun laws, this one will only affect the law-abiding while criminals laugh. But the purpose of the gun-grabbers is not to prevent crime, but to remove the capacity of lawful citizens to defend themselves. Their transparent appeals to emotion (speaking about “mothers”, for example) belie their utter disregard for both Constitutional rights and reason.
and that sara answers my question about microstamping
but thanks for your trenchant introduction to the issue
Gun control ONLY works against honest citizens. Microstamping will then make honest citizens accountable for the actions of criminals.
You might as well inject RFIDs at birth, that way you can track everyone and see exactly who was where when a crime occurs. It would work better than microstamping cases but, then it would ALSO be a violation of the Constitution.
What do people NOT understand about the phrase “Shall Not Be Infringed”?
There have lately been a lot of articles in the media on guns. As a Jewess in the US, I want to remind everyone that criminals are stopped by FIREARMS, not by talk. And that America wasn’t won with a registered gun! That is why all REAL Americans put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!
Mike, Greg Ball is against microstamping because that’s the most controversial position on this issue. Controversy meaning people will talk about him and he might even get his name in the news.
notice in how dismissing the support of law enforcement
officials sara refers to them as the “political appointees”
while saying that rank and file police groups rarely support
gun control….
in california 55 police chiefs and sherrifs all over the
state supported micorstamping…I have a hard time they
did it for “political” reasons
thanks for your interpretation of the 2nd amendment
however I don’t read it that way…the constitution
doesn’t speak to the right to keep and bare arms
outside of an organized militia…period
Even assuming the police organizations do support this bill, that is evidence in favor of supporting the legislation but it is not dispositive. Under that line of reasoning, we should get rid of Miranda rights as most police organizations believe that they are unnecessary and lead to many confessions being suppressed. The fact is police concerns have to be balanced with public concerns and individual rights in our constitution.
Whether this is good law or not, I will reserve judgment but I am not going to blindly support something based solely on police organizations endorsements.
As to the argument, whether the right to bare arms is a collective right vs. an individual right, we will have an answer from the Supreme Court sometime this year. Most judicial watchers, believe the court will come down in favor of an individual right (Perhaps, a different court would rule differently) and even many liberal law professors such as Larry Tribe at Harvard believe the founders intent was that there be an individual right to bare arms. Then the question becomes how much regulation can exist on that right and that will likely be more complicated.
probably correct but the clear meaning of the words
are in the context of organized self defense
the wingnut from the 99th AD would sponsor anything about anything. it is incredible that the republicans aren’t handing out nose clips at the committee meetings to repel the stench from this depraved severely warped lunatic. any republican that stands next to him and smiles while he belches his hyperbole should be run out of town along with him. and citizens should demand a complete refund for the taxpayer funded education he got at the air force academy. imagine if he had actually learned how to fly a plane.
I have not been following Greg Ball race closely as I don’t live in his district but I would say that this criticism of his millitary record is disgusting. He was accepted and completed his education at the US Air Force Academy. That is a tremendous honor. The Academy, is one of the most difficult academic institutions to get accepted to and it is one of the demanding to be, once you are there. The amount of work that students put it, day in and day out, far exceeds any Ivy League Institution. Mr. Ball, then served in the millitary. That deserves respect and not criticism.
You don’t like him. Fine, criticize his record. Leave his serve to the country out of it. When you do that, you sound like a buffoon. If I were in his district, I would be more and not less likely to vote for him based on the attacks on his millitary record on this blog.
How many of the party and amicus briefs in Heller have you read, Mike? Obviously, none, and your assertion regarding the context is flatly wrong, as shown in a couple of dozen briefs. But that’s about what we could expect from a lawyer who thinks the 2A deals with “bare” arms. LOL!
Oh, and sheriff’s and police chiefs are indeed politicians. Do some homework and learn about the difference between groups like FOP and LEAA that represent street cops, and IACP that represent the political hacks.
To: the consultant
You know less than nothing about the Bill of Rights. If you knew that you know nothing at least you’d know something.
The Bill of Rights does NOT give anyone anything!!!
It restricts the Government from taking “Natural Rights” away from the people. Period.
The Bill of Rights is written in “Clauses”. Each having a Decalatory and a Restrictive Clause.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
Decalatory Clause: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, (This is not the National Guard which wouldn’t be federalized until 1903) The Militia referred to is almost the entirety of the population, aka The People, not the Government. Try reading the Anti-Federalist, Federalist Papers and Thomas Jefferson’s writings on the issue.
Restrictive Clause: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Now what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand?
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.—James Madison, The Federalist Papers
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”—Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
“As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks.”—Thomas Jefferson
Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. [...] To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.—Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.—Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson’s Commonplace book
Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?—Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788
“To disarm the people… was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”—George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788
“The great object is, that every man be armed. [...] Every one who is able may have a gun.”—Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788
That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…—Samuel Adams, in “Phila. Independent Gazetteer”, August 20, 1789
“One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms.”—Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1840
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”—Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court
Now go get a real Education.
Pearls before swine, Gus.
A one line quip does not a respose make to such detailed history.
Posting the entire context of the writings pertaining to the matter at hand would surely overload the attention span of those who stand in opposition. So the quotes will have to stand as a drop of water to tempt them into the fountain.
BTW, It’s “Samuel Clemmons”, or would you like me to address you as “Mark”?
Sara R;
May Matthew forgive me. LOL
Hello Gus,
I am glad you talked about the rights offered by the Constitution.
You should read article 1, section 8, clause 8.
“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;”
It is interesting that the firearms industry argues the 2nd amendment, but argues that the inventor has no rights to a limited monopoly. Property rights, even intellectual property rights should be honored. If these rights were not provided by the US government, people like Samuel Colt would have not been as successful as they were.
Note, this clause was originally written by the true Federalists as well, 1790.
The question becomes, if you argue an inventors right to a limited monopoly granted by the Constitution is unfair, than that argument can easily be argued back that we have no personal right to other property.
I think the firearm industry representatives should watch what they say.
Hello Ethan;
“The question becomes, if you argue an inventors right to a limited monopoly granted by the Constitution is unfair, than that argument can easily be argued back that we have no personal right to other property.”
I do not think it unfair. I think what you create/write is and always should be your own. Please post some links on this subject. Just whom in the Firearms industry is pushing this?