close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

Ballistic Fingerprinting Law in MI

Discussion in 'Michigan Glockers' started by mac66, Aug 2, 2007.

  1. mac66

    mac66 Huge Member Millennium Member

    6,075
    352
    Oct 28, 1999
    Blue Planet
  2. It hasn't done much to assist law enforcement elsewhere so why would it work in MI?

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     


  3. Hailstorm

    Hailstorm Boom Shacka

    2,421
    0
    Jan 7, 2002
    Canton Mi
    Anytime they can pass another law that has anything to do guns. Is a step in the wrong direction.
     
  4. Xenia

    Xenia

    46
    0
    Jun 6, 2007
    Michigan
    What is interesting is that in addition to the ballistic fingerprinting this bill protects gun companies from being sued related to someone being harmed by a gun used against them. (my paraphrase)

    With that in place I wonder what the NRA would think of this? The protection for gun companies is a good thing, imo, but the ballistic tests seems like a great way to spend our hard earned tax dollars. Think of the work and costs involved for the state to get that information processed.
     
  5. centennial

    centennial

    225
    0
    Jun 9, 2004
    The bill only refers to licensed FFLs. It doesn't cover private sales, so it's pretty useless as far as a law enforcement tool.
    Ballistic fingerprinting has been proven ineffective in areas that use it.
    All it will do is raise the price of used firearms on dealers shelves and create another layer of useless administrative work for dealers AND the MSP who already doesn't have enough funding to do what they are supposed to.
    Tying it to a release of responsibility is total bull****.
    There is no way a dealer should be held responsible for what happens to a gun after the sale unless the dealer sold the gun to a person who is prevented from legally owning firearms.