Ballistic Fingerprinting Law in MI

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

  1. mac66

    mac66 Huge Member Millennium Member

    Messages:
    9,179
    Likes Received:
    4,368
    Joined:
    Oct 28, 1999
    Location:
    Blue Planet
  2. Blitzer

    Blitzer Cool Cat

    Messages:
    12,111
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Location:
    The communist's play ground of OHIO
    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

    Messages:
    2,421
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    Canton Mi
    Anytime they can pass another law that has anything to do guns. Is a step in the wrong direction.
     
  4. Yet another waste of ink on paper......
     
  5. Xenia

    Xenia Guest

    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    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.
     
  6. centennial

    centennial Guest

    Messages:
    225
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    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.