GLOCK VP STABS US IN THE BACK!

[cookie]

Paul Jannuzzo, a Glock Vice-President, spoke out in favor of nationwide ballistic fingerprinting on CBS's 60 Minutes this past Sunday night (02-09-03). You can see the video of him here (http://www.duke.edu/~java32/60_Minutes_-_Find_The_Gun.mpg).:pissed:

Please take a moment to express your displeasure to Glock. I'd recommend a call to their toll free number (866) 225-4098, or perhaps a postcard to:

Glock, Inc.
6000 Highlands Parkway
Smyrna, GA 30082

Other direct corporate numbers are:

Telephone: (770) 432-1202
Fax: (770) 433-8719

If you are so inclined, you might also want to sign the guestbook at the Glock Shooting Sports Foundation (www.gssfonline.com/index2.htm) website.

[tommygun2000]

Tossing range pick up brass everywhere. All calibers all neighborhoods. Mix them all up real good and just litter the countryside(or cityside as the case may be) with them.
They will find themselves chasing their own tails trying to figure out why theres 40 different guns brass at the crime scenes, half of it belonging to police guns.
The criminals will just start using revolvers. What are they going to test then?

[osprey21]

A Statement From Paul Jannuzzo, Concerning Ballistic Fingerprinting

GLOCK is not for gun registration, plain and simple.

A database of firearms characteristics that are captured at the manufacturing site would actually be an argument against registration. GLOCK is not for retrieving and capturing characteristics of firearms that have already been sold, but rather, believes consideration should be given to capturing the characteristics on new firearms for sale. This way the characteristics are recorded to a serial number, not a citizen and his or her gun.

It seems the last point is the most important: The characteristics are tied to a serial number, not a person. This means that since the characteristics are not tied to a person, the ATF would have to do the exact same trace it is entitled by law to do now. Once they receive the cartridge casing from a crime scene, they then would (If the technology works) have a serial number. That way they can go to the manufacturer and ask for the first sale, which, in this case, would probably be to a distributor. Then they go to the distributor and ask for the name of the dealer and then from the dealer they go to look at the 4473 to see to whom it was sold. If the technology is any good, this would seem to be a good crime-solving tool, not gun registration. They have the absolute right to do such a trace under the law right now and they do it every single day, with every gun manufacturer in existence. To argue against the above scenario would seem to be an argument for criminal anonymity.

Too many people are jumping to conclusions. One has to ask oneself, how could some liberal anti-gunner say people-registration is necessary if this concept of a serial number being tied to a firearm's characteristics is viable? Can it be defeated? Sure it can, but the jails are not full and overcrowded because criminals are geniuses.

There are obviously limits that need to be set when one speaks of Government intrusion into the life of a citizen, but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about recording the mechanical characteristics to a firearm and a firearm alone.

Will it work? We do not know. Will it be prohibitively expensive? Perhaps it will, but we cannot always just take the knee-jerk reaction and say no because we are used to saying no. It needs time and study to either prove or disprove itself. Because criminals are as a big a threat to civilian ownership of firearms as they anti-gunners are. If it were not for the criminals, the anti-gunners would not have an argument against firearms ownership, except that they do not trust the people. Would you not love to be around the day that mask finally comes off?

As noted above, it is a matter of drawing the line in an intelligent place. That place may be saying 'no' in this instance, but I do not believe we are at the place and have the necessary information to make that decision. Could ballistic fingerprinting be used as an excuse to go further? Certainly, we are not naive enough to believe the camel has its nose stuck as far under the tent as it cares to go. The trick is to draw the line on the slippery slope in an intelligent place. Obviously, a national database or DNA registry could be a great crime-solving tool, but will we as Americans allow that level of intrusion into our personal privacy? Of course we will not. Likewise, here there has to be a balancing of costs(intrusion into personal freedoms) to benefits(potential crime-solving tool), and since there is no intrusion into our personal freedom and there is a potential for it to be a crime-solving tool, the equation clearly comes down on the side of waiting to see if the technology has any viability.

BS

[tommygun2000]

Originally posted by osprey21
A Statement From Paul Jannuzzo, Concerning Ballistic Fingerprinting

GLOCK is not for gun registration, plain and simple.

A database of firearms characteristics that are captured at the manufacturing site would actually be an argument against registration. GLOCK is not for retrieving and capturing characteristics of firearms that have already been sold, but rather, believes consideration should be given to capturing the characteristics on new firearms for sale. This way the characteristics are recorded to a serial number, not a citizen and his or her gun.

It seems the last point is the most important: The characteristics are tied to a serial number, not a person. This means that since the characteristics are not tied to a person, the ATF would have to do the exact same trace it is entitled by law to do now. Once they receive the cartridge casing from a crime scene, they then would (If the technology works) have a serial number. That way they can go to the manufacturer and ask for the first sale, which, in this case, would probably be to a distributor. Then they go to the distributor and ask for the name of the dealer and then from the dealer they go to look at the 4473 to see to whom it was sold. If the technology is any good, this would seem to be a good crime-solving tool, not gun registration. They have the absolute right to do such a trace under the law right now and they do it every single day, with every gun manufacturer in existence. To argue against the above scenario would seem to be an argument for criminal anonymity.

Too many people are jumping to conclusions. One has to ask oneself, how could some liberal anti-gunner say people-registration is necessary if this concept of a serial number being tied to a firearm's characteristics is viable? Can it be defeated? Sure it can, but the jails are not full and overcrowded because criminals are geniuses.

There are obviously limits that need to be set when one speaks of Government intrusion into the life of a citizen, but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about recording the mechanical characteristics to a firearm and a firearm alone.

Will it work? We do not know. Will it be prohibitively expensive? Perhaps it will, but we cannot always just take the knee-jerk reaction and say no because we are used to saying no. It needs time and study to either prove or disprove itself. Because criminals are as a big a threat to civilian ownership of firearms as they anti-gunners are. If it were not for the criminals, the anti-gunners would not have an argument against firearms ownership, except that they do not trust the people. Would you not love to be around the day that mask finally comes off?

As noted above, it is a matter of drawing the line in an intelligent place. That place may be saying 'no' in this instance, but I do not believe we are at the place and have the necessary information to make that decision. Could ballistic fingerprinting be used as an excuse to go further? Certainly, we are not naive enough to believe the camel has its nose stuck as far under the tent as it cares to go. The trick is to draw the line on the slippery slope in an intelligent place. Obviously, a national database or DNA registry could be a great crime-solving tool, but will we as Americans allow that level of intrusion into our personal privacy? Of course we will not. Likewise, here there has to be a balancing of costs(intrusion into personal freedoms) to benefits(potential crime-solving tool), and since there is no intrusion into our personal freedom and there is a potential for it to be a crime-solving tool, the equation clearly comes down on the side of waiting to see if the technology has any viability.

BS
Is, the vast majority of crime committed with guns, is committed with guns that are stolen. Whether or not you or anyone else wants to believe it.......IT IS A FACT!
Tracing a gun back to its previous lawful owner does nothing to solve any crime as the previous crime(in which the gun was stolen) has yet to be solved. If they knew who stole the gun then they could find out where it went simply by arresting that
person and keeping him or her in jail until they comply.

It is just another "feel good" "for the children" PC , BS concoction to make one group or another think that politicians and or law enforcement are doing something to affect crime.

He asks" Will it work"? and answers his own question by saying
We don't know"......I ask....How on Gods green earth can any company or group of politicians even think about initiating such a program without having thought it through from beginning to end with clear and precise accuracy of the results?
Having not done so, is absolute proof that this entire program is a sham and a facade to simply further errode personal freedoms and liberty and to enrich a certain group or entity by its fraud.

The real answer is...they have thought it through, but they will not tell you to your face that their intent is to eventually deprive you of your rights under the 2nd Ammendment. They have and will make up many useless reasons why this program needs to be implimented, but will never divulge its true intent.

I would much rather tolerate the gun crime as it is, than to further restrict the freedoms of lawful gun owners. If this means arming every person in the country so be it. It would be a better society if everyone were on the same level playing field.
This moron speaks of a "Crime solving tool". Why not deter it?

The only way to deter crime(ie;minimize it) is to impose such harsh penalties that the crime would cost more than would be benefitted from it.
Looking at the Klinton administrations procecution record of felons caught trying to buy guns is proof that they do not want to solve crime but merely keep the inertia of gun prohibition moving.

Whats next, knives, bats, bumpers, tire irons, 2x4s, hammers, nailguns, rocks? Enough is enough.

I'm drawing my line in an intelligent place, its right in front of me. If you cross that line with the intent to deprive me of my God given rights, protected by the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, you will pay dearly.
This is not to be construed as a threat, but an absolute promise.

Punish the criminals and let society go about its living.

[cookie]

Originally posted by tommygun2000
reference to your freedom there or my character here?

Regardless, theres no doubt we are on the same team.

I think he means that the concept of freedom is not considered a character flaw on this site! :beer:

[jt325i]

Glocks number one business is LEO's. Personally I think Glocks are crap. I wouldn't buy one before & certainly wouldn't now.

[cookie]

Word has it that Paul Jannuzzo has left Glock, Inc. This has been verified by others who have called Glock, though I haven't done it myself. This is a good first step, but now they need to come out against the whole BF fiasco, and only comply where legally compelled to.

[tommygun2000]

Originally posted by cookie
Word has it that Paul Jannuzzo has left Glock, Inc. This has been verified by others who have called Glock, though I haven't done it myself. This is a good first step, but now they need to come out against the whole BF fiasco, and only comply where legally compelled to.

how damaging this man can be to their bottom line and he'll never be employed it the gun industry again.
Maybe the Anti Rights crowd will put him on their payrolls...be an interesting event to follow, to see just how much of a sellout he really is.

What was he thinking!.....or not?

[osprey21]

Not !

[cookie]

Sent today to gild@mindspring.com: (Glock's legal department)


Dear Sir or Madam:

Like many Glock owners, I was disappointed to hear the views expressed recently by Paul Januzzo on CBS's 60 Minutes.

I was once a diehard HK owner, and sold all of them in favor of Glocks after firing a Glock 21 several years ago. As a Life Member of the NRA and GOA, and a Charter Member of JPFO; I try to keep abreast of news concerning my Second Amendment rights. I find the government's continual encroachment abhorrent, and have been disappointed to see firearm manufacturers knuckle-under to their pressure.

It is a documented fact that so-called "Ballistic Fingerprinting" has not aided police in solving a single crime. It is, in fact, de facto gun registration, and as usual, will only affect legitimate gun owners - not criminals.

It is not my purpose to issue an ultimatum to your corporation, but I must be honest. I consider the Ruger 10/22 to be the best general-purpose .22 caliber rifle, especially for new shooters. I also believe the S&W Model 27 is the most comfortable .357 revolver to fire. I have owned several variations of each in the past. Due to Bill Ruger's outright support of the high-capacity magazine ban, and S&W's deal with the Clinton Administration, I will never purchase a firearm built by either of these companies. Should Glock continue to support de facto gun registration through the guise of aiding law enforcement, I will sadly add your company to the list.

Please take the high road, and stand firm against the "politically correct" - yet factually misguided - pseudo-science of "Ballistic Fingerprinting". Please support those of us who have supported you.

Respectfully,

Jeff Cook

Feel free to steal any/all of this for your own use.