Skip to content

Interview

Microstamping Inventor: Gun Industry “Missing an Opportunity”

In an interview, Todd Lizotte discusses the gun industry’s opposition to the powerful crime-solving technology.

Microstamping involves laser-engraving a gun’s firing pin with a microscopic ID code matched to that weapon. Each time the gun fires, the firing pin will then imprint the code onto the back of a cartridge case. Thus, if police recover spent casings at a crime scene, they can examine the code found on them to determine the owner of the firearm used to commit the crime — even if the gun itself is never recovered.

The technology has the potential to fast-track law enforcement investigations at a time when nearly half of all homicides go unsolved. But as we reported in October, the gun industry has adamantly opposed microstamping for decades.

To learn more about microstamping and where it stands today, we reached out to Todd Lizotte, who co-invented the technology as “Intentional Firearm Microstamping” in the 1990s with another engineer. They also founded a company called TACLABS to produce machines that can microstamp firing pins quickly and efficiently as well as software to create and store the microstamped codes.

A photo of Todd Lizotte, the co-inventor of Intentional Firearm Microstamping.

Along with being an inventor and engineer, Todd is a husband, father, and gun owner from New Hampshire. When he’s not working, he teaches middle and high school students about careers in lasers and optics as well as the Triassic and Jurassic periods of the Connecticut River Valley. He studies dinosaur tracks and is working to complete his certificate in archaeological field work. He says his 7-year-old dog, Dexter, is glued to his every movement at home, and that he’ll never retire, but “make room for new adventures.”

Our conversation, edited for length and clarity, is below.

Can you parse that “Intentional Firearm Microstamping” name for us?
Firearms have been “microstamping” ammunition cartridges for over 100 years — transferring unique microstructures, such as cutting tool patterns, ridges, and surface marks, leftover from the firearm’s manufacture to cartridges as they’re fired. This “Unintentional Firearm Microstamping,” or UFM, as we call it, forms the basis of modern firearm and tool-mark analysis, and drives the ATF NIBIN program.

Intentional Firearm Microstamping, or IFM, works exactly the same way, except we place intentional firearm microstamps in the form of etched alphanumeric and geometric codes. As of today, we can apply IFM to optimum surfaces on semi-automatic firearms and rifles using a standardized process with standardized equipment.

How does microstamping help police? And could it benefit gun owners?
Microstamping technology is not just a tool for tracing individual firearms. It’s a vital form of actionable forensic intelligence that can reinforce Second Amendment rights by focusing enforcement efforts on those who abuse firearm laws, rather than on responsible gun owners.

Microstamped cartridge casings can help police identify straw purchasers, rogue gun sellers, and theft rings that specifically target gun owners’ homes. With this intelligence, law enforcement can identify and analyze patterns — patterns that reveal where illegal acquisitions occur, who may be involved, and how these activities flow through certain communities.

Patterns in these cases allow law enforcement to direct resources precisely where they are most needed. Instead of casting a wide net that restricts lawful gun owners, authorities can focus on high-risk points of acquisition. This approach not only keeps enforcement targeted on actual offenders but also protects law-abiding citizens from unnecessary scrutiny or restriction. Microstamping thus shifts the focus of enforcement to individuals and sources that violate firearm laws, reducing the need for broader regulations that might infringe on Second Amendment rights.

Additionally, when theft rings operate in a particular area, law enforcement can track the movement of stolen guns from these communities to crime scenes elsewhere, gaining the intelligence needed to break up these networks. By reducing the number of firearms trafficked or stolen and misused, microstamping bolsters public safety without penalizing lawful gun owners.

Supporting microstamping therefore aligns with the values of the Second Amendment by ensuring that resources are applied strategically against illegal actors, not on the lawful possession of firearms. It allows responsible gun owners to contribute to safer communities without sacrificing their rights, preserving the core freedoms that the Second Amendment was designed to protect.

It’s no different than a car having a license plate.

Can microstamping go beyond firearm investigations?
The paths that illegal firearms take often overlap significantly with routes used in drug trafficking and human trafficking. By leveraging the intelligence gained from microstamped firearms, law enforcement has the potential to disrupt not only illegal gun circulation but also these other criminal networks, enhancing public safety while protecting the rights of lawful gun owners.

How many law enforcement agencies have tested your microstamping-enabled firearms?
Over the years, the California Highway Patrol, Connecticut State Police, Los Angeles Police Department, New Jersey State Police, New York State Police, and the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington, D.C., have tested the technology and supported legislation to move it forward. Within the larger states, such as California and New Jersey, hundreds of local police departments have also supported the technology, understanding the value of actionable forensic intelligence.

California and New Jersey have had live-fire demonstrations as well as qualifying tests to support legislation. Both states have also endorsed the technology.

Why aren’t there any microstamped firearms on the market currently?
Again, all firearms already microstamp cartridges unintentionally. When it comes to IFM, gun industry advocates, such as the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and National Rifle Association, have pushed a non-adoption policy. But in the past, Glock actually developed and patented its own barrel-marking technology similar to IFM.

How do you respond to critics, like the NSSF and NRA, who say that microstamped firing pins can easily be obliterated or replaced?
If we applied that same logic, we’d never have adopted driver’s licenses in the first place. Many states have updated their driver’s licenses dozens of times since the first ones were issued — going from a simple glued photo to laminated cards with barcodes, holograms, and other security features. This is the natural evolution of law enforcement tools: You identify challenges, create or apply new solutions, and adapt them over time to keep up with changing technologies and cultures, like the rise of fake IDs.

And if criminals were so concerned about being traced, why don’t they routinely replace firing pins or alter barrel signatures in the guns they use? In reality, they usually don’t because their firearms are often stolen or trafficked, and they don’t worry about the consequences in the same way. We’re not talking about thwarting criminal masterminds or solving clear-cut domestic violence cases where the suspect is known. This is about addressing common criminals and gang-related violence where anonymity and untraceable firearms are major issues.

Can you tell us a bit more about the obstacles you’ve had to overcome over the years while developing microstamping?
The real challenges have involved addressing evolving criticisms that attempt to discredit the technology by holding it to a standard of absolute perfection, as though firearms themselves are flawless machines. Microstamping is no different from other law enforcement tools that evolve and adapt, offering significant benefits even if no system is 100-percent perfect. It’s a practical solution that meets forensic needs without needing to achieve unrealistic standards. 

Are there any limitations when it comes to microstamping, like the type of weapon or caliber? The NSSF’s Larry Keane alleged that you test .45-caliber pistols because 9mm pistols might not work as well.
As for firearms that we have tested and within our armory, they cover various brands, models, mechanisms, and calibers, ranging from .22 to .50 caliber.

But Mr. Keane’s argument — that microstamping should not be used unless it has a guaranteed 100-percent transfer rate for every single cartridge used in firearm identification — misunderstands how the technology functions within forensic standards. Microstamping assigns each firearm a unique, randomized identifier rather than a sequential number, similar to how DNA provides individual-specific markers. This system offers a high level of reliability and repeatability, making it an effective tool for tracing firearms.

Investigators recover an average of four cartridge casings at a typical crime scene, meaning they can piece together the firearm’s unique code using multiple cases if needed. Expecting flawless accuracy ignores the robust, probabilistic power of microstamping, which provides reliable intelligence in tracing firearms used in criminal activity.

From a philosophical standpoint, Mr. Keane’s approach seems shaped by a primary mission to protect the industry, which narrows his view. His apparent lack of curiosity about the technology’s functionality and advancements over the last 30 years speaks to a mindset deeply rooted in a singular purpose as an advocate.

I believe this focus overlooks broader possibilities and nuanced benefits of microstamping technology that could serve both the firearm industry and societal interests. By adhering strictly to a defensive position, I believe he is missing an opportunity to engage with the ethical and practical dimensions of technological progress in forensic science.

You’ve said that microstamping would cost $3 to $10 per gun to implement. The NSSF’s estimate is significantly higher, at $200 per gun. Who’s wrong? Where do you think the NSSF got this number?
It’s a mystery. As automation and process development experts who have integrated and installed similar technology, we figure these arguments are coming from lawyers who do not understand manufacturing or tend to focus on the idea of producing a single firing pin. In batch quantities of greater than 2,500 units, the price is between $3 to $10 per unit.