CA is almost there. Microstamping bill signed into law

I read a statement by the patent holder where he said the cost wouldn't be high and it is very easy to put the serial number on the firing pin. He also said he will not receive any royalties from those companies who use his technology. He didn't give a cost estimate though.

I would like to see what the costs actually are.

The problem is, microstamping can easily be defaced by the owner on the firing pin from what I've read AND we all know criminals would never deface a firing pin!:p

I'm sorry to say that California is a lost cause. Gun manufacturers should stop selling in that market. Problem is I think California is such a large market that this will never happen.

And no Justme, gun manufacturers are against this technology. All I've read over the last few years is they are not for microstamping.

It's the anti-gun Democrats that are for this technology because many Democrats want to ban the private ownership of firearms. Anything to make it more difficult for people to own firearms is what the Democrats, in the main, want. Been that way for over 40 years now.

However, Arnold did sign this Bill didn't he, and I bet Rudy would be all for it also?!:eek:
 
Now, I would never claim to be a legal scholar much less a student of the US Constitution, therefore, I am asking the legal scholars who frequent this forum to examine this law, at least, at the onset to see if is amenable to some types of challenges.

While gun ownership is not a "fundemental right" so such challenge would not have productive result.
Click to expand...

:confused:

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

How is that not a fundamental right?
 
Found my precedent I was looking for. It was in Illinois.
Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc.
US Supreme Court, May 25, 1959
We are asked in this case to hold that an Illinois statute [n1] requiring the use of a certain type of rear fender [p522] mudguard on trucks and trailers operated on the highways of that State conflicts with the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The statutory specification for this type of mudguard provides that the guard shall contour the rear wheel, with the inside surface being relatively parallel to the top 90 degrees of the rear 180 degrees of the whole surface. [n2] The surface of the guard must extend downward to within 10 inches from the ground when the truck is loaded to its maximum legal capacity. The guards must be wide enough to cover the width of the protected tire, must be installed not more than 6 inches from the tire surface when the vehicle is loaded [p523] to maximum capacity, and must have a lip or flange on its outer edge of not less than 2 inches. [n3]

Appellees, interstate motor carriers holding certificates from the Interstate Commerce Commission, challenged the constitutionality of the Illinois Act. A specially constituted three-judge District Court concluded that it unduly and unreasonably burdened and obstructed interstate commerce because it made the conventional or straight mudflap, which is legal in at least 45 States, illegal in Illinois, and because the statute, taken together with a Rule of the Arkansas Commerce Commission [n4] requiring straight mudflaps, rendered the use of the same motor vehicle equipment in both States impossible. The statute was declared to be violative of the Commerce Clause, and appellants were enjoined from enforcing it. 159 F.Supp. 385. An appeal was taken, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 358 U.S. 808.
Click to expand...

A product involved in interstate commerce cannot be significantly different, state to state.

What we need to further cement this type of challenge is a law in Alaska, or Arizona, or somewhere pro-gun PROHIBITING the use of serialized firing pins or case marking technology of any sort.

By precedent, both laws would be null and void then. :)
 
A product involved in interstate commerce cannot be significantly different, state to state.
Click to expand...

Sorry but comparing mud flaps on trucks to serialized firing pins is apples to oranges.

The trucks are INVOLVED in interstate commerce because they are the active device conducting such commerce. The trucks get the products from IN through IL to WI and elsewhere. IL's law would affect trucks using federal highways for the simple purpose of going through IL to another state. This directly regulated the conduct of interstate commerce by adding regulations with regards to the transport of goods from one location to another.

Serialized Firing Pins are in essence no different than the NY AWB. NY does not allow the importation of weapons and components for sale/use in that state per their AWB which are legal in other states. CA is saying you cannot sell automatic handguns in CA after 2010 that do not confrom to their laws. They are not sayign you cannot transport them from Oregon to Nevada for purposes of commerce. They are not saying you cannot simply transport the weapon as you can any legally owned handgun per the Fed rules on interstate travel as long as CA is not your desitnation and you are not tarrying there.

Firing pins and firearms are not "invovled" in interstate commerce in the fashion intended by the ruling. They are a PRODUCT that is sold and transported. For that reason you could ship non-conforming guns and parts THROUGH CA. You could not though ship them TO CA since CA is allowed to establish their own laws regulating matters internal to CA.

The interstate commerce argument is DOA on this one.
 
kalifornia nutkake

the ATF has ruled that firearms are in interstate commerce.dont ask me how I know.most if not all gun manufacterers have closed or moved from kalif.if gun owners boycotted manufacturers they would not send to Kalif.
ammo and certan guns cannot be shipped to Mass and the manufac.wont try.
but if its anything like certain posters here we have lost before we begin.gun owners had many chances to make a differance but did not try so now you pay the price for your indifferance.:mad:--:confused:--:(
 
As far as the gun companies developing microstamping technology, they don't have to. There is a company in California that claims they can do it with lasers. I wish I could remember their name. They can do it for a fee that will be passed on to the consumer.

What I am wondering is when we will be required to retrofit our pistols that we currently own. All of them are registered.
 
Learn From This!!!!!!

Believe it or not, California gun laws used to be not too different then those in Texas, Arizona, or even Alaska. Most residents could purchase any firearm with little or no hassle. But this has changed. More importantly, these changes did not come overnight.

Some folks here seem to think that liberals will just come out and ask for a complete and total gun ban. Yes, there are some that want that now. But most of the anti-gun people are too smart for that. They do want a virtual gun ban, but they know what happens when you throw a frog into boiling water. They know the best way to get results is by slowly truning up the heat until it is too late when noticed.

Look how things happened in the Golden State. First they went after the "evil" black rifles. They argued that they have no sporting use. The libs even pointed out that shotguns are a better defensive choice for the home. There were some in California that were totally against the EBR ban. Some where completely in favor of it. Unfortunately, too many where willing to placate the gun grabbers so they kept their mouths shut. They were hoping that they would go away.

I frequented a trap club during this period. Many of the guys there were in favor of the "assault" rifle ban. After all, there sport wasn't going to be affected. These are the guys with shotguns that cost more then my car.

After the EBR's came the magazine capacity limits. Who needs more then ten rounds? The average deer or duck hunter in California figured their arms were safe so they might as well make themselves invisible. The aniti's will leave them alone.

Next came the state's dedication to public safety. Any gun that went "boom" when dropped would not go on the approved handgun list. Micro-stamping is the new strategy to go after Californian's guns. Yes, that is there goal. Maybe not today, or even tomorow, but that Perazzi will eventually be taken.

Those of you that think that the anti-gunners can be made happy with concessions by us are only fooling yourself.:mad:
 
microstamping seeding

heres one for you.

scene from CSI LA

Crime Scene investigator: looks like he was shot with a 45. see cases on ground.

other lab guy: yea we have good evidence now that the micro stamping is law.

Later....

NEWS anchor: Today the LA sherrif's office arrested six persons in connection to the murder of (insert name here). This is the first arrest using the new Microstamping technology to solve a crime. Those arrested are the president of the microstamping technology company, the speaker of the CA House of Representives, former US house speaker nancy pelosi, former US Senator Diane Feinstien, Former Gov. Arnoald S. and the LA Sherrif. All those arrested are protesting their innocense.


Flash back to scene of crime: (criminal throwing down empty brass while holding a revolver) This brass from the gun range is great for leaving at the scene even though I have a legal microstamped firearm.
 
I'm moving to California in the beginning of next year.
I'm just getting into shooting, though not much with pistols yet due to my age, and I'm already starting to dread the move.
 
Does the POS law affect ALL guns sold (starting in 2010) or just NEW MODELS not already on the approved DOJ list?

If it's just NEW MODELS, then we would still have many guns on the DOJ list to choose from.

If it's ALL sales/transfers, then there's going to be a serious gun buying frenzy in the next couple of years...

Anyone know which it is?

TCW
 
CmpsdNoMore said:
I'm moving to California
Click to expand...

What always baffles me about legislation like this is the concept of people doing the the act to themselves.

About thirty years ago, I had to work off some *ahem* community service time. As part of this plan, I also had to attend "citizenship" classes for about 6 weeks. As you can imagine in the state of Wisconsin, it was a useless game of teaching self esteem.

One afternoon, we had to pull our chairs into a circle for a game. The idea was that each one of us should exbound about our talents as if we wanted to be chosen for some island survival. For example, I proffered that I could fix things and even worked a few summers in a carpentry shop.

One young woman seemed aggitated by the proceeding. She was very resolute in the idea that she had no skills, would actually be a detriment to any successful survivor, and the best thing to do was just to forget about the very idea of saving her.

Even as she was prodded to play the game, and it was underlined that this was just a game, she refused to profide any info or reason why she should be picked for survival.

And so it seems with laws like this in California. Obviously they have drive-bys and as much street crime as most urban areas. They know about home invasions, and read daily about innocent lives being lost.

But like the young woman in my class, they seem resolute in not participating in any effort to protect their own lives. In fact, the very idea of voting in microstamping is simply to better sweep up the debris once the crime has already been committed.

But stopping the crime, that they seem to want no part of.
 
Does the POS law affect ALL guns sold (starting in 2010) or just NEW MODELS not already on the approved DOJ list?

If it's just NEW MODELS, then we would still have many guns on the DOJ list to choose from.
Click to expand...
It's NEW ones - they must have the microstamping to be added to the Roster, beginning in 2010.

At least, that's how things are today.

Other notes:

Yes, police/LEO are exempt - they are not restricted to handguns on the Roster as the rest of us are.

Yes, you can replace a worn out firing pin - it is not the same serial number as the federal 18 USC 923(i) requirement, and the AB1471 law specifically says the microstamping is not the same.

The microstamping is supposed to be on the firing pin and someplace else, not specified.

No, there is no possibility this law is about safety or solving crimes; making guns more difficult to own by making them more expensive to buy, possibly too expensive to retool for California for the manufacturers is more likely.
 
In that case, manufacturers would probably just keep selling the current lineup of CA-approved guns to CA. Any new models that come out will not be sold to CA. I don't see why manufacturers would try to make/sell new (microstamping) models in CA anyway, as, given the choice, most consumers would opt for the previous non-stamping model.
 
If I could play prophet for a minute, The microstamping is easy to remove from a gun we know that and I think "they" do too.

Imagine the next state congress in '08.....
"Why would anyone want to tamper with the microstamping on a legally owned gun" *murmurs of approval from congress*

"The only reason to tamper with a microstamped gun is to commit a crime" *more murmurs*

"We must legislate against tampering with a microstamped gun, we must make it illegal to tamper with a microstamping"
*cheers*

Basically ending the aftermarket parts business in CA. No new barrels or firing pins. Any thing that has a microstamp.
 
That's a good point D-Ric.

I can see something happening where it costs to much to micro stamp for some companies, which leads to lower quantities of add-ons that make guns "evil" to certain people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top