Ca. Microstamping Law

If new guns can't be purchased, older ones that are grandfathered in under the microstamping law will cost more, said John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. That takes square aim at the Second Amendment rights of the poor, he said.
Click to expand...
it sounds like grandfathered guns could be sold. Of course they would be expensive.
 
The lawsuit started in 2009; the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale - http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/ - has been a sore point since it was created.

See http://ia601400.us.archive.org/30/i...d.191444/gov.uscourts.caed.191444.docket.html for the case files.

The Roster doesn't exactly allow 'grandfathering'; guns already on the Roster need not meet any new requirements created after they were put there. Guns stay on the Roster so long as the manufacturer pays the $200 yearly fee. (Looking at the list of guns at the DOJ web site, you'll see they all 'expire' Jan 1, 2016 - that's just the 'pay the fee by' date.)

'Microstamping' is one of the added requirements; Glocks and whatnot already on the Roster need not have 'microstamping' to renew.
 
So California legislators think that wheel guns leave brass behind and they have never heard of brass catchers and had no thoughts about reloaded ammunition with multiple microstamps and the fact that micro stamps can be negated by a half second with a dremil tool or by simply doing one of those gun torture tests with grit.
 
Preaching to the choir, hartcreek.

All of the things you mention have been told to the Legislators in writing and in testimony before committees.

Many people appear to believe California gun laws are about guns.

They're not.

'Guns' are a topic of laws, so legislators can vote for the laws, so those legislators can go back to their electors/voters and say 'see, I am doing something about a problem. Vote for me so I can keep making you safe.'

Votes for gun laws are also one of the ways the parties enforce discipline; legislators vote as they are told, or their own bills die in committee. When that happens, the legislators have nothing to show to the voters as 'doing something about a problem' and legislators with no record of bills passed do not get re-elected.

The technical validity or the practical application of the laws passed mean nothing; no one ever goes back to the legislators and complains their laws didn't work.
 
What amazes me is that according to the linked article, apparently LA City Attorney Mike Feuer (and isn't that name ironic:rolleyes:), who introduced the bill as a lawmaker, and has been its big proponent, seems to think 45% of gun crimes are caused by the original purchasers!

Did the patent on the Microstamp technology expire in 2013? I seem to recall that when the bill was passed the tech was entirely owned by its inventor and his company.

IIRC the law going into effect was supposed to be delayed until that patent expired.

The whole idea of microstamping, or keeping cases or even bullets "on file" so they could be used to solve crimes has proven to be a red herring where ever tried. I think it was Virginia that recently gave up on it as a bad idea, after wasting lots of money and manhours for several years, and never having any crime solved due to the evidence from the system.

Other places are seeing similar results.

I also recall hearing, back when this law was passed, how several other states all had similar bills introduced, at about the same time. Seems like the major lobbyists for microstamping in all the different states has traceable connections to..guess who?....the company that held the patent for microstamping.

What better way to make a buck than to have a law passed saying people must buy your product!

"I can't say its true, and I won't say it's not, but there's been talk!"
(extra no point if you can ID the quote;))
 
even new york dropped the law requiring a spent cartridge to be submitted to the new york state police for all new handgun purchases. it had helped to solve zero cases in all the years it was in effect.
 
CA gun laws are designed to control. Much CA law has that goal. What the law actually does and why it is "justified" is secondary.

CA gun laws also are designed to make owning a firearm and concealed carry as onerous and expensive as possible. By definition, those at the lower end of the economic spectrum are the least likely to be financially able to own a firearm or practice (if you can find a place to shoot). Those people also tend to be non-white and at clearly higher statistical risk be subject to criminal actions against them or around them.

About 2006, I saw a sort by zip code of concealed carry permits. If lots of permits correlated to high crime rates, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills and other wealthy communities were dangerous places to live. South or Central Los Angeles was comparatively much safer.

Things have improved over the years but the liberal bastions are terrified that Peruta will survive and the unwashed might exercise their rights under 2A. Los Angeles, SF and other enlightened areas continue with no issue to common citizens.

The trick with microstamping was to functionally make handguns as scarce as possible. AG Harris is less of an engineer than I am an astronaut, and it was her determination that miscrostamping had entered the realm of technical feasibility and should become a feature of the roster.
 
I wonder what the chances would be of convincing the major handgun manufacturers to refuse to sell to California government agencies as well as civilians should this provision be enforced?
 
It's being enforced now - new semiautomatic handguns cannot get on the Roster without that 'feature'.

I believe it is Ruger and Smith&Wesson that have decided not to try to add guns to the Roster, as their assessment is it is technically not possible.
 
I started reading the stuff at the Cal Guns link and it sure looks clear to me that those trying to enforce this micro staming are in violation of the very law that they are trying to enforce as the tech is required to be available to more then one firm and it clearly isn't.

As for guns being available the law specifically exempts C&Rs and revolvers as long ans they have hammer blocks. I would think that gun shops would be jumping on the C&R aspect.
 
A couple of points of clarification: the Fox News article is not entirely accurate. First, the major thing is that the microstamping law does NOT apply to revolvers, only to semi-auto handguns.
Second, the law only applies to any "new" semi-auto handgun, but this has been interpreted by AG Harris and the DOJ as applying if there is any "material" change in a handgun--and "material" is liberally construed. Ruger fell afoul of this change when it changed one part on a handgun from forged to MIM, and was told the gun had to be re-certified--and recertification requires compliance with the microstamping mandate. However, the rule does not apply to mere cosmetic changes like colors and grips.
Third, the law does not apply to any semi-auto handgun as long as it remains unchanged and on the roster (which is accomplished by paying an annual fee). So Glock can continue to sell Glock 3s to California buyers as long as it keeps making the same way it always has. I seem to recall that this applies only to Austrian made Glocks, and that the US made variety, even though identical, are not on the roster.
Fourth, the law only applies to new sales by FFLs. So all of the millions of old guns may continue to circulate in the California market.
 
A small point about revolvers. If anyone is arguing that microstamping (if it works) can't help solve crimes committed with revolvers, because they don't eject spent cartridges, what happens in a prolonged gun fight when the revolver has to be reloaded? Often, those cartridges are all over the ground are they not?

I realize that running gun battles are a small percentage of crimes committed with handguns.
 
There are SO MANY ways for this to become ineffective: wearing out the stamp with steel cased ammo, brass catchers, (brass droppers- leaving brass from other weapons), reloads become problematic, and the likelihood that bad guys with bad intent *might not buy a microstamper*.
 
More to the point, California does not require microstamping for revolvers.
Click to expand...

Then why didn't it require that, if the state wants to ban all guns as so many claim? Perhaps because it foresaw that the UHA would be over turned if access to handguns was too tightly restricted? I don't know it it was ever argued, but the fact that it abstained from requiring microstamping arguably evidences that the state was concerned with balancing the need to solve crime with allowing access to handguns and it found the benefits of requiring revolver microstamping were too little as compared to the effect upon access to handguns.

I read the Order and judgments and at first glance it is what I expected, but this was one of those times when I hoped to be wrong, as is all too often happens.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top