Ca. Microstamping Law

[44 AMP]

Perhaps because it foresaw that the UHA would be over turned if access to handguns was too tightly restricted?

Just my opinion, but I seriously doubt that the didn't require microstamping for revolvers because they were concerned it would be going too far.

I think rather it was an uncommon exercise of good sense. Not that they wanted to, but rather because they didn't really have a choice, if they were to have anyone believe their claimed justification.

Which was, that microstamping marks the cases (actually the primer) with the ID of the gun that fired it, and was needed in order to aid law enforcement solve crimes.

But not even those slickmeisters could come up with a believable excuse why revolvers (which do not leave cases as evidence at the crime scene) needed microstamping, because if the police don't find cases at the crime scene there is NO benefit to the investigation. Requiring revolvers to have microstamping strengthens the argument that the law was about gun control, and not "just" about helping the police, which was the argument they wanted the public to swallow.

 

[TimSr]

I don't know if such is still the case today, but it wasn't that long ago that after years of gun registrations in various localities, NO crime had ever been solved with the use of a gun registration, so the idea registering billions of rounds of ammo would be any more effective is laughable.

 

[KyJim]

I don't know if such is still the case today, but it wasn't that long ago that after years of gun registrations in various localities, NO crime had ever been solved with the use of a gun registration, so the idea registering billions of rounds of ammo would be any more effective is laughable.

This is incorrect. I think you are referring to the requirement in some states that a manufacturer send a fired shell casing from each gun imported into that state to be used later for comparison with casings found at crime scenes. This has resulted in few if any "matches" and is a waste of money, as is the microstamping law.

 

[Librarian]

registering billions of rounds of ammo

At one time there were bills that did propose 'ammo serialization' - California had 2005's SB 357, as modified after introduction (You can see it in all its hideous detail if you use the pulldown to get the 4/18/05 version) -

SB 357, as amended, Dunn. Criminal profiteering. Ammunition: serialized handgun ammunition.

Existing law generally regulates the sale of ammunition.

This bill would establish a program requiring serialization of handgun ammunition, as defined, to be enforced by the Department of Justice. The bill would require, commencing July 1, 2007, that handgun ammunition be serialized. The bill would specify the nature of the serialization and provide various exceptions to certain prohibitions in the bill. Manufacture, transfer, and possession, as specified, of nonserialized handgun ammunition after that date would be an offense, as specified.

The bill would require ammunition vendors and manufacturers to register with the Department of Justice, as specified.

The bill would require specified information in connection with handgun ammunition transactions be recorded and maintained by the vendor and manufacturer. Willful failure to comply with certain record requirements by a vendor would be an offense. Provision of false information to a vendor by a prospective ammunition purchaser would be an offense. Manufacturers who fail to comply with certain registry and record keeping requirements would be liable for civil penalties, as specified. Persons who obliterate the serialization on assembled ammunition or bullets would guilty of an offense.

Eventually that bill was given the 'gut and amend' treatment, and passed as a bill about something else entirely.

But that's not 'microstamping'; that silliness is Penal Code 31910

31910.

As used in this part, “unsafe handgun” means any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, for which any of the following is true:
...
(7) (A) Commencing January 1, 2010,
for all semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015,

it is not designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol,

etched or otherwise imprinted in two or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol,

and that are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired,

provided that the Department of Justice certifies that the technology used to create the imprint is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions.

The DOJ did make that last determination in 2013 here.

 

[Metal god]

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 is being enforced . In fact I now own a Ruger SR45 because of the law . I went to the gun store last year to buy a SR9c but was told it was no longer on the roster . It had been removed 10 days earlier . There was a note/sign on the SR45 stating only 16 days left until it was off the list , So I bought one only because I had plan to buy one at some point and if i didn't buy it then I never be able to . I could go on and on about guns I wanted and would have bought . The Ruger SR 1911 would be in my safe right now if not for the roster/list . I went to buy one as soon as they came out . Turns out they were not on the list and never will be even though there are other brands and models that are the same gun still on the list

Right after Peruta went in are favor I started looking for a good CCW . I looked on line at XDs , PPQ, Sig forget the model and others . Almost all were off the list . I ended up buying a M&P shield because that was going off the list in 30 days when I bought it . Turns out the shield stayed on the list for now . Smith must of paid the cash to keep it on there . That was great business move seeing how it was one of only a coulpe good small CCW handguns left available in CA .

The roster is garbage . The safe gun act "please"

 

[62coltnavy]

As long as a gun is unchanged, it can stay on the roster by payment of the annual $200 fee. There is a special Shield model made specifically for the California market, and given the costs associated with required modification to meet the pre-microstamping rules, it will be staying on the roster for some time.
Ruger on the other hand, has withdrawn all of its pistols from the California market. I understand that there is one still on the roster, but it is no longer manufactured and will likely drop off when the registration expires.
If Glock ever stops manufacturing Gen IIIs in its Austrian plant, Glocks will drop off the roster, since it cannot sell either the American built Gen IIIs or its Gen IVs in California. Similarly, Springfield can only sell its XD model from its Croatian polymer pistols, but not the XDm or XDS. I haven't checked on its 1911s, but as long as changes are limited to visual changes, they will continue to be sold, same as with the Colt 80 Series. Colt can also sell its 1873 SAA, but I don't think any other models are on the roster. I'm not sure that Colt cares.
We will not be seeing any of Sig's new models, and the selection we get is rather limited. I know there is a California version of the P238, but I've never actually seen one in the wild.

 

[HarrySchell]

You can add the new Browning 85%-scale 1911 in .380 ACP (and the Glock in .380) to the prohibited list.

Everything is going according to plan.

I don't recall that AG Harris had an engineering degree and manufacturing experience to determine that the microstamping technology is feasible and effective to serve its intended purpose.

Some people add stuff to their resume; she omitted this expertise, I guess. What a modest lady.