some alarming news to those who are putting off getting pistols, apparently california will be issuing a new law making it so all semi auto pistols will be required to have a firing pin which puts their serial number on the bullet casing (this fails a lot) but it will drive up the cost of hand guns, or make hand gun makers pull OUT of CA, so get em while you can, this starts next year. also rifles buyers will be required to take safety courses (at extra cost) before buying a rifle
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
CA new laws to be enacted regarding pistols
- Thread starter Duzell
- Start date
speedrrracer
New member
To which law do you refer?
Microstamping law
I would assume he means the micro-stamping law that finally went into effect, I think this summer. There was a long thread on it, but I can not figure out how to link to the thread on my iPad.
In any case, the law keeps any new pistols from being added to the list of allowed pistols without a micro-stamping firing pin. So pistols currently on the list can be sold. I would think that very few pistols will ever be added to the list.
I would assume he means the micro-stamping law that finally went into effect, I think this summer. There was a long thread on it, but I can not figure out how to link to the thread on my iPad.
In any case, the law keeps any new pistols from being added to the list of allowed pistols without a micro-stamping firing pin. So pistols currently on the list can be sold. I would think that very few pistols will ever be added to the list.
speedrrracer
New member
If it's microstamping, then the OP is incorrect.
The microstamping changes to the roster allow all currently rostered guns to remain on the roster (as long as they continue to pay their blackmail money to the state). Only new models, and models which fell off the roster need to exhibit this B___S___.
Of note is that microstamping is already being challenged in court -- it was added to the extant roster case, Pena v Cid
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/infobuls/2013-BOF-03.pdf
http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/20...-requirement-in-federal-civil-rights-lawsuit/
The microstamping changes to the roster allow all currently rostered guns to remain on the roster (as long as they continue to pay their blackmail money to the state). Only new models, and models which fell off the roster need to exhibit this B___S___.
Of note is that microstamping is already being challenged in court -- it was added to the extant roster case, Pena v Cid
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/infobuls/2013-BOF-03.pdf
http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/20...-requirement-in-federal-civil-rights-lawsuit/
Armed_Chicagoan
New member
What a senseless bill! One light swipe with a sharpening stone and there goes the microstamp. I doubt criminals would be affected at all, assuming manufacturers even bothered.
Wreck-n-Crew
New member
Just from a forensic side of things, you can match the casing to the weapon anyway. How is this that much different? The idea that a law abiding citizen's firearm, still in his/her possession is the most unlikely weapon to be used in a crime.
I am not familiar with California law but are all handguns in need of registering by law? Either way it is silly. Big waste of time and money.
I would give them credit for trying to think outside the box and making an attempt at solving more crime, but this reeks of Anti Mentality because it wasn't thought out by anyone with a realistic view of how effective it would be or how expensive for the consumer.
If this is the best answer government leaders can come up with to reduce gun crime in California, it clearly shows how actual enforcing of the laws on the books is ignored from the get go. Not surprised.
I feel for citizens of California, but thankful and surprised they have any rights to own or have a firearm.
Does it apply to new handguns only?
I am not familiar with California law but are all handguns in need of registering by law? Either way it is silly. Big waste of time and money.
I would give them credit for trying to think outside the box and making an attempt at solving more crime, but this reeks of Anti Mentality because it wasn't thought out by anyone with a realistic view of how effective it would be or how expensive for the consumer.
If this is the best answer government leaders can come up with to reduce gun crime in California, it clearly shows how actual enforcing of the laws on the books is ignored from the get go. Not surprised.
I feel for citizens of California, but thankful and surprised they have any rights to own or have a firearm.
Does it apply to new handguns only?
It doesn't even take that. Normal wear and tear will distort the pattern.One light swipe with a sharpening stone and there goes the microstamp.
62coltnavy
New member
Actually, forensics cannot reliably match a casing to a gun. Have you bought a new gun that came with a fired casing? The whole point of that exercise was to have casings to add to a data base of casings so that the matching could be accomplished. Guess what? New York established the data base, and in something like 10 years and millions of dollars were unable to successfully match a single casing to a crime gun.
The essence of microstamping (which by the way applies only to pistols not revolvers) is a recognition of the failure of case matching technology. It is supposed to stamp the unique identifier in two places on the casing, one being the primer, the other the case itself. I don't know how they can do the latter, but the tech is supposed to. Anyway, one guy held the patent, and as long as he had exclusive rights for licensing, no guns could be made incorporating it--and no manufacturer was going to pay to license the technology. He allowed the patent to lapse, at which point CalGuns Foundation paid the fee to keep the patent current. This would have prevented the law taking effect--but the inventor waived his patent rights and the point was moot.
Now that the patent is no longer valid, the Cal DOJ has declared that the tech is "generally available" and the law is now in effect according to its terms. As a result, other than pistols that were already in the testing pipeline, no new pistols may be added to the roster without having this technology. And no new pistols have been added since July (and those were grandfathered Colt 1911s). California Attorney General Kamala Harris, a vocal anti-gunner, is loving it. Now when a pistol drops off the roster (usually because it is no longer manufactured and the manufacturer sees no reason to continue paying money to California), that firearm can no longer be sold in this state (except to LEOs and other exempt persons). The only exception (it seems) are C&R pistols that are not required to be listed on the roster.
The essence of microstamping (which by the way applies only to pistols not revolvers) is a recognition of the failure of case matching technology. It is supposed to stamp the unique identifier in two places on the casing, one being the primer, the other the case itself. I don't know how they can do the latter, but the tech is supposed to. Anyway, one guy held the patent, and as long as he had exclusive rights for licensing, no guns could be made incorporating it--and no manufacturer was going to pay to license the technology. He allowed the patent to lapse, at which point CalGuns Foundation paid the fee to keep the patent current. This would have prevented the law taking effect--but the inventor waived his patent rights and the point was moot.
Now that the patent is no longer valid, the Cal DOJ has declared that the tech is "generally available" and the law is now in effect according to its terms. As a result, other than pistols that were already in the testing pipeline, no new pistols may be added to the roster without having this technology. And no new pistols have been added since July (and those were grandfathered Colt 1911s). California Attorney General Kamala Harris, a vocal anti-gunner, is loving it. Now when a pistol drops off the roster (usually because it is no longer manufactured and the manufacturer sees no reason to continue paying money to California), that firearm can no longer be sold in this state (except to LEOs and other exempt persons). The only exception (it seems) are C&R pistols that are not required to be listed on the roster.
In the thread I linked to a few posts back, I mentioned Maryland's failed program. MDIBIS was shut down after huge cost overruns and the fact that it hadn't helped solve a single crime while it was in effect. SAAMI reported that a similar program in New York was also a waste of time.
I find it impossible that legislators in California didn't know this when they pushed the 2007 bill. More likely, they passed it knowing it would be an impediment to firearms ownership. Manufacturers will be slow to adapt the technology (if they do so at all), and prices to the consumer will go up.
They can keep their hands clean by pointing out that it's not a ban.
I find it impossible that legislators in California didn't know this when they pushed the 2007 bill. More likely, they passed it knowing it would be an impediment to firearms ownership. Manufacturers will be slow to adapt the technology (if they do so at all), and prices to the consumer will go up.
They can keep their hands clean by pointing out that it's not a ban.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
No, it's a gun to be newly added to the roster of approved guns. Guns on the roster without the feature can continue to be shipped into and sold in California.Duzell said:its any new gun coming into CA from manufactures. ...
So can we be reasonably assured that no new gun manufacturer will ever comply with this? And for that reason, CA LEO's will have to rely on the G17 Gen4 as the most "modern" firearm they'll ever be able to carry?
At some point, firearm manufacturers are going to have to take a real stand. Although I honestly don't know what "take a stand" really means, but considering the size/scope of the CA gun market, not being able to sell new models of firearms there has to hurt the bottom line of every single firearm manufacturer in the world... and by default, the bottom-line of every single company there is that in some manner is connected with firearms.
One thing this will do is drive the price of used guns through the roof in CA... FFL's can already get $75 for a transfer... wonder how much it will be 2 years from now considering 800k+ new guns were sold in CA last year.
At some point, firearm manufacturers are going to have to take a real stand. Although I honestly don't know what "take a stand" really means, but considering the size/scope of the CA gun market, not being able to sell new models of firearms there has to hurt the bottom line of every single firearm manufacturer in the world... and by default, the bottom-line of every single company there is that in some manner is connected with firearms.
One thing this will do is drive the price of used guns through the roof in CA... FFL's can already get $75 for a transfer... wonder how much it will be 2 years from now considering 800k+ new guns were sold in CA last year.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the approvals expire? If so, we may see the pool of approved guns shrink.No, it's a gun to be newly added to the roster of approved guns. Guns on the roster without the feature can continue to be shipped into and sold in California.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Not really expeire. A gun may be kept on the roster indefinitely as long as the manufacturer pays the annual renewal fee -- around $200 or $250, IIRC.Tom Servo said:Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the approvals expire? If so, we may see the pool of approved guns shrink.
What can happen is that a manufacturer stops making a particular model or makes a change in the model. If a model is discontinued, the manufacturer might let the gun drop off the roster instead of continuing to pay the fee (although H&K as kept the P7M8 on the roster for a number of years after it was discontinued). A change would require a re-certification, and trigger all newer requirements.
So yes, we will see the pool shrink.
Penal Code 32000
32000. (a) Commencing January 1, 2001, any person in this state who
manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state
for sale, keeps for sale, offers or exposes for sale, gives, or lends
any unsafe handgun shall be punished by imprisonment in a county
jail not exceeding one year.
(b) This section shall not apply to any of the following:
...
(4) The sale or purchase of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm
capable of being concealed upon the person, if the pistol, revolver,
or other firearm is sold to, or purchased by, the Department of
Justice, any police department, any sheriff's official, any marshal's
office, the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, the California
Highway Patrol, any district attorney's office, or the military or
naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the
discharge of their official duties. Nor shall anything in this
section prohibit the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of these
agencies of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being
concealed upon the person.
So LEO's are completely exempt from the safe list... which is moot because no agency would authorize on/off-duty wear of any gun that wasn't on it, and I just read that they're exempt from micro-stamping, which apparently is now an integral part of making the safe list.
So, now the question is: "Which gun company caves first?"
So, now the question is: "Which gun company caves first?"