California Microstamping law sent back on appeal

I think it is important to note that the CACP is not representative of law enforcement in general throughout the nation.

But the widespread support of police, as thanks to us for having helped them get the LEOSA passed? Doesn't exist. They used us, they got what they wanted, and they threw us under the bus
Click to expand...

Tons of local chapters of the FOP (a little more conservative than the PBA, which is why I choose them) will happily support national reciprocity. I happily support it if a workable solution can be found. I have some concern over federal mandate over anything (as I have discussed previously), but I have also since changed my mind a little. A federal mandate that dictates its citizens can exercise a constitutional right is appropriate.
 
Don't assume police are stridently pro-RKBA. In many ways they mirror the general populace as compared to the gun world choir.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/01/11/police-views-public-views/

They do support gun ownership more than the general public and the males are against AWBs while the females support.

They are in favor of background checks in various versions.

If you ask about CCW, I'd bet (if it's been studied - I should search) that the police in the major antigun regions and locales probably aren't in favor while the progun areas have progun cops.

It's obvious when you look at counties across the country where you need approval to carry. County and city law (even in places like TX) can be adamantly opposed when they have discretion on permits, NFA items and the like.

I do remember the HR 218 fight and police begged RKBA supporters not to tie it to reciprocity as it would kill the bill but they would fight for it later - never happened.
 
5Whiskey said:
Tons of local chapters of the FOP (a little more conservative than the PBA, which is why I choose them) will happily support national reciprocity.
Click to expand...
"Will" connotes future. When, exactly "will" they "happily support national reciprocity"? National reciprocity is on the table right now, so this would be the time for them to start supporting it. Not some day in the future.

The language of the bill parallels the LEOSA very closely, so police who aren't anti-2A should have no problem suporting it -- it's basically the same language that has been benefiting them since HR218 became the LEOSA.

Glenn E. Meyer said:
I do remember the HR 218 fight and police begged RKBA supporters not to tie it to reciprocity as it would kill the bill but they would fight for it later - never happened.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
I'm going to take a not-so-wild guess that the appellate court will allow enforcement of a microstamping mandate.

Maybe not this time, but it will happen because technology will advance and end the "is it possible?" argument. It will be. On the other arguments, the courts will say that the legislature might reasonably conclude this is a good idea so they can't say no.

So it will happen.

I wonder what will happen with the ever-shrinking "Safe Gun List" in Cali and Mass? The lack of microstamping is only one way that guns can be "unsafe" and as the requirements get more stringent and the list gets shorter, you eventually arrive at a day when only one new handgun is legal to sell in the state.

That's when we'll finally win on this issue in court, if we do. Meanwhile, write your legislators because that's where you really win.
 
I support the fight against worthless "microstamping" and other laws designed to disarm citizens or price firearms out of civilian hands.
 
Last edited:
Publius, the issue is not necessarily the law itself--as you say, it might be possible in the future to microstamp cases in two separate places as the statute mandates. The issue is that the Attorney General certified that the technology to comply with the statue was available now. But it isn't. The only available technology imprints a unique identifier on the primer when the gun is fired, but the statute requires that the identifier be stampted in two places on the case.

As a result, the certification has blocked the sale of any new models or "materially modified" rostered firearms. To add to insult to injury, the DOJ has very broadly construed what constitutes a "material" change, as Ruger found out to its dismay when it modified a takedown lever or pin from forged to MIM. The DOJ said the change was material, and thus the firearm, otherwise unchanged, was required to comply with the microstamping law, which of course it could not. Since it could not, it could not be sold in California. Colt changed its manufacturing of 1911s to new CNC machinery--yes, material change. The only firearms Colt is authorized to sell in California (last I checked) was the Python and the Colt Commander (which did not get a new manufacturing line). Thus, as manufacturers change, modify and improve firearms, they necessarily fall off the Roster as there is not one manufacdturer who possesses the technology to comply with the AG's improperly certified microstamping law.

The state Court of Appeal held that there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury as to whether the certification was improper because the conditions of the statute are not satisfied by extant technology. If the jury finds that the certification was improper, the microstamping rule is not necessarily eliminated, but instead suspended until the conditions for the law to take effect are met.
 
Since I last posted on this case, the State appealed the decision of the Court of appeal to the California Supreme court. That court has granted review. The date for filing of the State's opening brief on appeal has been extended twice, and is now June 21, 2017. The issue, as framed by the court is: This case presents the following issues: (1) Can a statute be challenged on the ground that compliance with it is allegedly impossible? (2) If so, how is the trial court to make that determination?
 
My very low opinion of cops has been well earned. Among the reasons why is leading by example.
Just as a very mild example, I'm supposed to follow speed limits, stop at the sign and use turn signals. Without lights and/or sirens being on, so are the cops. Good luck on ever seeing that happen...

Microstamping is just stupid. Even if the gun isn't stolen, or pre dating the law, quick stroke of a file and it's all gone. Or pick up your cases or use a revolver...
And what happens if a money conscious killer uses cases collected at a range to reload his pre law murder weapon with?

I can easily think of a more reliable way to add that traceability to fired ammo. But I'm not gonna give my enemies another tool to use against me.
 
Bluecthomas My very low opinion of cops has been well earned. Among the reasons why is leading by example.
Just as a very mild example, I'm supposed to follow speed limits, stop at the sign and use turn signals. Without lights and/or sirens being on, so are the cops. Good luck on ever seeing that happen..
Click to expand...

apparantly so since this is the second post of yours i have come across on the subject. Perhaps some therapy would help you to overcome the trauma.
 
Lawsuit that's filed, if justice prevails, might improve my opinion on judges...

Nothing gonna change my opinion of cops after what the supposed protector and servers did to me a hard-working tax paying law abiding victim of a crime.

If a rapist expected his victims to say thanks, what would you think of the rapist?
What would you think appropriate punishment would be?
 
Your and my opinion of the police isn't relevant to the discussion.

I would point out that holding a bad opinion of an entire group of people based on the bad actions of a few is exactly what anti-gunners and other bigots do. We should do better.

Holding the bad actors personally responsible for their acts is entirely correct. Painting all with the same broad brush, isn't.

The point with the microstamping law is that it was passed and made law. It doesn't have to work, doesn't have to actually do what it's sponsors claimed, it doesn't matter if there are simple easy workarounds. IT's the law, now, and the only way to challenge it is through the law, or having the legislature repeal it (which isn't bloody likely in the forseeable future).

It doesn't matter if it isn't cheaply or easily accomplished, the law doesn't care about that. (though I'm certain the sponsors counted on the expense to further their real aims)

What matters to the law is if microstamping is legally possible.

As I understand it, when the law was passed the technology was still under patent protection to a single company, and therefore, "not readily available". Immediate implementation was challenged in court, and the court agreed to stay implementing the law until the tech was "readily available"

This lasted a while, but when the patent ran out, someone in CA govt (attorney general??) declared the tech readily available, so the law could be implemented.

This also was challenged in court, the argument being that despite what one official decrees, the tech is NOT (yet) readily available. This has now reached the CA Supreme Court and thanks to 62coltnavy we now know arguments will be heard beginning in late june this year. (unless, of course, postponed by the court before then:rolleyes:)
 
Unsurprisingly, the case has been delayed. the state has been granted another 30 day extension to file its opening brief, which now isn't due until the end of June. Plaintiffs will then have thirty days (subject to extensions, of course) to file their brief, and the State will have another 20 days to file its rebuttal. There is always the possibility that amicus briefs will be files, but since the plaintiff here is the representative of the industry as a whole, it is iffy whether individual manufacturers will chime in separately, since the penultimate question is whether anyone gets to challenge the certification, and the ultimate question being what standards are to be applied by a trial court in determining the issue of whether the existing technology can actually do what the statute requires it to do.

The latter question is more arcane than it might facially appear. While governmental actions are subject to challenge, most governmental action is reviewed by a trial court not as to whether the opinion was right or wrong, but whether the official "prejudicially abused his or her discretion" in making the determination being challenged. Discretion is abused whenever, in its exercise, the official exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances before it being considered. The burden is on the party complaining to establish an abuse of discretion....”
To put that another way, it is arguably possible for the AG to have been wrong (factually) in issuing her certification, but also possible for her not to have abused her discretion in deciding a question of fact.

The final result will be interesting.
 
Interesting in the sense of the Chinese/Hebrew curse??
(May you live in interesting times!) ;)

OK, so, in small words (that are easier for me to type :rolleyes:);

The AG's decision could be found to be wrong, BUT, the AG could be found to have made no error in making the wrong decision??

Is that about right?

IF so, where does it go, then???
 
Let me put it this way--the deck is stacked in favor of upholding official action. An official act/decision will be overturned pretty much only if it is entirely illogical and irrational. (Insert flowery language: "exceeds all bounds of reason.") If a "reasonable" official could have made the same decision, even if the decision is wrong, the decision stands.
Even if this standard is applied, the case still has a pretty good chance of success, because by no measure does any existing technology stamp a casing in two places as explicitly required by the statute. The technology upon which the AG relied stamps the primer only and no other location. Not only is it arguable that a stamp on the primer does not suffice as being on the case, but it is abundantly clear that one stamp is not two separate places.
 
Although I agree with you, you have to look at what state this is taking place in and who controls the government/courts..

I think the outcome is self explainatory.
 
Micro-stamping has been shown to be a failed technology. The stamping on the firing pin is difficult to read on the first few rounds fired and it wears rapidly. After a box of shells (50) have been fired it is unlikely to be able to be read at all.
Since criminal have been known to file or grind serial numbers taking a piece of 600 grit emery paper to the firing pin is more than likely. The law does nothing to prevent crime or make it easier to trace the gun. what it does do is add an extra $100 to the price of the gun.
 
Responding to 45 AMP, oral arguments are a long way off. What happens in late June is that the State files its opening brief as to why it thinks, within the parameters of the issue accepted for review, the Court of Appeal erred. Respondent (here plaintiffs) will have a MINIMUM 30 days to file an opposition brief (called a Respondent's Brief), which time can be extended via a stipulation or by an application to the court. (Such extensions are common.) It could easily be 90 days or more before the Respondent's Brief is filed, which takes us into September or October. When it is filed, the State will then get 20 days to file a Reply, taking us into at least October or November. Then the Supreme Court reads the briefs (and any amicus briefs if submitted), does its own research, and ultimately at some date in the future sets oral argument. There is no telling how far in the future that will be--it could, quite frankly, be a couple of years. (I don't think it will be that long, but have only a WAG to go on.) After oral argument, the Court must issue an opinion within 90 days. Consequently, we will not likely see a decision at the earliest until a year from now, and more likely up to two years from now.

But that's not the end of it. The case has never been tried, having been decided on a motion for summary judgment. If the Supreme Court upholds the Court of Appeals decision, then the case gets remanded back to the original trial court for a trial. That means more months of delay. I think we can also safely assume that if the AG's decision is overturned, the State will appeal if for no other reason that to delay the reappearance of now barred semiautomatic handguns on the California market.

So don't get your hopes up for an early decision. To give perspective, I read today that Peruta has been pending in the federal court system for nine years.
 
The state filed its opening brief on the merits. so far I have not been able to locate a place where it is accessible on line, so I don't k now what it argued.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top