Sad Day for California

it would be impossible to enforce laws against changing the firing pin without...

let's hear it...

Making the firing pin a "firearm" (same as a lower receiver) and Registration!
 
What am I missing here... I read the article, but don't see how this would work on both soft and hard cased ammo, or is all the printing totally on the primer?
 
it would be impossible to enforce laws against changing the firing pin without...

let's hear it...

Making the firing pin a "firearm" (same as a lower receiver) and Registration!
Click to expand...
More importantly, what number of people who go through the NICS system, get a micro-stamped firing pin, and change it to remain legal commit violent crime?
:confused:

Lets stop illegal activity by limiting legal activity. :rolleyes:
 
The only answer

Is to move out of calif. Gun laws will continue to get worse until they have the most restrictive laws in the country. It's my opinion that making "assault rifles" illegal after they were legally purchased is morally wrong. If something is legal when you do it, how can they criminalize it after the fact?
 
The only answer Is to move out of calif.
Click to expand...
That isn't an answer at all. There are good people fighting to fix things there, and that mentality cheapens what they do.

Furthermore, packing up and leaving isn't always an option when considering things like family and career.
 
51.50 said:
Is to move out of calif. Gun laws will continue to get worse until they have the most restrictive laws in the country. It's my opinion that making "assault rifles" illegal after they were legally purchased is morally wrong. If something is legal when you do it, how can they criminalize it after the fact?
Click to expand...
Please report to Building 73, Room 28, for reprogramming.

You obviously don't understand. They didn't criminalize the purchase of a so-called "assault weapon" after the fact. The original purchase remains legal. "All" they did was make it illegal for the purchasers to continue to possess those evil, black instruments of mass destruction. In the twisted minds of those who write such laws, the concept of "uncompensated taking" is irrelevant "if it might save just one life."

Now ... get with the program.
 
it would be impossible to enforce laws against changing the firing pin without...

let's hear it...

Making the firing pin a "firearm" (same as a lower receiver) and Registration
Click to expand...

This would apply going forward, additionally, handguns(legal ones that is) are already registered in CA. Given that the imprinted information is the same pertinent information that on the receiver no separate step would be required.

While I generally agree with the premise(of low enforcement potential), in practice it would be enforceable to a greater extent than other schemes outside of CA alone. Due to the nature of the roster, only a limited number of handguns would require it at first, and updated and re-rostered models would be easily determined by a serial check. It would take years(if not decades), before the mix of guns that need the microstamping and those that do not in the state was to a point that it would complicate enforcement.

AFAIK, there is no portion of the law that would require retroactively converting already owned firearms. The biggest issue would be those firearms brought in by new residents which if had they been purchased in CA would have required the microstamping ability. However, assuming they comply with the law and register, there would be a record of that specific firearm being exempt or whatever provision there is for new residents.
 
What does this mean for firearm maintenance? If a pistol was acquired that had the microstamping firing pin, what is the obligation when it wears or breaks. Does it have to be replaced with a microstamping firing pin? Does it mean you can never upgrade the firing pin to a titanium or other premium one? Does the stamping occur at all levels of firing pin strike, that is are light "target" mainsprings enough to stamp the code or does it require a very hard hit? Have any manufacturers announced any plan to sell into CA in the future?
Or does this pretty much kill the CA new pistol market?

It is amazing that we allow our legislators to pass laws about which they know nothing of the technology, issues, consequences, or efficacy. And they refuse to have open, balanced hearings to be exposed to these facts.
 
It looks from the write-up linked in the OP that micro stamping is only required when a new semi-auto is added to the list of approved guns. So any gun currently on the list can be sold without micro stamping. If that is true then the only effect of this law is that no gun not already on the list is ever going to get sold in CA.
 
Finally found the law. Since it is a search link I am not sure how long it will be valid.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=2580476820+195+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

The new section from 2007 is below:

(7) Commencing January 1, 2010, for all semiautomatic pistols that
are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 12131, 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 Attorney
General may also approve a method of equal or greater reliability and
effectiveness in identifying the specific serial number of a firearm
from spent cartridge casings discharged by that firearm than that
which is set forth in this paragraph, to be thereafter required as
otherwise set forth by this paragraph where the Attorney General
certifies that this new method is also unencumbered by any patent
restrictions. Approval by the Attorney General shall include notice
of that fact via regulations adopted by the Attorney General for
purposes of implementing that method for purposes of this paragraph.
The microscopic array of characters required by this section shall
not be considered the name of the maker, model, manufacturer's
number, or other mark of identification, including any distinguishing
number or mark assigned by the Department of Justice, within the
meaning of Sections 12090 and 12094.
Click to expand...

So it looks like only new pistols (perhaps from Jan 1, 2010 and not yesterday) being added to the list need the marking ability and it is specifically not considered a gun serial number, so defacement laws should not apply. I would hope that no gun manufacture ever sells a gun in CA meeting these requirements.
 
The law was written but not in effect, the patent for the technology was kept out of reach by the good folks over at Calguns. It is unclear at this point why they've proceeded with putting it into effect. It is possible that alternate technologies have made the same process available that are not under the original patent.
 
If I'm not mistaken (though I may well be), someone (the Calguns Foundation?) tried to pay the fees on the patent to keep the technology patented so that it couldn't be further developed, but the payment was refused because Calguns didn't own the patent. Thus, the patent expired and the genie's out of the bottle now.

If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.
 
AFAIK, the patent was extended(By CGF), and there were no issues at the time of the extension. Hopefully Librarian stops back by, he can probably clarify and or expand on the situation. A cursory search didn't show any indications that the patent renewal was rejected.
 
Once the courts allowed some infringement, then infringement will only be limited by the imagination of the infringers. The amendment is the only one with is own standard of review written right in to it.

Even a new, more strongly worded amendment wouldn't survive the willful abrogation we have today. Unless there is a series of rulings from SCOTUS broad enough to eviscerate a significant number of overreaching, obvious attempts to suppress the right, I fear it will be in permanent decline.

The fact is that legislatures, especially state legislatures, can pass new laws at 50 times the rate that the courts can smack them down.
 
Not going to create a thread as some of the article is speaking of the micro stamping.

But I am shocked...well not really, but California passed a $50 permit fee just to purchase ammunition now? Wow.

Here is the article.

In the article is also states several SB that have been approved.
 
I think what we have here are schemes by lobbyists to make money. They represent special interest groups who have developed a technology without demand and filed a pattent. Then they lobby a politician to write a law to force adoption of the technology by all gun makers like firing pin imprints which are not a permanent feature of a gun. All of a sudden a worthless patent is worth a lot of money. I personally feel a smart gun is actually a more dangerous gun. Anything electronic is likely to wear out, break or fail due to loss of power over time. If the technology really was a good idea the military and police agencies would be all over it to arm their people. Police can buy pretty much any gun they like off list while the rest of us are prohibited from having equal rights. Why is this a good idea if the guns they are buying off list were not "safe" to have?
 
Well, if those laws end up passing before I'm back in Pendleton, I won't be able to get a few guns on my wish list. I hate that I have to live there for another couple years, but hopefully I'll be able to purchase ammo online. I think the part that upsets me the most is the ammo tax. I see absolutely no logic behind it that would leave me to believe it is aimed at illegal gun owners. I can't wait to get out of the state, but I'll keep fighting the good fight once I get back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top