Smith & Wesson, Ruger no longer submitting guns for approval to CA

Lol, I have no issue with wearing out a firing pin! (Except maybe price / availability of ammo) I would think the honest world would be pointing them out quickly if they did exist, and I had honestly never even heard of it until google news today announced the S&W/Ruger move.

I have however often wondered about that "test round" that comes with most firearms I have purchased new, and where the other half of it *really* goes.

But hey, if I were not at least somewhat paranoid, I would feel the need to own guns, no?
 
I don't understand why the state government is exempt from microstamping.
LEO's will still purchase firearms without it.
All of us citizens are very methodicaly being weakened of our rights to hold our own to any future supression. No hi-cap mags is a good example.
10 rounds now and here in the future, it will be 7 max. Then 5.
It is what it is I guess.
In the end, the law breakers won't feel the crunch.
I think I will have some cheese with my whine.
 
Posts; LE sales, Barrett....

I read over the first post but not all the forum member reply messages.
Do any TFL members know if either S&W and/or Strum-Ruger Inc will continue any sales to sworn LE agencies or groups within CA?
I can understand the need or legal requirement to service signed contracts like S&W's new agreement to arm the Los Angeles CA sheriff's dept(LA County) with M&P service pistols.
But would new police weapons not apply to the CA laws? One report I read online said LE agency purchases were exempt from state laws. :rolleyes:

Smith & Wesson and Ruger among other firearm brands could show some real courage & 2A support by not selling any new weapons in CA or obtaining new government contracts the way Barrett did after the .50BMG rifle ban.
I doubt they will due to the huge amount of $$$ but it would send the right message to the anti-gun politicos & LE chiefs who hate guns.
 
We took a good look at this when the idea first surfaced back in 2006 or so. At that time, a number of states had bills introduced to require microstamping. Turns out that all these bills were from the same group, one connected with the owner of the microstamping patent. Trust me folks, there is no more certain way to fortune than to have the government pass a law that people must buy your product!

As I understand it, the microstamping process would "etch" part of the gun (usually said to be the firing pin) so it would transfer a unique mark to each and every round of ammo fired from that gun. With a list of what gun has what mark, and who owns that gun, the police would have a much easier time apprehending criminals. Well, that was the theory they proposed as the benefit to microstamping, anyway.

One idea floated at the time was that only the police should be required to use microstamping guns. That way, no time/money would be wasted investigating police officers, if no microstamped casings were found at the crime scene....Even in CA, that one didn't fly....

In spite of reason and logic, the CA govt decided to pass a law (big surprise), the ONLY thing that prevented instant implementation was the fact that the process was patented and proprietary.

Apparently now that has changed, so the law goes into effect...

I can foresee a number of unintended consequences of this law. But I do not think that ultimately making legal gun ownership more difficult and more expensive is an unintended consequence. I think it was very much deliberate.
 
It's my understanding that one of the reasons that microstamping is virtually worthless is that the markings on the firing pin would likely deform or wear within a relatively low number of rounds, a few hundred or maybe a thousand. IOW, you wouldn't really have to identify a pistol with microstamping. You'd just need to shoot maybe a thousand rounds through it before selling it.
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct. Firing pins wear, and what happens if I need a new one? Does the manufacturer have to custom stamp one, and how much will that cost?

Maryland ran a fingerprinting system known as MD-IBIS for several years. Like the New York system, it could not be credited with solving much of anything. In fact, the post-mortem noted:

one year later, the Maryland State Police Forensic Sciences Division reversed course, citing “the failure of the MD-IBIS to provide any meaningful hits.” The report found that the program “has not met expectations and does not aid in the Mission statement of the Department of State Police.” It recommended that the data collection be suspended and that MD-IBIS staff be transferred to the DNA database unit.
Click to expand...

The report concluded that MD-IBIS,

had not proven to be a time saving tool for the firearms examiner or an investigative enhancement to the criminal investigator (…) it has simply failed in the mission and vision concepts originally established for the program.
Click to expand...
 
Frankly, there are more important issues even for me and gun rights are VERY important to me.
Click to expand...

There is a reason why we should ALWAYS vote for gun rights: it is a simple litmus test of a politician. It predicts, with very significant accuracy, how a politician will behave in office.

We are winning politically because so many are single issue voters (in pro-gun states). We swing elections when we bother to show up. Tom Gresham of Gun Talk speaks about this frequently on his radio show.
 
Last edited:
It predicts, with very significant accuracy, how a politician will behave in office.
Click to expand...
Not really. Both my senators have high ratings from the NRA, but their record on things like SOPA, FISA, and the PATRIOT Act is absolutely appalling. Giving the right answers on an NRA questionnaire isn't rocket science. It's a way to entice voters, but it doesn't equate to sticking up for civil liberties across the board.
 
There is a reason why we should ALWAYS vote for gun rights: it is a simple litmus test of a politician. It predicts, with very significant accuracy, how a politician will behave in office.

We are winning politically because so many are single issue voters (in pro-gun states). We swing elections when we bother to show up. Tom Gresham of Gun Talk speaks about this frequently on his radio show.
Click to expand...

This just simply isn't true. I posted earlier that gun control is ranked number 11 in the most important non-economic issues. The poll didn't say whether or not those voters were voting for or against politicians that support the 2A, simply that gun control is a very low priority for the American people. So, it wouldn't surprise me much to discover that quite a few of those that "single issue" voters are also antis.
 
I would like to point out that the NRA rates politicians ONLY on their voting record on gun issues. Everything else in the political spectrum is not considered.

your representative could be a rabid socialist with fascist leanings (or anything else, of any persuasion) , but if they have voted favorably to gun owners rights, they will get a good grade from the NRA.
 
When the gun companies refuse to make special guns to comply with specific laws, all of a sudden a "reasonable" gun law becomes draconian. And draconian laws are much more likely to be opposed or overturned.
Click to expand...
This is really where the main hope lies, IMO.

Maybe the voters will change their minds, but probably not. However, if enough gun companies follow Ruger and S&W, there's some real potential for a future lawsuit to overturn the law when supply becomes an issue.
 
JohnKSa said:
Maybe the voters will change their minds, but probably not. However, if enough gun companies follow Ruger and S&W, there's some real potential for a future lawsuit to overturn the law when supply becomes an issue.
Click to expand...
I think this is the only hope for states like California, unfortunately. Once the guns laws get draconian enough maybe there will finally be a public backlash. That's why part of me was rooting for the semi-auto rifle ban to pass, but apparently it was too draconian even for Governor Brown.

44 AMP said:
JohnKSa said:
real potential for a future lawsuit to overturn the law when supply becomes an issue.
Click to expand...
True, but sadly, likely not until then....
Click to expand...
I would think that most gun owners in states like CA would gladly endure a few years of increasingly more restrictive gun laws if it meant there would be an eventual backlash that turned the tide the other way.
 
Where does that leave things? Consumers in California are soon going to have very few choices in pistols. As the largest brands become unavailable, only a few smaller manufacturers will fill the gap, and we can expect to see a corresponding rise in prices.
Click to expand...

Less selection and higher prices equals less guns being sold. This by the way is exactly want the government wanted.
 
Can I ask how this micro stamping legislation wasn't challenged back in the day when it was "too advanced" to exist? Wouldn't such a law, somewhat like demanding that citizens use a car powered by a flux-capacitor rated to 1.21 Gigawatts for 50% of their commuting miles, be construed as an "unreasonable burden"?
I think this duck should have been shot out of the sky by any law intern the day after it passed.
 
Can I ask how this micro stamping legislation wasn't challenged back in the day when it was "too advanced" to exist?
Click to expand...

A form of disguise.

The 'inventor' persuaded the Legislature that the technology did already exist. We secured an implementation delay related to having the tech free from patent restrictions; last May the Attorney General's office issued a memo asserting that problem was solved.

The long story is at the wiki -- http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/The_Safe_Handgun_List
 
Distorted.....

I think part of the problems with these "micro-stamp" bullets/guns seem to be the way so many police chiefs & sheriffs in CA(reportedly over 60) supported micro-stamping systems a few years ago.
If a "micro-stamped" firearm or bullet works 100% & is fully error free then I could see it being practical. If not then the state(CA) & the law enforcement groups should haggle over it.

This micro-stamp system either works or it doesn't. Why all the misinformation & conflicts? :confused:
 
"This micro-stamp system either works or it doesn't. Why all the misinformation & conflicts?"

Wouldn't a criminal just give the firing pin a swipe or 2 with a file to remove the microstamping? I can't imagine this will do anything to either solve or prevent gun crimes.
 
ClydeFrog said:
This micro-stamp system either works or it doesn't. Why all the misinformation & conflicts? :confused:
Click to expand...


Isn't that a little like "Gun control either works or it doesn't. Why all the misinformation and conflicts?"?

Gun control, which includes ballistic fingerprinting and micro stamping, isn't about what works or doesn't work, it's about control.

It doesn't work. It's been tried. We know it doesn't work. It's doesn't matter.

Look at NY's system, Ballistic Fingerprinting. If you buy a new "handgun", it must include a fired shell from the manufacturer. First, there's no law against replacement barrels. $120 and sent right to your house, the system is useless. Second, the definition of "handgun" includes barrel length. So, no barrel, no requirement. Buy a new Encore handgun, must send it to state and get tested, most dealers won't even ship one here BUT buy a handgun *frame* and a separate barrel, it's not a "handgun" since it doesn't have a barrel installed, no test required! The system is useless. Even if you buy a complete gun and send it in for testing, the whole point of the Encore is swapping barrels, none of the additional barrels require testing.

Micro stamping is the same. It was introduced here but pro gun legislators introduced "poison pill" amendments that said that missing or damaged micro stamping was presumed to NOT have been caused by the owner. Even if they hadn't, it's obvious that defeating the micro stamping is easy, fast and cheap or free. If it's on the firing pin, it's literally a $5-$10 uncontrolled part sent right to your house that can be swapped in 5-10 minutes in many guns. If it's in the breach face, it has to be shallow or it will interfere with ejection. It can easily be ground/filled off. Besides, the slide is also an uncontrolled part. $200 or so and sent right to your house, the stamping is gone.

It should be painfully obvious to anyone that these concepts don't work but it's not about whether or not they work.
 
Micro stamping also doesn't have ANY effect if the bad guy uses a revolver.

(ok, it might, if the bad guy ejected his fired brass at the crime scene for the police to find - and how likely it that?)

And there is also a degree of risk to the non criminal...(I know this is going to sound like a bad movie plot, but if I have thought of it, someone else will too...)

Bad guy gets some fired brass from a microstamping gun, and leaves it at the murder scene, making sure he leaves no brass from the gun he actually used (revolver?, or ...) This would send the investigation down a dead end, at least for a while, and might even wind up with an innocent man charged with the crime....anyone who shoots a microstamping gun, doesn't retrieve ALL their fired cases, and doesn't have an alibi for every minute of their life is potentially at risk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top