Microstamping?

peggysue · May 2, 2016, 06:16 AM

I was sitting here this morning and recalled the Micro stamping requirement in California from 2007 and even New York is considering. I did a Google search and found limited information on it. It seemed to be in effect and new firearms are not coming into California.
Anyone who maybe lives in that state know what is going on with it.

Thanks

peggysue · May 2, 2016, 07:46 PM

Kept on digging and found this about it. I Hope it does not spread to other states. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...1192747&page=2

peggysue · May 3, 2016, 05:34 PM

Good job peggysue.

CowTowner · May 6, 2016, 10:25 AM

^^^What she said. Good Job, peggysue

peggysue · May 6, 2016, 05:34 PM

thanks

Shenna9220 · May 7, 2016, 08:00 AM

Thanks for this. I was not aware of this and now you got me reading everything I could find. It appears no new pistols will be sold in Ca. Since none of the manufactures have adapted this. Actually this is a good thing because other states like Maryland are watching to see if it's effective, so I hope the manufactures don't do anything. Yes, shooter in Ca will suffer, but I see it as taking one for the team.

**44 AMP** · May 8, 2016, 11:27 AM

Back when this was originally proposed, there were bills introduced in several states, all essentially identical, and lobby for by the same group, one that was shown to have ties with the owner of the patented microstamping process.

Passed in CA, challenged, and upheld, with the adjustment to the original law that it could not be enforced until "microstamping" was no longer patent protected technology.

The entire thing seems to have been a slick boondoggle aimed at making money for the patent owner. After all, if the LAW requires people to buy your product, and you are the sole supplier, its a big money maker.

Ruger (and some others, IIRC) simply decided they aren't playing that game, are not going to retool their factories to comply with the CA law, and are simply not going to market their products in CA.

Sucks for the people of CA, but they did vote the people who passed the law into office.....

62coltnavy · May 18, 2016, 12:27 AM

No, this boondoggle will not make any money for the patent holder. The statute (among other provisions) required that the technology be "generally available." Technology encumbered by a patent does not meet this definition. To allow that statute to go into effect, the patent owner did not renew his patent, so CalGuns did. This worked only temporarily; the patent owner waived his patent, so he can make no money off of it. This allowed AG Kamala Harris to declare that the technology for microstamping was generally available, and thus she declared the statute to be operative. As a result, no new pistols (the law does not apply to revolvers) may be sold in Ca without compliance with the mandate, nor may pistols that have been "materially changed." To make matters worse, the AG (an avid anti-gunner) has broadly defined "material change," such that a change in the material or manufacturing method of a part is sufficient to trigger the requirement. In the case of Ruger, it changed the method of manufacture of the slide lock/slide release from forged to MIM, and found itself dumped from the roster of approved handguns. Colt has updated its manufacturing techniques, now using computer controlled milling machines, and as a consequence can sell only a Commander pistol (not affected by the change) and the Pythin revolver. And so on.

There are two pending cases attacking the microstamping law. One, sponsored by the NRA and various amici manufacturers, has attacked the provisions mandating loaded chamber indicators, mag disconnects, and the microstamping requirement, arguing that these devices do not make the firearms "safe" within the meaning of the statute as originally enacted, and the third requirement has no connection to safety at all. It lost, and the case is on appeal.

The second suit, which I have not heard about for some time, attacked only the microstamping requirement, arguing that the existing technology did not fulfill the requirements of the statute. Specifically, the statute requires that a unique identifier be stamped in two locations on a spent casing, and the fact of the matter is that the existing technology stamps the identifier only on the primer. The State argued that the law could be construed as allowing the number to be stamped in two places on the primer, an argument the judge wasn't buying. However, as there were multiple issues of disputed facts, the court set the matter for trial. I have not heard anything since. It is promising to note that the judge did not believe the state was playing a winning hand. In the interim, the law remains in effect, a motion for preliminary injunction having been denied.

May 2, 2016, 06:16 AM	#1
peggysue Junior member Join Date: May 20, 2014 Posts: 1,835	Microstamping? I was sitting here this morning and recalled the Micro stamping requirement in California from 2007 and even New York is considering. I did a Google search and found limited information on it. It seemed to be in effect and new firearms are not coming into California. Anyone who maybe lives in that state know what is going on with it. Thanks

May 6, 2016, 10:25 AM	#4
CowTowner Senior Member Join Date: October 17, 2007 Location: Cowtown of course! Posts: 1,747	^^^What she said. Good Job, peggysue __________________ NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor *“Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......”* President John F. Kennedy

May 8, 2016, 11:27 AM	#7
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,839	Back when this was originally proposed, there were bills introduced in several states, all essentially identical, and lobby for by the same group, one that was shown to have ties with the owner of the patented microstamping process. Passed in CA, challenged, and upheld, with the adjustment to the original law that it could not be enforced until "microstamping" was no longer patent protected technology. The entire thing seems to have been a slick boondoggle aimed at making money for the patent owner. After all, if the LAW requires people to buy your product, and you are the sole supplier, its a big money maker. Ruger (and some others, IIRC) simply decided they aren't playing that game, are not going to retool their factories to comply with the CA law, and are simply not going to market their products in CA. Sucks for the people of CA, but they did vote the people who passed the law into office..... __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

May 2, 2016, 07:46 PM	#2
peggysue Junior member Join Date: May 20, 2014 Posts: 1,835	Kept on digging and found this about it. I Hope it does not spread to other states. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...1192747&page=2

May 3, 2016, 05:34 PM	#3
peggysue Junior member Join Date: May 20, 2014 Posts: 1,835	Good job peggysue.

May 6, 2016, 05:34 PM	#5
peggysue Junior member Join Date: May 20, 2014 Posts: 1,835	thanks

May 7, 2016, 08:00 AM	#6
Shenna9220 Member Join Date: January 31, 2016 Location: Zephyrhills,Fl Posts: 78	Thanks for this. I was not aware of this and now you got me reading everything I could find. It appears no new pistols will be sold in Ca. Since none of the manufactures have adapted this. Actually this is a good thing because other states like Maryland are watching to see if it's effective, so I hope the manufactures don't do anything. Yes, shooter in Ca will suffer, but I see it as taking one for the team.

May 18, 2016, 12:27 AM	#8
62coltnavy Senior Member Join Date: February 1, 2011 Posts: 356	No, this boondoggle will not make any money for the patent holder. The statute (among other provisions) required that the technology be "generally available." Technology encumbered by a patent does not meet this definition. To allow that statute to go into effect, the patent owner did not renew his patent, so CalGuns did. This worked only temporarily; the patent owner waived his patent, so he can make no money off of it. This allowed AG Kamala Harris to declare that the technology for microstamping was generally available, and thus she declared the statute to be operative. As a result, no new pistols (the law does not apply to revolvers) may be sold in Ca without compliance with the mandate, nor may pistols that have been "materially changed." To make matters worse, the AG (an avid anti-gunner) has broadly defined "material change," such that a change in the material or manufacturing method of a part is sufficient to trigger the requirement. In the case of Ruger, it changed the method of manufacture of the slide lock/slide release from forged to MIM, and found itself dumped from the roster of approved handguns. Colt has updated its manufacturing techniques, now using computer controlled milling machines, and as a consequence can sell only a Commander pistol (not affected by the change) and the Pythin revolver. And so on. There are two pending cases attacking the microstamping law. One, sponsored by the NRA and various amici manufacturers, has attacked the provisions mandating loaded chamber indicators, mag disconnects, and the microstamping requirement, arguing that these devices do not make the firearms "safe" within the meaning of the statute as originally enacted, and the third requirement has no connection to safety at all. It lost, and the case is on appeal. The second suit, which I have not heard about for some time, attacked only the microstamping requirement, arguing that the existing technology did not fulfill the requirements of the statute. Specifically, the statute requires that a unique identifier be stamped in two locations on a spent casing, and the fact of the matter is that the existing technology stamps the identifier only on the primer. The State argued that the law could be construed as allowing the number to be stamped in two places on the primer, an argument the judge wasn't buying. However, as there were multiple issues of disputed facts, the court set the matter for trial. I have not heard anything since. It is promising to note that the judge did not believe the state was playing a winning hand. In the interim, the law remains in effect, a motion for preliminary injunction having been denied.