Ca. Microstamping Law

[afone1]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...ostamping-law/ Glad I don't live in Ca. They are essentially trying to ban handguns in that state. Sorry if link is bad. Doing this on my Iphone.

[JWT]

Will the law also ban the resale of grandfathered guns?

[afone1]

If new guns can't be purchased, older ones that are grandfathered in under the microstamping law will cost more, said John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. That takes square aim at the Second Amendment rights of the poor, he said.

it sounds like grandfathered guns could be sold. Of course they would be expensive.

[Librarian]

The lawsuit started in 2009; the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale - http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/ - has been a sore point since it was created.

See http://ia601400.us.archive.org/30/it...44.docket.html for the case files.

The Roster doesn't exactly allow 'grandfathering'; guns already on the Roster need not meet any new requirements created after they were put there. Guns stay on the Roster so long as the manufacturer pays the $200 yearly fee. (Looking at the list of guns at the DOJ web site, you'll see they all 'expire' Jan 1, 2016 - that's just the 'pay the fee by' date.)

'Microstamping' is one of the added requirements; Glocks and whatnot already on the Roster need not have 'microstamping' to renew.

[hartcreek]

So California legislators think that wheel guns leave brass behind and they have never heard of brass catchers and had no thoughts about reloaded ammunition with multiple microstamps and the fact that micro stamps can be negated by a half second with a dremil tool or by simply doing one of those gun torture tests with grit.

[Librarian]

Preaching to the choir, hartcreek.

All of the things you mention have been told to the Legislators in writing and in testimony before committees.

Many people appear to believe California gun laws are about guns.

They're not.

'Guns' are a topic of laws, so legislators can vote for the laws, so those legislators can go back to their electors/voters and say 'see, I am doing something about a problem. Vote for me so I can keep making you safe.'

Votes for gun laws are also one of the ways the parties enforce discipline; legislators vote as they are told, or their own bills die in committee. When that happens, the legislators have nothing to show to the voters as 'doing something about a problem' and legislators with no record of bills passed do not get re-elected.

The technical validity or the practical application of the laws passed mean nothing; no one ever goes back to the legislators and complains their laws didn't work.

[44 AMP]

What amazes me is that according to the linked article, apparently LA City Attorney Mike Feuer (and isn't that name ironic), who introduced the bill as a lawmaker, and has been its big proponent, seems to think 45% of gun crimes are caused by the original purchasers!

Did the patent on the Microstamp technology expire in 2013? I seem to recall that when the bill was passed the tech was entirely owned by its inventor and his company.

IIRC the law going into effect was supposed to be delayed until that patent expired.

The whole idea of microstamping, or keeping cases or even bullets "on file" so they could be used to solve crimes has proven to be a red herring where ever tried. I think it was Virginia that recently gave up on it as a bad idea, after wasting lots of money and manhours for several years, and never having any crime solved due to the evidence from the system.

Other places are seeing similar results.

I also recall hearing, back when this law was passed, how several other states all had similar bills introduced, at about the same time. Seems like the major lobbyists for microstamping in all the different states has traceable connections to..guess who?....the company that held the patent for microstamping.

What better way to make a buck than to have a law passed saying people must buy your product!

"I can't say its true, and I won't say it's not, but there's been talk!"
(extra no point if you can ID the quote)

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by 44AMP

IIRC the law going into effect was supposed to be delayed until that patent expired.

Please read the article at the Calguns Foundation Wiki - http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/The_Safe_Handgun_List

[heyjoe]

even new york dropped the law requiring a spent cartridge to be submitted to the new york state police for all new handgun purchases. it had helped to solve zero cases in all the years it was in effect.

[HarrySchell]

CA gun laws are designed to control. Much CA law has that goal. What the law actually does and why it is "justified" is secondary.

CA gun laws also are designed to make owning a firearm and concealed carry as onerous and expensive as possible. By definition, those at the lower end of the economic spectrum are the least likely to be financially able to own a firearm or practice (if you can find a place to shoot). Those people also tend to be non-white and at clearly higher statistical risk be subject to criminal actions against them or around them.

About 2006, I saw a sort by zip code of concealed carry permits. If lots of permits correlated to high crime rates, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills and other wealthy communities were dangerous places to live. South or Central Los Angeles was comparatively much safer.

Things have improved over the years but the liberal bastions are terrified that Peruta will survive and the unwashed might exercise their rights under 2A. Los Angeles, SF and other enlightened areas continue with no issue to common citizens.

The trick with microstamping was to functionally make handguns as scarce as possible. AG Harris is less of an engineer than I am an astronaut, and it was her determination that miscrostamping had entered the realm of technical feasibility and should become a feature of the roster.

[JN01]

I wonder what the chances would be of convincing the major handgun manufacturers to refuse to sell to California government agencies as well as civilians should this provision be enforced?

[Librarian]

It's being enforced now - new semiautomatic handguns cannot get on the Roster without that 'feature'.

I believe it is Ruger and Smith&Wesson that have decided not to try to add guns to the Roster, as their assessment is it is technically not possible.

[hartcreek]

I started reading the stuff at the Cal Guns link and it sure looks clear to me that those trying to enforce this micro staming are in violation of the very law that they are trying to enforce as the tech is required to be available to more then one firm and it clearly isn't.

As for guns being available the law specifically exempts C&Rs and revolvers as long ans they have hammer blocks. I would think that gun shops would be jumping on the C&R aspect.

[62coltnavy]

A couple of points of clarification: the Fox News article is not entirely accurate. First, the major thing is that the microstamping law does NOT apply to revolvers, only to semi-auto handguns.
Second, the law only applies to any "new" semi-auto handgun, but this has been interpreted by AG Harris and the DOJ as applying if there is any "material" change in a handgun--and "material" is liberally construed. Ruger fell afoul of this change when it changed one part on a handgun from forged to MIM, and was told the gun had to be re-certified--and recertification requires compliance with the microstamping mandate. However, the rule does not apply to mere cosmetic changes like colors and grips.
Third, the law does not apply to any semi-auto handgun as long as it remains unchanged and on the roster (which is accomplished by paying an annual fee). So Glock can continue to sell Glock 3s to California buyers as long as it keeps making the same way it always has. I seem to recall that this applies only to Austrian made Glocks, and that the US made variety, even though identical, are not on the roster.
Fourth, the law only applies to new sales by FFLs. So all of the millions of old guns may continue to circulate in the California market.

[Dreaming100Straight]

A small point about revolvers. If anyone is arguing that microstamping (if it works) can't help solve crimes committed with revolvers, because they don't eject spent cartridges, what happens in a prolonged gun fight when the revolver has to be reloaded? Often, those cartridges are all over the ground are they not?

I realize that running gun battles are a small percentage of crimes committed with handguns.

[Snyper]

what happens in a prolonged gun fight when the revolver has to be reloaded?

They just go to a commercial

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by Dreaming100Straight

microstamping (if it works) can't help solve crimes committed with revolvers

More to the point, California does not require microstamping for revolvers.

[TXAZ]

There are SO MANY ways for this to become ineffective: wearing out the stamp with steel cased ammo, brass catchers, (brass droppers- leaving brass from other weapons), reloads become problematic, and the likelihood that bad guys with bad intent *might not buy a microstamper*.

[Librarian]

ways for this to become ineffective

I refer you to post #6 in this thread.

California 'gun laws' are not about 'guns', they're about 'getting re-elected'.

[Dreaming100Straight]

More to the point, California does not require microstamping for revolvers.

Then why didn't it require that, if the state wants to ban all guns as so many claim? Perhaps because it foresaw that the UHA would be over turned if access to handguns was too tightly restricted? I don't know it it was ever argued, but the fact that it abstained from requiring microstamping arguably evidences that the state was concerned with balancing the need to solve crime with allowing access to handguns and it found the benefits of requiring revolver microstamping were too little as compared to the effect upon access to handguns.

I read the Order and judgments and at first glance it is what I expected, but this was one of those times when I hoped to be wrong, as is all too often happens.

[44 AMP]

Perhaps because it foresaw that the UHA would be over turned if access to handguns was too tightly restricted?

Just my opinion, but I seriously doubt that the didn't require microstamping for revolvers because they were concerned it would be going too far.

I think rather it was an uncommon exercise of good sense. Not that they wanted to, but rather because they didn't really have a choice, if they were to have anyone believe their claimed justification.

Which was, that microstamping marks the cases (actually the primer) with the ID of the gun that fired it, and was needed in order to aid law enforcement solve crimes.

But not even those slickmeisters could come up with a believable excuse why revolvers (which do not leave cases as evidence at the crime scene) needed microstamping, because if the police don't find cases at the crime scene there is NO benefit to the investigation. Requiring revolvers to have microstamping strengthens the argument that the law was about gun control, and not "just" about helping the police, which was the argument they wanted the public to swallow.

[TimSr]

I don't know if such is still the case today, but it wasn't that long ago that after years of gun registrations in various localities, NO crime had ever been solved with the use of a gun registration, so the idea registering billions of rounds of ammo would be any more effective is laughable.

[KyJim]

I don't know if such is still the case today, but it wasn't that long ago that after years of gun registrations in various localities, NO crime had ever been solved with the use of a gun registration, so the idea registering billions of rounds of ammo would be any more effective is laughable.

This is incorrect. I think you are referring to the requirement in some states that a manufacturer send a fired shell casing from each gun imported into that state to be used later for comparison with casings found at crime scenes. This has resulted in few if any "matches" and is a waste of money, as is the microstamping law.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by TimSr

registering billions of rounds of ammo

At one time there were bills that did propose 'ammo serialization' - California had 2005's SB 357, as modified after introduction (You can see it in all its hideous detail if you use the pulldown to get the 4/18/05 version) -

SB 357, as amended, Dunn. Criminal profiteering. Ammunition: serialized handgun ammunition.

Existing law generally regulates the sale of ammunition.

This bill would establish a program requiring serialization of handgun ammunition, as defined, to be enforced by the Department of Justice. The bill would require, commencing July 1, 2007, that handgun ammunition be serialized. The bill would specify the nature of the serialization and provide various exceptions to certain prohibitions in the bill. Manufacture, transfer, and possession, as specified, of nonserialized handgun ammunition after that date would be an offense, as specified.

The bill would require ammunition vendors and manufacturers to register with the Department of Justice, as specified.

The bill would require specified information in connection with handgun ammunition transactions be recorded and maintained by the vendor and manufacturer. Willful failure to comply with certain record requirements by a vendor would be an offense. Provision of false information to a vendor by a prospective ammunition purchaser would be an offense. Manufacturers who fail to comply with certain registry and record keeping requirements would be liable for civil penalties, as specified. Persons who obliterate the serialization on assembled ammunition or bullets would guilty of an offense.

Eventually that bill was given the 'gut and amend' treatment, and passed as a bill about something else entirely.

But that's not 'microstamping'; that silliness is Penal Code 31910

31910.

As used in this part, “unsafe handgun” means any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, for which any of the following is true:
...
(7) (A) Commencing January 1, 2010,
for all semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015,

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 DOJ did make that last determination in 2013 here.

[Metal god]

I wonder what the chances would be of convincing the major handgun manufacturers to refuse to sell to California government agencies as well as civilians should this provision be enforced?

It is being enforced . In fact I now own a Ruger SR45 because of the law . I went to the gun store last year to buy a SR9c but was told it was no longer on the roster . It had been removed 10 days earlier . There was a note/sign on the SR45 stating only 16 days left until it was off the list , So I bought one only because I had plan to buy one at some point and if i didn't buy it then I never be able to . I could go on and on about guns I wanted and would have bought . The Ruger SR 1911 would be in my safe right now if not for the roster/list . I went to buy one as soon as they came out . Turns out they were not on the list and never will be even though there are other brands and models that are the same gun still on the list

Right after Peruta went in are favor I started looking for a good CCW . I looked on line at XDs , PPQ, Sig forget the model and others . Almost all were off the list . I ended up buying a M&P shield because that was going off the list in 30 days when I bought it . Turns out the shield stayed on the list for now . Smith must of paid the cash to keep it on there . That was great business move seeing how it was one of only a coulpe good small CCW handguns left available in CA .

The roster is garbage . The safe gun act "please"