|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 1, 2016, 06:40 PM | #1 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
California Microstamping law sent back on appeal
I am not a lawyer so not the best person to explain the happenings, but the bottom line is that the NSSF and SAAMI filed suit to overturn California's microstamping law, they were rejected at the trial court level, and they appealed. The appellate court agreed with them, and has sent the case back to the trial court for a trial.
Press release from the NSSF: Quote:
|
|
December 1, 2016, 07:17 PM | #2 |
Member
Join Date: January 8, 2015
Location: Tempe,AZ
Posts: 34
|
This is just more liberal IDIOTS passing laws that can never be enforced. And microstamping is just one of many. Just like NJ passed a law that states that only so called Smart Guns will only be sold in the state once one is brought to market. And no other guns will be allowed to be sold in the state.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk |
December 1, 2016, 09:24 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 26, 2016
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 1,636
|
Passing laws like this are a win/win for the gun grabbers regardless of technological feasibility.
Either A: It is possible to microstamp casings and they get to claim a gun rights infringement victory because this would undoubtedly increase the price of pistols, pricing many people out of the market. Or B: it is technologically impossible therefore banning the sale of new pistols. Any reasonable judge should see this and rule against the law |
December 2, 2016, 01:05 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
If the technology is feasible such a law could be upheld or at least survive a facial constitutional challenge. Especially if it doesn't substantially increase the cost. How much it increases the cost or reduces/eliminates the availability of arms in common use are certainly facts that will help determine the constitutional issue.
If the technology is not feasible it becomes a ban on the sale of new handguns. This issue was squarely decided in Heller. Based upon my limited knowledge i would conclude its not feasible. Whether the technology is feasible is a fact intensive question. My concern with such fact intensive questions is that generally an appellate court will not disturb a trial courts factual findings as long as the are supported by substantial competent evidence. Sometimes it seems that it doesn't have to be all that substantial or competent to get upheld. The factual findings in the trial court are probably more important than the trial courts legal conclusions. The law will get a complete or de novo review the facts will not. If the trial court finds the technology to be feasible then our side has some issues. That being said the technology may eventually get to the point where it's feasible and increases the cost in a negligible manner. At that point it's hard to argue that such a law places any meaningful burden on the RKBA. Would it still be stupid? Yes, because changing those parts would defeat the system. But, unfortunately, there is no constitutional prohibition on the enactment of dumb laws. Courts, in upholding laws, will often say something to the effect of "it's not our job to judge the wisdom of the legislature's actions." Basically we think this is dumb but that doesn't render it unconstitutional. |
December 2, 2016, 12:44 PM | #5 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,820
|
Quote:
Because this is the real intent behind such laws, being microstamping or smart gun technology or anything else along those lines. They set a "standard" for "safety" and EVERYTHING that does not meet that set standard is outlawed. They don't care if their standard cannot be met. They don't care if it works as claimed, or not, It doesn't matter, all that matters is that by doing so, they can ban all other arms as "unsafe" or illegal to sell. When the microstamping laws were being pushed in several states (and actually passed in CA) the owner of the technology was ONE company. They had the patent, and everyone would have been required to buy FROM THEM. Some of the members of that company were major contributors to the lobbying effort to get the law passed. Since the CA attorney general (a politican, now moved on to another job) has certified the technology is "available" CA is free to move ahead with the law, and we're back in court.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
December 2, 2016, 01:45 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
Way to put words in my mouth. I was speaking about new guns after the technology becomes feasible. If such a law applies to previously legal arms then the argument is different.
|
December 3, 2016, 01:40 AM | #7 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,820
|
Wasn't my intention to put words in your mouth, sorry for the misunderstanding.
Guns made after the new technology proves itself are another matter. (and, particularly, microstamping cannot prove anything the way smart gun tech MIGHT) The biggest issue I have with these laws (among many issues) is that they contain language that essentially says "no new guns may be sold without meeting the requirements of the law". SO, if that is the case, then the supply of pre-law guns becomes fixed. And, it is a small legislative step to make the pre-law guns illegal to sell. Or inherit, or transfer ownership. CA already has its "safe gun" list, and many guns available throughout the rest of the country are not legal for sale in CA, simply because their makers don't pay the annual fee and submit (give) CA guns to destroy (which they call testing...) I'm not certain if the NJ smart gun law says "no new handguns" or just "no handguns" that don't comply with the law will be allowed for sale, but I suspect if it's the former, then its the latter that they really want. Microstamping is of no use to the consumer, it is only of use, an unproven, possible use, to the government. Like "ballistic fingerprinting" it is a Hollywood script writer's fantasy that only works in the movies and on TV.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
December 3, 2016, 10:35 AM | #8 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
Quote:
It's not about "safety." And the technology won't solve any crimes, so it's not about solving crimes. it's about incrementally attacking the Second Amendment. |
|
December 3, 2016, 02:23 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 19, 2008
Posts: 1,411
|
I've wondered every time this micro-stamping topic comes up how long it would take the bad actor types to place a minuscule dab of JB Weld or similar epoxy on a firing pin and completely obscure any possible result.
__________________
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ All data is flawed, some just less so. |
December 3, 2016, 03:26 PM | #10 |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,974
|
I would think that a few strokes of sandpaper would be easier and more effective than trying to add something to the end of the firing pin.
But I doubt any bad guy would worry about it. They rarely buy guns through legal channels so even if the microstamping hasn't worn off by the time they get the gun, any attempt to trace the gun wouldn't lead to them anyway.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
December 3, 2016, 06:28 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,312
|
Oh fer goodness sakes!
Why stop here??? Why not make the gun put the date and time and GPS location on the case too??? Or build a cell phone into the gun to report each and every shot to a government database including of course the direction and elevation of the gun along with the location, date time etc. etc. Or heck even make the gun take a picture of who fired it and what it was aimed at for every shot and send that to the database as well...heck it might be easier to put a 'gun' app on your smart phone then to put all this junk on a real gun. Sheesh!!! The difference between genius and stupidity is genius has limits. (Quote is maybe from Albert Einstein...but maybe not.) |
December 3, 2016, 08:13 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 5, 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 358
|
feasible???
I cannot argue that this isn't possible, it is.
I doubt anyone could honestly argue that it is feasible on any scale and doubt those who want it could care less. For less than 20k?, (to get the patent) they found a way to limit gun access. Pretty cheap compared to money spent on elections.
__________________
L2R |
December 4, 2016, 12:08 AM | #13 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,820
|
My personal opinion on these kind of requirements, microstamping, smart gun tech, etc., and my argument when brought up by their advocates is simple,..
MAKE THE POLICE USE THEM, first. If it's truly a good idea, if it will do what they claim it will, then the police SHOULD be the ones who benefit first! Oddly enough, generally the police seem VERY opposed to this idea. Why do you suppose that might be??
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
December 4, 2016, 06:41 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2016
Location: Florida
Posts: 182
|
If microstamping is required, then this is useless information without all guns "registered" with the owner and number, which then requires updates for transfers, and on and on.... All this will do absolutely nothing to stop criminals, which don't obtain firearms legally anyway. This is why it's important this is stopped now.
|
December 4, 2016, 06:45 PM | #15 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 25, 2016
Posts: 802
|
The same reasons as everyone else.
CoP Oakland: Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Tragedy has been and will always be with us. Somewhere right now, evil people are planning evil things. All of us will do everything meaningful, everything we can do to prevent it, but each horrible act can’t become an axe for opportunists to cleave the very Bill of Rights that binds us." |
||
December 5, 2016, 08:20 AM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 24, 2008
Location: central Arkansas
Posts: 400
|
Some semis are known for wiping the firing pin across the base of a fired cartridge. As "micro" as the stamping is supposed to be, even a carbide pin would eventually wear if you were shooting a lot of steel case ammo.
Of course, it's pretty much a non-issue with a revolver; just drop the empties into your pocket when reloading. |
December 5, 2016, 09:34 AM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 21, 2011
Location: Southern Louisiana
Posts: 1,399
|
Quote:
|
|
December 5, 2016, 10:54 AM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,606
|
Quote:
|
|
December 5, 2016, 04:12 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 2, 2005
Posts: 1,196
|
" Any reasonable judge should see this and rule against the law "
Ah, there's the rub - reasonable judge? |
December 5, 2016, 07:10 PM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 2,483
|
ooh! a foot in the door!
Good luck, California!
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time. |
December 6, 2016, 08:26 PM | #21 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
It's not a question of "bashing" the police, or blaming them for bad gun laws. The problem is that the police are citizens, the same as the rest of us, and should be subject to the same laws. But whenever the politicians dream up more restrictive anti-gun laws, they write in exceptions for the police.
Especially a new law that proclaims it enhances "safety" should certainly apply to the police, perhaps more than to anyone else. |
December 7, 2016, 01:16 AM | #22 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
Quote:
I carry a pistol for the same reason a police officer carries a pistol, and if mine malfunctions due to some new-fangled anti-gun requirement, I'll be just as dead as a ploice officer would be if his malfunctioned. If these new technologies are indeed reliable and make guns safer, then they should be required for use by all police officers. If the new technology isn't reliable enough for police use, or doesn't make guns safer for police officers, then the technology isn't reliable enough or safe enough to force it on the rest of us. Quote:
|
||
December 7, 2016, 01:24 AM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
Mike, the point is that if a gun law is bad enough that it hurts a police officer's ability to defend themselves, it hurts us just as much. The idea is to get the police to protest bad gun laws with us. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
|
December 7, 2016, 02:02 AM | #24 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,820
|
Quote:
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
December 7, 2016, 11:34 AM | #25 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Has no one else noticed that whenever these types of law come up, generally the various police organizations are all for them? That is to say, that if the exception is already written in the proposed law, you will find LEO's agree with the law. If the exception isn't written, then LEO's are against the change in law... Until the proposed law is amended and has the exception written. Then they are for it.
This goes directly to what was said below: Quote:
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but police are not the military. At least, not in this country. So to be clear, the police must be subject to the same laws that the rest of the civilian population is subject to. Exceptions, for LEO's, written into laws are nothing more than a means to divide us and should be viewed in that manner. You had better damn well believe that the politicians know this and use it every chance they can, when it comes to firearms restrictions on the population in general. |
|
|
|