California Microstamping law sent back on appeal - Page 3

62coltnavy · June 7, 2017, 12:56 AM

Let me put it this way--the deck is stacked in favor of upholding official action. An official act/decision will be overturned pretty much only if it is entirely illogical and irrational. (Insert flowery language: "exceeds all bounds of reason.") If a "reasonable" official could have made the same decision, even if the decision is wrong, the decision stands.
Even if this standard is applied, the case still has a pretty good chance of success, because by no measure does any existing technology stamp a casing in two places as explicitly required by the statute. The technology upon which the AG relied stamps the primer only and no other location. Not only is it arguable that a stamp on the primer does not suffice as being on the case, but it is abundantly clear that one stamp is not two separate places.

drunder40 · June 7, 2017, 04:36 AM

Although I agree with you, you have to look at what state this is taking place in and who controls the government/courts..

I think the outcome is self explainatory.

ShootistPRS · June 7, 2017, 11:02 AM

Micro-stamping has been shown to be a failed technology. The stamping on the firing pin is difficult to read on the first few rounds fired and it wears rapidly. After a box of shells (50) have been fired it is unlikely to be able to be read at all.
Since criminal have been known to file or grind serial numbers taking a piece of 600 grit emery paper to the firing pin is more than likely. The law does nothing to prevent crime or make it easier to trace the gun. what it does do is add an extra $100 to the price of the gun.

62coltnavy · June 21, 2017, 12:17 AM

Responding to 45 AMP, oral arguments are a long way off. What happens in late June is that the State files its opening brief as to why it thinks, within the parameters of the issue accepted for review, the Court of Appeal erred. Respondent (here plaintiffs) will have a MINIMUM 30 days to file an opposition brief (called a Respondent's Brief), which time can be extended via a stipulation or by an application to the court. (Such extensions are common.) It could easily be 90 days or more before the Respondent's Brief is filed, which takes us into September or October. When it is filed, the State will then get 20 days to file a Reply, taking us into at least October or November. Then the Supreme Court reads the briefs (and any amicus briefs if submitted), does its own research, and ultimately at some date in the future sets oral argument. There is no telling how far in the future that will be--it could, quite frankly, be a couple of years. (I don't think it will be that long, but have only a WAG to go on.) After oral argument, the Court must issue an opinion within 90 days. Consequently, we will not likely see a decision at the earliest until a year from now, and more likely up to two years from now.

But that's not the end of it. The case has never been tried, having been decided on a motion for summary judgment. If the Supreme Court upholds the Court of Appeals decision, then the case gets remanded back to the original trial court for a trial. That means more months of delay. I think we can also safely assume that if the AG's decision is overturned, the State will appeal if for no other reason that to delay the reappearance of now barred semiautomatic handguns on the California market.

So don't get your hopes up for an early decision. To give perspective, I read today that Peruta has been pending in the federal court system for nine years.

62coltnavy · June 22, 2017, 01:23 PM

The state filed its opening brief on the merits. so far I have not been able to locate a place where it is accessible on line, so I don't k now what it argued.

June 7, 2017, 12:56 AM	#51
62coltnavy Senior Member Join Date: February 1, 2011 Posts: 356	Let me put it this way--the deck is stacked in favor of upholding official action. An official act/decision will be overturned pretty much only if it is entirely illogical and irrational. (Insert flowery language: "exceeds all bounds of reason.") If a "reasonable" official could have made the same decision, even if the decision is wrong, the decision stands. Even if this standard is applied, the case still has a pretty good chance of success, because by no measure does any existing technology stamp a casing in two places as explicitly required by the statute. The technology upon which the AG relied stamps the primer only and no other location. Not only is it arguable that a stamp on the primer does not suffice as being on the case, but it is abundantly clear that one stamp is not two separate places.

June 7, 2017, 04:36 AM	#52
drunder40 Member Join Date: June 1, 2017 Location: The Free state of NH-Southeast Posts: 20	Although I agree with you, you have to look at what state this is taking place in and who controls the government/courts.. I think the outcome is self explainatory.

June 7, 2017, 11:02 AM	#53
ShootistPRS Senior Member Join Date: January 3, 2017 Posts: 1,583	Micro-stamping has been shown to be a failed technology. The stamping on the firing pin is difficult to read on the first few rounds fired and it wears rapidly. After a box of shells (50) have been fired it is unlikely to be able to be read at all. Since criminal have been known to file or grind serial numbers taking a piece of 600 grit emery paper to the firing pin is more than likely. The law does nothing to prevent crime or make it easier to trace the gun. what it does do is add an extra $100 to the price of the gun.

June 21, 2017, 12:17 AM	#54
62coltnavy Senior Member Join Date: February 1, 2011 Posts: 356	Responding to 45 AMP, oral arguments are a long way off. What happens in late June is that the State files its opening brief as to why it thinks, within the parameters of the issue accepted for review, the Court of Appeal erred. Respondent (here plaintiffs) will have a MINIMUM 30 days to file an opposition brief (called a Respondent's Brief), which time can be extended via a stipulation or by an application to the court. (Such extensions are common.) It could easily be 90 days or more before the Respondent's Brief is filed, which takes us into September or October. When it is filed, the State will then get 20 days to file a Reply, taking us into at least October or November. Then the Supreme Court reads the briefs (and any amicus briefs if submitted), does its own research, and ultimately at some date in the future sets oral argument. There is no telling how far in the future that will be--it could, quite frankly, be a couple of years. (I don't think it will be that long, but have only a WAG to go on.) After oral argument, the Court must issue an opinion within 90 days. Consequently, we will not likely see a decision at the earliest until a year from now, and more likely up to two years from now. But that's not the end of it. The case has never been tried, having been decided on a motion for summary judgment. If the Supreme Court upholds the Court of Appeals decision, then the case gets remanded back to the original trial court for a trial. That means more months of delay. I think we can also safely assume that if the AG's decision is overturned, the State will appeal if for no other reason that to delay the reappearance of now barred semiautomatic handguns on the California market. So don't get your hopes up for an early decision. To give perspective, I read today that Peruta has been pending in the federal court system for nine years.

June 22, 2017, 01:23 PM	#55
62coltnavy Senior Member Join Date: February 1, 2011 Posts: 356	The state filed its opening brief on the merits. so far I have not been able to locate a place where it is accessible on line, so I don't k now what it argued.