|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 31, 2017, 01:50 AM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
|
I disagree with you, Al, modestly. Police UNIONS are always against laws without a LEO carve out; police CHIEFS are ALWAYS in favor of new restrictions on gun owners.
|
January 31, 2017, 06:54 AM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 29, 2005
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 1,934
|
In visiting Sacramento, two beautiful Grandchildren, aged 3 and 4 make it palatable.
But living there? And my Glock 19 stays at home. Can not wait for the President to get around to reciprocity, reference CCW at home, goes with you when you travel! Love my State, Florida! |
January 31, 2017, 07:05 AM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2016
Posts: 223
|
Should never have made it to become a LAW in first place.
Brit although I believe reciprocity on a national level should be a given dont really see it become so by stroke of DTs pen but we can hope. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
January 31, 2017, 09:11 AM | #29 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
|
Quote:
I'll be waiting to see how many of the law enforcement officers who begged us to support HR 218 (LEOSA) and promised to support national reciprocity for the rest of us "down the road" will actually bother to write a letter or send an e-mail to support national reciprocity. I keep seeing people writing that rank and file police officers "overwhelmingly" support citizen CCW but, as the saying goes, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." It doesn't help us one iota if 100 percent of the rank-and-file officers support national reciprocity if they won't bother to tell their legislators to vote for it. |
|
January 31, 2017, 11:03 AM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 2,483
|
aquila blanca:
Quote:
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time. |
|
January 31, 2017, 12:39 PM | #31 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
|
No list that I'm aware of. If you go back to the time HR 218 was going through the legislative process, you can look through this forum, The High Road, and many other "gun" forums and you'll find numerous posts by police officers asking for the support of gun owners to pass HR 218 (which was the number of the bill that became the LEOSA). Their selling point was that, although it only helped cops, it would be "a good first step," supposedly making it easier to enact universal reciprocity for the rest of us once anti-gun states saw that allowing police officers from other states to carry everywhere didn't result in blood running in the streets. And, of course, there were the promises: "If you all help us get this passed, we'll be there to support national reciprocity for the rest of you when that's being debated."
Well, this isn't the first time national reciprocity has been proposed, and there weren't many (maybe none) police officers doing any supporting -- at least not publicly. And now that Trump has made it a more prominent issue -- there haven't been any posts of support from police as a group. Maybe one or two isolated officers, who are regular contributors to the forums they're on and who have always supported "civilian" carry. But the widespread support of police, as thanks to us for having helped them get the LEOSA passed? Doesn't exist. They used us, they got what they wanted, and they threw us under the bus. |
January 31, 2017, 10:34 PM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 280
|
Quote:
1) Not everyone can just pick up and move. People have careers, lives, roots, etc...it is not so simple. 2) Police are civilians too 3) IMO it is unreasonable for police to be better-equipped than normal citizens, as police themselves are civilians. Anything that is police work can be handled with normal arms civilians use. If the situation is something too severe, then that is when the National Guard would have to be mobilized with tanks and the like. 4) It also isn't so much about police being better-equipped than normal citizens as it is normal citizens being restricted in terms of their equipment in comparison to the police. |
|
February 1, 2017, 07:56 PM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,583
|
The problem with micro stamping is that:
1. it is difficult to read even when new 2. it wears very fast 3. it can be misleading because of the mistakes of reading the stampings. |
February 1, 2017, 10:57 PM | #34 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
As far as I can see, microstamping, is kind of the "complete idiot's" version of requiring a fired case be submitted to a database. Instead of having to compare the minutia of markings on a fired case to ID it, they can just read the stamped number.
Assuming, of course, that they CAN read the stamped number... No place I ever heard of has found the fired case database being of any use in solving crimes, and a tremendous waste of money and manpower. I don't see how microstamping could be any different. While the physical side of microstamping has yet to be proven the political side is already a success, if you believe the actual reason behind the law is not to help law enforcement but to provide yet another legal reason to exclude handguns from being sold in California.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
February 2, 2017, 12:37 AM | #35 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,930
|
Quote:
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
February 2, 2017, 11:32 AM | #36 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
Quote:
or "if you want a gun, join the military"??? Police armament, and the militarization of the police (and I include ALL law enforcement in that) are fine topics for discussion, but not the point of this thread. (hint, hint..) The fact that the police are EXEMPT from the CA law is valid point, I think. Do you think the police would use their political power to support microstamping if they were NOT exempt from it??? Unlike laws forcing unproven (and so far, unworkable) "smart gun" tech down our throats, I don't see microstamping as something that puts anyone at physical risk of harm or death, INCLUDING the police. That being the case, why would they need an exemption??? The stated purpose of microstamping is to allow rapid (and assumedly foolproof) identification of fired cases found at crime scenes, with the database telling us what gun they came from, and who owns it. Would not having the police using microstamping guns simply add to the efficiency of the proposed system, by being able to easily remove police guns from the suspect pool when non microstamped cases are recovered?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
February 2, 2017, 08:05 PM | #37 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 280
|
Quote:
|
|
February 2, 2017, 10:38 PM | #38 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,649
|
I think it is important to note that the CACP is not representative of law enforcement in general throughout the nation.
Quote:
|
|
February 2, 2017, 10:55 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Don't assume police are stridently pro-RKBA. In many ways they mirror the general populace as compared to the gun world choir.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/...-public-views/ They do support gun ownership more than the general public and the males are against AWBs while the females support. They are in favor of background checks in various versions. If you ask about CCW, I'd bet (if it's been studied - I should search) that the police in the major antigun regions and locales probably aren't in favor while the progun areas have progun cops. It's obvious when you look at counties across the country where you need approval to carry. County and city law (even in places like TX) can be adamantly opposed when they have discretion on permits, NFA items and the like. I do remember the HR 218 fight and police begged RKBA supporters not to tie it to reciprocity as it would kill the bill but they would fight for it later - never happened.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
February 2, 2017, 11:20 PM | #40 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
|
Quote:
The language of the bill parallels the LEOSA very closely, so police who aren't anti-2A should have no problem suporting it -- it's basically the same language that has been benefiting them since HR218 became the LEOSA. Quote:
|
||
February 17, 2017, 06:43 AM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
I'm going to take a not-so-wild guess that the appellate court will allow enforcement of a microstamping mandate.
Maybe not this time, but it will happen because technology will advance and end the "is it possible?" argument. It will be. On the other arguments, the courts will say that the legislature might reasonably conclude this is a good idea so they can't say no. So it will happen. I wonder what will happen with the ever-shrinking "Safe Gun List" in Cali and Mass? The lack of microstamping is only one way that guns can be "unsafe" and as the requirements get more stringent and the list gets shorter, you eventually arrive at a day when only one new handgun is legal to sell in the state. That's when we'll finally win on this issue in court, if we do. Meanwhile, write your legislators because that's where you really win. |
February 17, 2017, 12:38 PM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,295
|
I support the fight against worthless "microstamping" and other laws designed to disarm citizens or price firearms out of civilian hands.
Last edited by armoredman; February 17, 2017 at 10:47 PM. |
February 17, 2017, 06:23 PM | #43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
|
Publius, the issue is not necessarily the law itself--as you say, it might be possible in the future to microstamp cases in two separate places as the statute mandates. The issue is that the Attorney General certified that the technology to comply with the statue was available now. But it isn't. The only available technology imprints a unique identifier on the primer when the gun is fired, but the statute requires that the identifier be stampted in two places on the case.
As a result, the certification has blocked the sale of any new models or "materially modified" rostered firearms. To add to insult to injury, the DOJ has very broadly construed what constitutes a "material" change, as Ruger found out to its dismay when it modified a takedown lever or pin from forged to MIM. The DOJ said the change was material, and thus the firearm, otherwise unchanged, was required to comply with the microstamping law, which of course it could not. Since it could not, it could not be sold in California. Colt changed its manufacturing of 1911s to new CNC machinery--yes, material change. The only firearms Colt is authorized to sell in California (last I checked) was the Python and the Colt Commander (which did not get a new manufacturing line). Thus, as manufacturers change, modify and improve firearms, they necessarily fall off the Roster as there is not one manufacdturer who possesses the technology to comply with the AG's improperly certified microstamping law. The state Court of Appeal held that there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury as to whether the certification was improper because the conditions of the statute are not satisfied by extant technology. If the jury finds that the certification was improper, the microstamping rule is not necessarily eliminated, but instead suspended until the conditions for the law to take effect are met. |
May 23, 2017, 06:26 PM | #44 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
|
Since I last posted on this case, the State appealed the decision of the Court of appeal to the California Supreme court. That court has granted review. The date for filing of the State's opening brief on appeal has been extended twice, and is now June 21, 2017. The issue, as framed by the court is: This case presents the following issues: (1) Can a statute be challenged on the ground that compliance with it is allegedly impossible? (2) If so, how is the trial court to make that determination?
|
May 27, 2017, 06:29 PM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 14, 2017
Posts: 102
|
My very low opinion of cops has been well earned. Among the reasons why is leading by example.
Just as a very mild example, I'm supposed to follow speed limits, stop at the sign and use turn signals. Without lights and/or sirens being on, so are the cops. Good luck on ever seeing that happen... Microstamping is just stupid. Even if the gun isn't stolen, or pre dating the law, quick stroke of a file and it's all gone. Or pick up your cases or use a revolver... And what happens if a money conscious killer uses cases collected at a range to reload his pre law murder weapon with? I can easily think of a more reliable way to add that traceability to fired ammo. But I'm not gonna give my enemies another tool to use against me. |
May 27, 2017, 07:12 PM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Posts: 438
|
Quote:
|
|
May 27, 2017, 08:45 PM | #47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 14, 2017
Posts: 102
|
Lawsuit that's filed, if justice prevails, might improve my opinion on judges...
Nothing gonna change my opinion of cops after what the supposed protector and servers did to me a hard-working tax paying law abiding victim of a crime. If a rapist expected his victims to say thanks, what would you think of the rapist? What would you think appropriate punishment would be? |
May 28, 2017, 01:05 AM | #48 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
Your and my opinion of the police isn't relevant to the discussion.
I would point out that holding a bad opinion of an entire group of people based on the bad actions of a few is exactly what anti-gunners and other bigots do. We should do better. Holding the bad actors personally responsible for their acts is entirely correct. Painting all with the same broad brush, isn't. The point with the microstamping law is that it was passed and made law. It doesn't have to work, doesn't have to actually do what it's sponsors claimed, it doesn't matter if there are simple easy workarounds. IT's the law, now, and the only way to challenge it is through the law, or having the legislature repeal it (which isn't bloody likely in the forseeable future). It doesn't matter if it isn't cheaply or easily accomplished, the law doesn't care about that. (though I'm certain the sponsors counted on the expense to further their real aims) What matters to the law is if microstamping is legally possible. As I understand it, when the law was passed the technology was still under patent protection to a single company, and therefore, "not readily available". Immediate implementation was challenged in court, and the court agreed to stay implementing the law until the tech was "readily available" This lasted a while, but when the patent ran out, someone in CA govt (attorney general??) declared the tech readily available, so the law could be implemented. This also was challenged in court, the argument being that despite what one official decrees, the tech is NOT (yet) readily available. This has now reached the CA Supreme Court and thanks to 62coltnavy we now know arguments will be heard beginning in late june this year. (unless, of course, postponed by the court before then)
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
May 29, 2017, 12:12 AM | #49 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
|
Unsurprisingly, the case has been delayed. the state has been granted another 30 day extension to file its opening brief, which now isn't due until the end of June. Plaintiffs will then have thirty days (subject to extensions, of course) to file their brief, and the State will have another 20 days to file its rebuttal. There is always the possibility that amicus briefs will be files, but since the plaintiff here is the representative of the industry as a whole, it is iffy whether individual manufacturers will chime in separately, since the penultimate question is whether anyone gets to challenge the certification, and the ultimate question being what standards are to be applied by a trial court in determining the issue of whether the existing technology can actually do what the statute requires it to do.
The latter question is more arcane than it might facially appear. While governmental actions are subject to challenge, most governmental action is reviewed by a trial court not as to whether the opinion was right or wrong, but whether the official "prejudicially abused his or her discretion" in making the determination being challenged. Discretion is abused whenever, in its exercise, the official exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances before it being considered. The burden is on the party complaining to establish an abuse of discretion....” To put that another way, it is arguably possible for the AG to have been wrong (factually) in issuing her certification, but also possible for her not to have abused her discretion in deciding a question of fact. The final result will be interesting. |
May 29, 2017, 07:41 PM | #50 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
Interesting in the sense of the Chinese/Hebrew curse??
(May you live in interesting times!) OK, so, in small words (that are easier for me to type ); The AG's decision could be found to be wrong, BUT, the AG could be found to have made no error in making the wrong decision?? Is that about right? IF so, where does it go, then???
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|