The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 28, 2017, 01:05 AM   #51
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,555
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.
44 AMP is offline  
Old May 29, 2017, 12:12 AM   #52
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 353
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.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old May 29, 2017, 07:41 PM   #53
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,555
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.
44 AMP is offline  
Old June 7, 2017, 12:56 AM   #54
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 353
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.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old June 7, 2017, 04:36 AM   #55
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.
drunder40 is offline  
Old June 7, 2017, 11:02 AM   #56
ShootistPRS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,584
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.
ShootistPRS is offline  
Old June 21, 2017, 12:17 AM   #57
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 353
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 is offline  
Old June 22, 2017, 01:23 PM   #58
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 353
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.
62coltnavy is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.05333 seconds with 10 queries