PDA

View Full Version : Micro stamping


10fcp
01-02-2009, 2:56 PM
I heard Arnold sighned this as law? When and if does this start. Sorry if I am misinforned but I have heard so many different things I don't know what to think.

hoffmang
01-02-2009, 3:13 PM
Microstamping was signed. However, it has significant intellectual property requirements that make it unimplementable for the foreseeable future and it will not effect any gun already on the roster before 2010.

See http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=72049 for a lot more in depth discussion.

-Gene

rulas41
01-02-2009, 3:14 PM
:95: more details please

hoffmang
01-02-2009, 3:26 PM
:95: more details please

Uhm... did you not see this link? http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=72049

It's a lot easier for you to click on that link than it is for me to type another few thousand words over.

-Gene

rulas41
01-02-2009, 7:38 PM
we both typed the message about same time you beat me to it:eek:

hoffmang
01-02-2009, 7:58 PM
we both typed the message about same time you beat me to it:eek:

Heh. Sorry. Didn't notice the only 60 seconds of difference in the time stamp. My bad.

-Gene

Arkalius
01-03-2009, 1:18 AM
The thread isn't clear about what happens after 2010... based on how it reads, it sounds like guns that don't have microstamping can't get on the roster after 2010, even if no tech is DoJ certified to do it...

hoffmang
01-03-2009, 1:32 AM
The thread isn't clear about what happens after 2010... based on how it reads, it sounds like guns that don't have microstamping can't get on the roster after 2010, even if no tech is DoJ certified to do it...

Let me quote myself and be more clear:


Now what is really interesting is the line "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." Right now one company (ID Dynamics) claims the patents (7111423 and 6886284 amongst others) to microstamping spent shells in firearms and subsequently reading them. Those patents are valid until about 2023 and I'm quite sure that Mr. Lizotte and Mr. Ohar claim that they are patent that occupy the entire field of firearm microstamping - kind of how NTP claims all of the space of push email against RIM/Blackberry and others. Since the legislature required that the technology be avialable from more than one provider and not encumbered by patent I'm quite confident that DOJ can not complete an OAL rulemaking that conforms with the legislation and Patent Law before the expiration of ID Dynamic's patents in 2023.

It's not 2010 that matters. It's the earlier of 2010 or when the DOJ certifies a technology not patent encumbered. The earliest I can see that there will not be patent encumbrances is 2023 unless ID Dynamics releases control of their patent (which is highly unlikely.) That ignores all the other patents that microstamping may infringe (as it uses common technologies from the semiconductor industry.)

Bottom line: Microstamping is not likely to ever become an effective requirement for handguns to get on the roster.

-Gene

shirow
01-03-2009, 1:36 AM
Bottom line: Microstamping is not likely to ever become an effective requirement for handguns to get on the roster.



:clap:

So why was it passed given the patent issue?

Yet another absurd California gun law?

otalps
01-03-2009, 1:49 AM
:clap:

So why was it passed given the patent issue?

Yet another absurd California gun law?

Like there was ever a California gun law that wasn't absurd?

bwiese
01-03-2009, 12:06 PM
:clap:
So why was it passed given the patent issue?
Yet another absurd California gun law?

Some laws get enough traction to pass especially when people supposedly on our own side screw up (GOC's Sam Paredes).

However even with a steamroller bill, amendments can be added by friendly parties. Even if that amendment were to de facto kill the bill, the legislators sponsoring/driving the bill still tout the fact it was their bill.

Sometimes there are 'friendly' parties that feel they have to vote for such a bill but will nevertheless add useful amendments There also is a 'good governance' faction in legislature that doesn't like "sole source' bills (which have their own legal problems).

Politics for legislators, esp in CA, esp. with term limits, is not about the details or practicality. They just wanna say "they're doing something" and get credit and move on to the next seat.

Arkalius
01-03-2009, 10:54 PM
It's not 2010 that matters. It's the earlier of 2010 or when the DOJ certifies a technology not patent encumbered.

That's what I'm saying... Based on the patent issue, 2010 is going to arrive before the DOJ certifies something. Therefore, since it's the earlier of 2010 or the certification, 2010 will be the event that makes non microstamped guns unable to get on the roster...

Maybe you mean the later of the two? I'm guessing what you're trying to say is that 2010 is the earliest the law can come into effect, but it can't start until DOJ certifies something. Based on what you were saying it sounds like it comes into effect immediately on certification, or on 2010 if certification hasn't happened.

I think I understand the issue, your wording was just confusing me :)

Librarian
01-03-2009, 11:06 PM
That's what I'm saying... Based on the patent issue, 2010 is going to arrive before the DOJ certifies something. Therefore, since it's the earlier of 2010 or the certification, 2010 will be the event that makes non microstamped guns unable to get on the roster...

Maybe you mean the later of the two? I'm guessing what you're trying to say is that 2010 is the earliest the law can come into effect, but it can't start until DOJ certifies something. Based on what you were saying it sounds like it comes into effect immediately on certification, or on 2010 if certification hasn't happened.

I think I understand the issue, your wording was just confusing me :)
The exact language (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/12125-12133.html) is (7) Commencing January 1, 2010, for all semiautomatic pistols that
are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 12131, 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. IF the DOJ can and does certify THEN on 1 Jan 2010 microstamping becomes a requirement for a handgun to get on the Roster.

The language does not say something along the lines of 'or, if certification cannot be made by January 1, 2010, then sixty days after the date the Department of Justice ...' so it might be 'meet the deadline or the section is void'.

Wishful thinking ... ;)

hoffmang
01-04-2009, 12:31 AM
This law becomes effective on the later of 1/1/2010 or when the DOJ is finally able to certify a technology. The DOJ is unlikely to be able to certify a technology until at least 2030ish. Therefor microstamping is not likely to be a requirement for new guns to come onto the roster until 2030 or more.

-Gene

Jim40
03-17-2009, 10:46 AM
WOO HOO!
:thumbsup:

(Bumped for noobs like me who still thought microstamping would be the law in nine months!)

YoungGun2
03-17-2009, 1:31 PM
Not sure were you guys are getting your info from but I herd microstamping was starting in TWO WEEKS!!!!!!



:hide::hide::hide::hide:

hoffmang
03-17-2009, 1:46 PM
And just to point out the obvious - should the CA Handgun Roster be found unconstitutional in DC (which we expect) then microstamping will fall with the fall of the Roster in CA. As everyone can imagine, we expect to re-import the DC Roster decision here.

-Gene

jb7706
03-17-2009, 3:01 PM
:clap:

So why was it passed given the patent issue?

Yet another absurd California gun law?

Why are you trying to apply logic to California gun laws? :)

bwiese
03-17-2009, 3:18 PM
:clap:
So why was it passed given the patent issue?

Yet another absurd California gun law?


No, sometimes we have sorta-friends in legislature that feel they may have to vote 'Yes' on an antigun bill, but are willing and powerful enough to help us out by adding extra language for weird things.

rabagley
03-17-2009, 3:36 PM
It's actually easier for a politician to vote for legislation that logically does nothing, because then they get to play both sides.

To the victim disarmament (VD) crowd, they get to say: I voted for the micro-stamping bill!

To the responsible gun owners, they get to say: I haven't reduced your rights even one iota.

It's a politician's wet dream.

CaliforniaLiberal
03-17-2009, 8:10 PM
Legislative horse trading and negotiations can quickly and easily take a bill's language far beyond reason or reality. The practical application of a law is often not as important as the spin a legislator can put on his vote or opposition to it.

This is about politics, not about making good, useful or even understandable laws.

CL