PDA

View Full Version : Senate Passes AB 352 (Microstamping)


mikehaas
08-24-2006, 2:22 PM
06/24/2006 - AB 352 (Microstamping) was voted off the Senate floor. The bill now goes before the Assembly for a fight and a final vote. Please contact the Assembly and urge a NO vote on AB 352 (or an abstention).

http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2006&summary=ab352

Mike

tman
08-24-2006, 2:24 PM
Oh no, this is bad. Very bad.

Shane916
08-24-2006, 3:10 PM
Ahh so this is how they attempt to get rid of handguns in CA.. Making them all "unsafe" because they lack this stupid "feature"... Good job CA...:mad:

50 Freak
08-24-2006, 3:25 PM
It'll be fought in court...In the long run AB 352 won't pass constitutional muster.

anotherone
08-24-2006, 3:26 PM
Will my existing handguns be banned by this bill? And how much time will we have after it passes to buy more handguns?

With this puppy passing the Senate the only hope we have of beating it now is a veto from Arnold. This thing is going to pass through the assembly like a summer breeze.

blkA4alb
08-24-2006, 3:31 PM
Anotherone, to my knowledge any handguns you own now and that are currently on the list would not be affected. But for a new gun to be added to the list if this passes would have to have the microstamping, magazine disconnect, and loaded chamber indicator. If the handguns on the list do not fall off of it then they do not have to have the new requirements.

This still pisses me off to a new level :mad: .

gose
08-24-2006, 3:36 PM
The dates say 06/24, so isn't this two months old, or are the dates wrong?

6172crew
08-24-2006, 3:47 PM
Mike brought it to our attention earlier today but it happened fast and Im not sure we were able to respond fast enough.

Junk!:mad:

ibbryn
08-24-2006, 3:50 PM
Looks like the dates here are wrong and s/b 8/24/06. Today. :eek:

I'm interested in seeing just how moronic our lawmakers are. AB352 passes = very moronic.

anotherone
08-24-2006, 4:00 PM
Anotherone, to my knowledge any handguns you own now and that are currently on the list would not be affected. But for a new gun to be added to the list if this passes would have to have the microstamping, magazine disconnect, and loaded chamber indicator. If the handguns on the list do not fall off of it then they do not have to have the new requirements.

This still pisses me off to a new level :mad: .

Basically this creates a defacto ban on handguns. It's impossible to produce a revolver with a chamber loaded indicator or magazine disconnect. And because the technology for microstamping isn't even fully developed or tested, it may not even be possible to produce a lawful semi-auto handgun either. CA is about to ban handguns through vague legal requirements. This is BS.

blkA4alb
08-24-2006, 4:02 PM
Basically this creates a defacto ban on handguns. It's impossible to produce a revolver with a chamber loaded indicator or magazine disconnect. And because the technology for microstamping isn't even fully developed or tested, it may not even be possible to produce a lawful semi-auto handgun either. CA is about to ban handguns through vague legal requirements. This is BS.
Taken from the NRA website:

OTHERS ISSUES:
The provisions of AB352 only require the micro-stamping of semi-auto handguns. AB352 does not require Rifles, Shotguns or revolvers. Why not??? The micro-stamped images required by AB352 can easily be defeated by simply: 1) Replacing the parts of the handgun that have been stamped. 2) Removing the stamped characters by polishing or rubbing the metal with abrasives. (The characters are only microns deep) 3) Modification of the stamped parts. 4) The stamped markings can be filled-in with powder reside and grit produced with the normal firing of the handgun

rorschach
08-24-2006, 4:03 PM
If I understand, it would only apply to semi-auto centerfire pistols, not revolvers, or longguns.

mikehaas
08-24-2006, 4:10 PM
The dates say 06/24, so isn't this two months old, or are the dates wrong?
Sorry, corrected. Fingers are moving fast and furious today (and occasionally 'clumsy' squeezes in there too).

Mike

Mudvayne540ld
08-24-2006, 4:32 PM
jeez
I would like to buy a handgun when I turn 21..... but every day it looks worse and worse :mad:
E-Mail sent

blkA4alb
08-24-2006, 4:34 PM
jeez
I would like to buy a handgun when I turn 21..... but every day it looks worse and worse :mad:
E-Mail sent
Well if the guns on the list stay on it, they won't be required to have the new features. Also the handguns in the state would still be able to be sold, so its not dismal yet. But its heading that way :mad: .

rocketboy
08-24-2006, 4:42 PM
This is retarded!

anotherone
08-24-2006, 4:48 PM
Taken from the NRA website:

OTHERS ISSUES:
The provisions of AB352 only require the micro-stamping of semi-auto handguns. AB352 does not require Rifles, Shotguns or revolvers.

Of course revolvers are still subject to the list and the list says that a handgun must have a chamber-loaded indicator and a magazine disconnect. How can you design a revolver with a chamber-loaded indicator and mag disconnect? Or are those also just for semi-autos?

I think I may actually be confused by the state laws for the first time now :eek:!!!

Dont Tread on Me
08-24-2006, 4:51 PM
********! I cannot believe that this is still in play. Amazing.

grammaton76
08-24-2006, 4:56 PM
Of course revolvers are still subject to the list and the list says that a handgun must have a chamber-loaded indicator and a magazine disconnect. How can you design a revolver with a chamber-loaded indicator and mag disconnect? Or are those also just for semi-autos?

I think I may actually be confused by the state laws for the first time now :eek:!!!

The LCI/MDS requirements are both specific to semi automatics, and do not apply to revolvers. Otherwise, we would not have had ANY new revolvers submitted this year, as phase one of the LCI/MDS reg is already in place: you must have one or the other on any new listed pistol. Next year it steps up to phase two, where all new listed pistols must have BOTH.

mblat
08-24-2006, 5:26 PM
It'll be fought in court...In the long run AB 352 won't pass constitutional muster.


And that is why? It surely not much different from "loaded chambet indicator" or "magazine disconnect" ?

50 Freak
08-24-2006, 5:48 PM
Originally Posted by 50 Freak
It'll be fought in court...In the long run AB 352 won't pass constitutional muster.

Let me rephrase that....It will not pass legal muster.

Reason is no handgun company will implement this new "safety requirement". It is too cost prohibited and hence no new HG's will be allowed into CA as they are not considered "safe" anymore under our Handgun Safety requirements.

So these HG companies stand to lose a huge lucrative market (california). Not only just private citizens won't be able to buy these new HGs, LE departments will not be able to either. If a LE department gets an "exemption" from this as they often do....It's a matter of time some LE is going to accidently shoot someone with an "unsafe" firearm and will have their butts hauled into court. Hence the LE community will not support this.

At that point I'm sure the NRA or one of those HG companies (anyone but CRPA) will bring up a long lengthy legal fight against this bill.

Whether this legal action is based on the 2nd or whatever. The state of CA will eventually lose.

dwtt
08-24-2006, 6:04 PM
So, who's going to write to their assembly members to oppose this bill?
I'm sending an email to Torrico, my rep, since it's likely they will try to push this bill through before the end of August.

grammaton76
08-24-2006, 6:11 PM
So these HG companies stand to lose a huge lucrative market (california). Not only just private citizens won't be able to buy these new HGs, LE departments will not be able to either. If a LE department gets an "exemption" from this as they often do....It's a matter of time some LE is going to accidently shoot someone with an "unsafe" firearm and will have their butts hauled into court. Hence the LE community will not support this.

You're thinking too far ahead for the liberals. I'm pretty sure that this will be ruled as a non issue - besides, they'll just spend OUR tax dollars to pay off the lawsuit, so it's free money! Besides, the gun may be "unsafe", but that's acceptable in the hands of a trained professional who range-qualifies once a year! :)

Actually, I'm not sure - what's the minimum range-qual interval for, say, a desk job at a PD?

Satex
08-24-2006, 6:28 PM
One click email sent.
Please everyone do your easy part and send those emails!!!

6172crew
08-24-2006, 7:09 PM
So, who's going to write to their assembly members to oppose this bill?
I'm sending an email to Torrico, my rep, since it's likely they will try to push this bill through before the end of August.

Torrico is a clown but I will send off an email in the a.m.:(

bg
08-24-2006, 8:05 PM
Clicked and sent along with a call to my Assembly Member
Russ Bogh.

mblat
08-24-2006, 8:13 PM
Reason is no handgun company will implement this new "safety requirement". It is too cost prohibited and hence no new HG's will be allowed into CA as they are not considered "safe" anymore under our Handgun Safety requirements.

Unless they will get contract from law enforcement agencies. Then cost will not be an issue - it will be paid with taxpayer money....

Joe
08-24-2006, 8:33 PM
email sent

chris
08-24-2006, 8:48 PM
this bill is such BS. if you think this is the stage of banning gun ownership has advanced to another level. i wonder what is next.

as for the one click. can you use web based e-mail for it?
if i can i'll shoot an e-mail opposing this lame arse bill.

Dont Tread on Me
08-24-2006, 9:07 PM
I guess this is really a question for Mike, but how much impact do our e-mails really have?

I've sent one anyway. I normally only get a reply from McClintock saying he supports our 2nd amendment rights.

sparrow
08-24-2006, 9:11 PM
hopfully all the handgun makers out there take the same road as barrett and refuse to sell to komifornia's government aswell, if that were to happen hopfully alot of these polititians would see the light and finally leave the law abiding citizens alone. most likly it won't,most manufactures have yet to use these tactics with governments from maine, n.y, and mass. and we all know none of the senete or represenitives have wised up or even really care about the average joe let alone us "gun nuts". we can still hope and write our letters.

TKo_Productions
08-24-2006, 9:37 PM
just sent my assembly member a personalize e-mail.

i urge the rest of you to do the same.

useing the talking points provided by the NRA, it only takes a couple minutes.

mikehaas
08-25-2006, 8:35 AM
as for the one click. can you use web based e-mail for it?
if i can i'll shoot an e-mail opposing this lame arse bill.
Yes, you can. Unfortunately, web-based email clients (like hotmail and yahoo mail) can't use "mailto:" links directly (that's what the ONE-CLICK links are in websspeak.) One has to manually copy & paste the email address of the link into your web-based email program...

1. Go to http://calnra.com/legs.shtml#contactinfo

2. Locate the ONE-CLICK email link you want to send to. When you pass your mouse over it, you should see "mailto:(something)@muzzleenergy.com" appear in your browser's status line at the bottom of the window.

3. Right-click on the link.

4. In the popup that appears, select "Copy Shortcut"

5. Now go to your web-based email client. In the place where you would normally type in the email address, right-click.

6. In the popup menu that appeears, select "Paste". The email address should appear there as if you typed it. (NOTE: If is still starts with "mailto:", remove that part.)

ONE CAUTION: Do NOT save or distribute those email addresses - always go back to the ONE-CLICK page to get them. We change them often, without notice or warning, because spammers will soon get them.

Mike

mikehaas
08-25-2006, 8:51 AM
how much impact do our e-mails really have?
A lot. Understand, Sacramento depends on email as much as we do. it's fast, cheap and vital to them too. NRA would not ask for emails if they did not help.

Next, emails are needed to backup NRA. I discussed this important effect of our citizen input here:
http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=355131&postcount=11

Next, pro-gun lawmakers love our input (emails or stone table) because it gives them ammo for their arguments.

As far as the 'disposability" of emails - legislative offices are not free to just delete constituent input of any form. And they normally don't want to. They want to know how people feel about issues.

This is why one should not normally spend too much time developing arguments, elaborate logistics of legislation or expand on the meaning of the Second Amendment. All that stuff causes leg. staffers eyes to glaze over.

They want to know if we support or oppose an issue and guage how much support or opposition an issue has in their districts. Email is as good for that as any.

All forms of contact have advantages and disadvantages - email, fax, phone and letter. We need to employ all in our arsenals as much as we can.

Mike

Crazed_SS
08-25-2006, 10:32 AM
Quick question.. I know this probably has been asked.

Does this law only affect new models of guns? Will guns that are already certified as safe be able to still be sold?

blkA4alb
08-25-2006, 11:10 AM
Quick question.. I know this probably has been asked.

Does this law only affect new models of guns? Will guns that are already certified as safe be able to still be sold?
If you had taken the time to read the thread you would have found the answer to your question.

Anotherone, to my knowledge any handguns you own now and that are currently on the list would not be affected. But for a new gun to be added to the list if this passes would have to have the microstamping, magazine disconnect, and loaded chamber indicator. If the handguns on the list do not fall off of it then they do not have to have the new requirements.

This still pisses me off to a new level .

Wulf
08-25-2006, 11:46 AM
Fortunately Arnold is kicking Phil's rear in the pre-election polls. That will make it a lot easier for him to veto garbage like this and others that might get through the legislature.

ArmedBear
08-25-2006, 11:57 AM
Another wrinkle:

This might be challenged successfully in court, since the microstamp has nothing to do with the safety of the gun. I'm not sure how the law is written, exactly, but it seems that if they can declare a gun "unsafe" if it doesn't have a tiny, shallow engraving in the chamber, then they can declare it "unsafe" if it's made out of metal.

klmmicro
08-25-2006, 12:27 PM
Does this bill have to cross the Governor's desk before it is truly passed into law?

anotherone
08-25-2006, 2:04 PM
Does this bill have to cross the Governor's desk before it is truly passed into law?

Fortunately yes. If it got through the Senate, it's going through the Assembly next without much difficult. I imagine we'll see Torrico and others in the Assembly rejoice. Probably the main reason this law is actually going through is because it's close to election time and they need to say they were "tough on guns"... good thing they weren't tough on off-list recievers though eh?

ArmedBear
08-25-2006, 2:07 PM
It's an Assembly bill. It's already gone through the Assembly.

MrTuffPaws
08-25-2006, 3:53 PM
It's an Assembly bill. It's already gone through the Assembly.

Wasn't there a modification that would force the Assembly to revote on it?

mikehaas
08-26-2006, 9:04 AM
Wasn't there a modification that would force the Assembly to revote on it?
The link in the first post of this thread actually has info about the issue. I know, I was surprised too. :-)

Mike

Dont Tread on Me
08-26-2006, 9:20 AM
"Reducing gun crime is difficult in a society where most adult citizens are allowed to buy and own firearms"

1) there is no "gun crime". There is crime where criminals choose tools.
2) Societies that prevent citizens, sorry subject, from owning guns still have many crimes where criminals choose guns as a tool

"especially "straw buyers" who buy legally in bulk "

Is anbody allowed to buy in bulk? I thought it was one handgun a month?

I know I'm preaching the the choir...

Can'thavenuthingood
08-26-2006, 10:16 AM
I just tried to call my Assembly reps, Nicole Parra, office in Sac. No one is there and the phone message box is full.

I thought sure this had to go back to the Assembly for concurrence, which is a revote, is it not?

The bulk buying addressed is for ammo. They are saying that other criminals are buying ammo in bulk and selling it to the criminals buying guns through the strawman purchasers.

Criminals can still buy ammo, so that is on the hitlist too. They just haven't gotten around to intrioducing that bill yet. One step at a time, can't overload the system.

With this much support Arnold cannot veto this bill, its a safety issue. Backed by all the unions that defeated his prop measures.

Of course this is all just my opinion.
Vick

mikehaas
08-26-2006, 10:51 AM
With this much support Arnold cannot veto this bill, its a safety issue. Backed by all the unions that defeated his prop measures.
It hasn't gotten to the governor's desk yet. Let's not lose focus. Keep up the pressure WHERE IT MATTERS ("fighting smart") - from what I understand, this bill is up for a real fight in the Assembly for that concurrence vote.

NRA's analyses (there is more than 1) at...
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2006&summary=ab352.1
...gives both lawmakers and Arnold cover to not pass AB 352 into law. But forget about Arnold right now - we need to educate as many Assemblypersons as possible about these issues, especially their staffs. Phone calls are particularly good for that task. If it gets out of the Assembly, we'll obviously focus on the governor (but at this moment that is wasted effort).

That page also notes: "There is NO SUPPORT from the California law enforcement organizations. That includes the California Police Chiefs Association (Cal Chiefs). The Police Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) opposes AB 352."

Those are the kinds of issues we need to drive home. And don't put all of your arguments in one message. Better to raise 1 or 2 per message, then email/fax again later (maybe not enough time to write letters) with another 1/2. They aren't going to read past your first sentence or 2 anyway (one reason phone calls are good) - AND MAKE SURE YOUR OPPOSITION IS CLEARLY STATED. State it right off, then why.

Mike

Can'thavenuthingood
08-26-2006, 12:05 PM
I just sent a one clicker to the Assembly.

I also wrote an email to Nicole Parra (30th District) with a few reasons and requested she vote no on this bill.

She voted no before it went to the Senate.

Sometimes I feel like I'm standing in a hole and peeing into the wind.

Vick

dwtt
08-26-2006, 2:06 PM
I did the one click thing and got a reply from Sharon Runner of Dist 36. She's voting no on AB352 and her reason was that it will infringe on the 2nd A. Whoever is in her district, please keep her in office. She'll help offset that jerk Torrico who reps Fremont.

SgtBulldog
08-26-2006, 3:51 PM
One-clicked, hope everyone else is doing so too.

James R.
08-26-2006, 7:30 PM
Fortunately Arnold is kicking Phil's rear in the pre-election polls. That will make it a lot easier for him to veto garbage like this and others that might get through the legislature.

ROTFLMAO, you mean like he vetoed AB-50? If you think Ahhhhnold can be relied upon to give two *****s about 2A rights his track record doesn't exactly provide solid basis upon which to build such an optimistic outlook.

Regards,

James R.

Charliegone
08-26-2006, 7:35 PM
ROTFLMAO, you mean like he vetoed AB-50? If you think Ahhhhnold can be relied upon to give two *****s about 2A rights his track record doesn't exactly provide solid basis upon which to build such an optimistic outlook.

Regards,

James R.

Well, if Ahnold wants to be re-elected this year...he better veto this bill (if it comes to him.)

James R.
08-26-2006, 7:48 PM
Well, if Ahnold wants to be re-elected this year...he better veto this bill (if it comes to him.)

We can only hope, but to win you know as well as I he has to pander to the left and they're a bigger part of the vote than you and I.

Regards,

James R.

Crazed_SS
08-28-2006, 4:23 PM
I just got this email from my local gun shop..

[i]RESIDENTS URGED TO TAKE ACTION . . . Legislation that will mandate microstamping of firearms and allow for the future mandatory bullet serialization of all ammunition»including shotgun shells»passed the California Senate last week. The bill, AB 352, will now return to the California Assembly where, if it passes, gun owners and all California taxpayers will pay a hefty price. A recent independent study revealed this unproven patented technology does not function as advertised by the patent holder. The bill was also amended to provide a "back door" to bullet serialization. Ammo makers say it is impossible to put serial numbers on all ammunition without going bankrupt and say it would force them to stop sales of ammunition in California. AB 352 is a de facto ban on ammunition. Please visit www.nssf.org for additional information on AB 352. Please call, write or Email your State Assembly Representative and respectfully voice your displeasure over this misguided legislation. [/b]

What's up with the parts in bold? :mad:

6172crew
08-28-2006, 4:43 PM
The Governor has some really quality people around him that have been kept abreast of our issues...

We can continue to provide them with grassroots reasons to veto these bills.

This is our part and obligation to the process, and it assists those in the "horshoe" to educate the governor help him come to what we all understand as the correct decision.

Welcome to Calguns Ghostrider can you let us in on how you know about who is surrounding the Gov.?

Id really like to think hes an OK guy but he folds on most of the gun stuff including AB50 which did nothing to stop crime but banned firearms. The guys surrounding him look like idiots in my book and Im not sure I give a rats ****** if he looses this election or not.

Hes no freind of gun owners and has yet to take a stand against any gun law that I know of.

Librarian
08-28-2006, 6:31 PM
I just got this email from my local gun shop..

[i]...The bill was also amended to provide a "back door" to bullet serialization. Ammo makers say it is impossible to put serial numbers on all ammunition without going bankrupt and say it would force them to stop sales of ammunition in California. AB 352 is a de facto ban on ammunition. Please visit www.nssf.org for additional information on AB 352. Please call, write or Email your State Assembly Representative and respectfully voice your displeasure over this misguided legislation. [/b]

What's up with the parts in bold? :mad:That was on the front page of the CRPA newsletter I got today. What? sez I.

Here's the link to the current version of the bill on the web site:
AB 352 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_352&sess=CUR&house=B&author=koretz). I don't see anything like the bolded claim you and CRPA report, not as intoduced nor in any of the amended versions.

Doesn't mean it's impossible to change, but the bill has been to the Assembly, to the Senate, back to the Assembly for concurrence in Senate amendments. They'd have to do another bit messing with the rules, which has been done in the past. I don't currently think it's likely.

6172crew
08-28-2006, 7:58 PM
Governors come and go. Staff sticks around.There are no direct term limits on staff. Some of the good ones work for our governor.

The governor has some really great people on staff. of course he has some others that you may not have such an affinity for.

But I was only suggesting that we give those pro-gun-owner-civil rights guys the ammo they need to the extent we can.

even if the bills pass, but they just squeak by, its something to talk about, about how its not a slam dunk.

despite my being the spirit of vengeance, I stil am a softie..

Im sure the Calguns guys arent going to to be invited up for a cuban cigar but Im glad we have another member with an inside scoop. Keep us posted with what you think is needed to get our side heard inside that office.
Semper Fi,
Chris

j2ws2000
08-28-2006, 8:29 PM
I would break this law constantly, period. I wish gun companies would get behind us in not supporting this crap, ammunition companies too.