Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-13-2017, 11:27 AM
DEFCON ZERO DEFCON ZERO is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 372
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default I'm not seeing a Micro-Stamping test case where a gun maker

has tried to use the patented tech.

Wouldn't that bounce the ball back to the other side if the patent is based on flawed science, like a PFD made out of cotton candy?

And why ain't Trump doing something?

And from what I remember from Biz Law 101, its pretty easy to get a case heard outside the 9th, like if an out of state gun maker filed in its home state.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-13-2017, 3:01 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 97
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

1. Trump cannot do anything because it is a state law, not a federal law, and therefore he has no jurisdiction over the subject matter.
2. A state is immune from suit in the federal courts (unless it consents, ala Peruta), so the action must be brought in a state court as it involves a state law.
3. A state--California--cannot be sued in the state courts of another state, as another state has no jurisdiction.
4. A manufacturer could, theoretically, build a machine that would etch the tip of a firing pin. But this is only a part of the issue presented. First, apart from being easily defeated, the microscopic pattern imprinted on the firing pin lasts only a few hundred rounds before it becomes indiscernible, and therefore useless. Second, the California statute requires that the imprint appear in two places on the spent case, and the current tech only puts a single imprint on the primer. This latter point is one of the main issues in the attack of Kamala Harris' certification that triggered the law becoming effective, i.e., that the technology required by the statute doesn't actually exist.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-13-2017, 3:04 PM
unusedusername's Avatar
unusedusername unusedusername is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Between SJ and SF
Posts: 3,568
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

There is no need to try to use the patented tech, as the patent does not meet the requirements of the law.

The law requires that the case is stamped in at least 2 places.

The patent describes a process for stamping on the priming cap in one place. A priming cap isn't part of the case.

Even if the patented tech works (the author has admitted that it does not work), it wouldn't meet the requirements.
__________________
Quote:
"It wasn't a failure of laws," said Amanda Wilcox, who along with her husband, Nick, lobbies for the California chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "I just don't see how our gun laws could have stopped something like that."
-Speaking about the Oikos mass shooting in Oakland.

Quote:
With an assault weapon you just hold the trigger back and it goes blup,blup,blup
-Michael Bloomberg confused about the difference between a machine gun and a rifle, ABC News Nightline 12/21/12
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-13-2017, 4:33 PM
God Bless America's Avatar
God Bless America God Bless America is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,717
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Why would there be a "test case"?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-13-2017, 5:01 PM
MRH's Avatar
MRH MRH is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 368
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Once a manufacturer develops microstamping tech that works, which I highly doubt they will, then our State will just pass another law that requires firearms to possess another type of tech that firearms manufacturers don't have. This again will put a stop to any new firearms being sold in Cali. It's all in their master plan.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-13-2017, 5:05 PM
bootstrap bootstrap is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 768
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

TruOil,

What recourse would the rest of the US have if CA passed a law prohibiting any interstate commerce to black people living in CA?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-13-2017, 6:39 PM
rm1911's Avatar
rm1911 rm1911 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Soviet Socialist Republic of Kalifornia
Posts: 3,298
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DEFCON ZERO View Post
has tried to use the patented tech.



Wouldn't that bounce the ball back to the other side if the patent is based on flawed science, like a PFD made out of cotton candy?



And why ain't Trump doing something?



And from what I remember from Biz Law 101, its pretty easy to get a case heard outside the 9th, like if an out of state gun maker filed in its home state.


The same reason we don't run our cars on unicorn farts.

Neither exists.

(And yes I know unicorns are real, they just don't fart. It's a scientific fact. )
__________________
NRA Life Member since 1990

They're not liberals, they're leftists. Please don't use the former for the latter. Liberals are Locke, Jefferson, Burke, Hayek. Leftists are progressives, Prussian state-socialists, fascists. Liberals stand against the state and unequivocally support liberty. Leftists support state tyranny.

Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-14-2017, 9:36 AM
God Bless America's Avatar
God Bless America God Bless America is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,717
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bootstrap View Post
TruOil,

What recourse would the rest of the US have if CA passed a law prohibiting any interstate commerce to black people living in CA?
Who cares? That's irrelevant.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-14-2017, 4:28 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,397
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
1. Trump cannot do anything because it is a state law, not a federal law, and therefore he has no jurisdiction over the subject matter.
2. A state is immune from suit in the federal courts (unless it consents, ala Peruta), so the action must be brought in a state court as it involves a state law.
3. A state--California--cannot be sued in the state courts of another state, as another state has no jurisdiction.
4. A manufacturer could, theoretically, build a machine that would etch the tip of a firing pin. But this is only a part of the issue presented. First, apart from being easily defeated, the microscopic pattern imprinted on the firing pin lasts only a few hundred rounds before it becomes indiscernible, and therefore useless. Second, the California statute requires that the imprint appear in two places on the spent case, and the current tech only puts a single imprint on the primer. This latter point is one of the main issues in the attack of Kamala Harris' certification that triggered the law becoming effective, i.e., that the technology required by the statute doesn't actually exist.
A state has no immunity from a suit brought in federal court by the United States and Trump certainly has a lot to say in whether the United States sues to invalidate a microstamping law on the theory that denial of the manufacture and sale of arms amounts infringes on the RKBA. Federal law was never my thing so what am I missing? Be gentle.

Last edited by Chewy65; 09-14-2017 at 4:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-14-2017, 4:46 PM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,379
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

It's cute how he thinks this has anything at all to do with the technology.
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: I cant wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Dude went full CNN...
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-14-2017, 4:55 PM
ElvenSoul's Avatar
ElvenSoul ElvenSoul is offline
Free at Last!
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: TEXAS!
Posts: 17,874
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I said this years ago.

To get rid of the microstamping make it a requirement for Police.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-14-2017, 6:12 PM
Dutch3's Avatar
Dutch3 Dutch3 is offline
Dirt Farmer
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Butte County
Posts: 12,692
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
1. Trump cannot do anything because it is a state law, not a federal law, and therefore he has no jurisdiction over the subject matter.
2. A state is immune from suit in the federal courts (unless it consents, ala Peruta), so the action must be brought in a state court as it involves a state law.
3. A state--California--cannot be sued in the state courts of another state, as another state has no jurisdiction.
4. A manufacturer could, theoretically, build a machine that would etch the tip of a firing pin. But this is only a part of the issue presented. First, apart from being easily defeated, the microscopic pattern imprinted on the firing pin lasts only a few hundred rounds before it becomes indiscernible, and therefore useless. Second, the California statute requires that the imprint appear in two places on the spent case, and the current tech only puts a single imprint on the primer. This latter point is one of the main issues in the attack of Kamala Harris' certification that triggered the law becoming effective, i.e., that the technology required by the statute doesn't actually exist.
It is a useless and flawed technology as it currently exists, relying on mechanical means to imprint the cartridge case or primer face.

Imprinting via the firing pin as stated will quickly become useless due to repeated impacts obliterating any imprinting characters on the firing pin.

Imprinting the side of the case using characters inside the chamber is even worse, as the fired, expanded case will smear the imprint when the case is extracted.

Imprinting on the case head is not viable due to the manufacturer stampings already in that location and the smearing that occurs as the case is ejected.

There is not a single firearm manufacturer investing in this technology, because anyone with any sense can see it is a dead end road.

California has no argument in favor of requiring microstamping, since a firearm using such technology is not available from any manufacturer at any price.
__________________
Just taking up space in the second-worst small town in California.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-14-2017, 7:11 PM
bootstrap bootstrap is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 768
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless America View Post
Who cares? That's irrelevant.
You're right, the way I worded it didn't make sense. I meant the inverse.

OP stated ".., its pretty easy to get a case heard outside the 9th, like if an out of state gun maker filed in its home state."

If CA made a law to not ship any goods to blacks or hispanics, what course of action could be taken for black or hispanic people from Texas or Tennessee who tried to order items from CA merchants and were denied based on CA law?
__________________
Department of Homeland Security lists select-fire AR-15s with 30 round mags as suitable for personal defense

If registering an "assault weapon", consider attaching a note with the photo stating "submitting under duress and coercion as California's laws defining "assault weapons" are more restrictive than the purview of the Federal National Firearms Act. CA's "assault weapon" registration process has caused undue burden . V.C. {FirstName LastName}

Last edited by bootstrap; 09-14-2017 at 7:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-14-2017, 7:20 PM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,991
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

The only Federal act that would work is one that asserts Federal supremacy over any state/local gun laws. 2A is codified as a human and Federal right. Accordingly any other non Federal laws should apply. The 2A protection act should be able to pass congress and Trump would sign it.
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-14-2017, 7:45 PM
twidget1995 twidget1995 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: San Diego
Posts: 128
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default This may not work as well as you think

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade Gunner View Post
The only Federal act that would work is one that asserts Federal supremacy over any state/local gun laws. 2A is codified as a human and Federal right. Accordingly any other non Federal laws should apply. The 2A protection act should be able to pass congress and Trump would sign it.
This seems like a really great idea. Have the Feds declare that they will occupy the entire space of firearm regulation and trump the States.

Now, what happens when the parties change who's in power? What happens when you get a anti-gun Congress that now occupies the entire space of gun regulation? What happens when all those gun friendly national laws are replaced with not gun friendly national laws?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-14-2017, 8:13 PM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,991
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by twidget1995 View Post
This seems like a really great idea. Have the Feds declare that they will occupy the entire space of firearm regulation and trump the States.



Now, what happens when the parties change who's in power? What happens when you get a anti-gun Congress that now occupies the entire space of gun regulation? What happens when all those gun friendly national laws are replaced with not gun friendly national laws?


That observation is certainly valid. It happened in 1968. Prior to that 1927 (mailing handguns), 1934 NFA, 1938 (FFL) which already take supremacy over state laws. So an anti gun federal congress can still pass laws that over rule the states. Now compare four Federal gun control acts to California's annual gun beat down. Then consider the court process to take a 2A challenge against a state law which can take many years, compared to a congressional act that can move very quickly to SCOTUS. I'd take the Fed laws over CA state laws any day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-14-2017, 8:23 PM
twidget1995 twidget1995 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: San Diego
Posts: 128
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default You're assuming the SCotUS doesn't change, too

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade Gunner View Post
That observation is certainly valid. It happened in 1968. Prior to that 1927 (mailing handguns), 1934 NFA, 1938 (FFL) which already take supremacy over state laws. So an anti gun federal congress can still pass laws that over rule the states. Now compare four Federal gun control acts to California's annual gun beat down. Then consider the court process to take a 2A challenge against a state law which can take many years, compared to a congressional act that can move very quickly to SCOTUS. I'd take the Fed laws over CA state laws any day
You're assuming that there are no changes other than Congress. It takes a long time to get a Federal case to the SCotUS, too.

I'm not advocating for CA's nuttiness. I'm, rather, thinking of the Free States with more liberal gun laws that would probably see stricter requirements from a national set of gun laws than they have in place now. Sure, places like CA and NY would have to deal with looser gun laws, but, equally likely, places like OK and WY would see stricter laws.

It's not the panacea it seems.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-14-2017, 9:57 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 97
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bootstrap View Post
You're right, the way I worded it didn't make sense. I meant the inverse.

OP stated ".., its pretty easy to get a case heard outside the 9th, like if an out of state gun maker filed in its home state."

If CA made a law to not ship any goods to blacks or hispanics, what course of action could be taken for black or hispanic people from Texas or Tennessee who tried to order items from CA merchants and were denied based on CA law?
The recourse would be a law suit filed in state court against the state by anyone harmed by the law challenging the validity of the statute under both federal and state constitutional law principles. The Eleventh Amendment precludes filing in a federal court.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-14-2017, 10:13 PM
bootstrap bootstrap is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 768
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
The recourse would be a law suit filed in state court against the state by anyone harmed by the law challenging the validity of the statute under both federal and state constitutional law principles. The Eleventh Amendment precludes filing in a federal court.
Thank you TruOil.

So we have blatant 2A and more than probable 14A, 11A and Interstate commerce clause infringements brought upon us by the CA legislature (illegitimate laws) and CA DOJ (over-reaching regs).

We need every out of state FFL to file Federal suits in their home states on these grounds to chop the head off of this mother****ing snake that's reared its ugly head in CA.

Commie shills refute....
__________________
Department of Homeland Security lists select-fire AR-15s with 30 round mags as suitable for personal defense

If registering an "assault weapon", consider attaching a note with the photo stating "submitting under duress and coercion as California's laws defining "assault weapons" are more restrictive than the purview of the Federal National Firearms Act. CA's "assault weapon" registration process has caused undue burden . V.C. {FirstName LastName}

Last edited by bootstrap; 09-14-2017 at 10:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-15-2017, 7:47 AM
Tarmy's Avatar
Tarmy Tarmy is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 142
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I am certainly am not any expert on this...but as I understand the "intent" of the law...it is to intentionally approve a requirement that simply cannot be complied with today, nor the likely near future. Further, As some mentioned, that as soon as someone actually figures the tech out, our lovely legislature will figure out the next great unproven or un-attainable technology and require that to be added as well.

The goal, In my understaning of it, is to reduce the list of available firearms. Eventually leading them to figure out how to stop revolvers from being added as well.

They are winning, at this point, by just screwing with requirements. Even if a challange to their approach is successful, they will adopt a similar but technically different requirement to start the whole cycle over again...

I don't mean to sound defeatist, I want to make sure I understand their goal correctly. We can't stop these clowns until their strategy is overcome with a more resilient strategy.

It pisses me off that they seem to enjoy our misery...and at some point an organized effort ( other than out voting their liberal block ) will be necessary...

Am I missing something?
__________________
Wilson Protector .45, Springer 9mm Loaded, Franchi Instinct SL .12ga.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-15-2017, 1:44 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 97
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarmy View Post
I am certainly am not any expert on this...but as I understand the "intent" of the law...it is to intentionally approve a requirement that simply cannot be complied with today, nor the likely near future. Further, As some mentioned, that as soon as someone actually figures the tech out, our lovely legislature will figure out the next great unproven or un-attainable technology and require that to be added as well.

The goal, In my understaning of it, is to reduce the list of available firearms. Eventually leading them to figure out how to stop revolvers from being added as well.

They are winning, at this point, by just screwing with requirements. Even if a challange to their approach is successful, they will adopt a similar but technically different requirement to start the whole cycle over again...

I don't mean to sound defeatist, I want to make sure I understand their goal correctly. We can't stop these clowns until their strategy is overcome with a more resilient strategy.

It pisses me off that they seem to enjoy our misery...and at some point an organized effort ( other than out voting their liberal block ) will be necessary...

Am I missing something?
Yup. The law itself specified that it was not to go into effect until the tech actually existed and was unencumbered by patent protection (so that it would be available to all manufacturers).

What happened is that we ended up with an anti-gun zealot AG (Kamala Harris) who made the certification required by the statute--despite the fact that no tech that actually complies is extant. In other words, she abused her discretion as a means of limiting the number of semiautomatic handguns available for sale here, and added to that with an aggressive definition of "material change" so as to impose the requirement on as many rostered pistols as she could. Which is why, for example, neither Taurus or Colt sells any pistols here any longer, the latter simply because it moved to modern CNC manufacturing without a change in the design.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 -8. The time now is 1:54 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.