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 > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 08-21-2017, 12:41 PM
smokehammer's Avatar
smokehammer smokehammer is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 71
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Plus, its "micro" stamping. People file the serial numbers off of firearms all the time. This crap will sand off.
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 08-21-2017, 1:33 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,243
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smokehammer View Post
Plus, its "micro" stamping. People file the serial numbers off of firearms all the time. This crap will sand off.
Or just buy a new barrel and firing pin.

These idiotic legislators are either convinced that no criminals would ever think to do that, or more likely, they don't care because this was never about solving or deterring crime.
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 08-21-2017, 2:52 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,834
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Or just buy a new barrel and firing pin.
You can't - it's against the law. That's the point...

/sarcasm
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member

Last edited by IVC; 08-21-2017 at 11:50 PM.. Reason: added "sarcasm" tag
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 08-21-2017, 10:25 PM
smokehammer's Avatar
smokehammer smokehammer is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 71
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I dont think so. To the best of my understanding, no manufacturer can get a new handgun onto the roster unless it clearly marks a case fired from it in two places. So, no new guns can be added to the list for us to buy. However, assuming say, Springfield some how manages to make this fantasy a reality, there's nothing illegal about the buyer re-barreling (or buying a new firing pin) in the law. Assuming they amend that later, there's nothing stopping a criminal from doing it anyway, because by their very definition they couldnt give two ****s about the law. Beyond that the "crime" of buying an off roster gun carries no significant sentence when compared to why someone wouldnt want serial numbers on the arm(or casings) to begin with (murder). I suppose it lends some evidence to premeditation, but I dont think that's worth the trade-off of Californians not being able to obtain new models which may in fact BE SAFER than their previous versions -especially when someone would have to be dumb enough to take away the micro stamping, but leave the serial numbers traceable to themselves in most cases.
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 08-21-2017, 10:53 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,290
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
You can't - it's against the law. That's the point...
No it isn't against the law to re-barrel or replace the firing pin. Nothing in PC supports that idea.

Certainly a few legislators would be astonished to discover that was possible - many of those who voted for that idiocy were told plainly, but are now out of the legislature - but since no manufacturer seems to plan to provide microstamping, evading the plans of the grabbers will likely remain unexercised.
__________________
The Legislature is in recess. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 08-21-2017, 11:49 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,834
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
No it isn't against the law to re-barrel or replace the firing pin. Nothing in PC supports that idea.
It was sarcasm, I should've made it more obvious.

The idea is similar to that of "large capacity feeding devices" - if it's illegal, the murderers are supposed to show up with low capacity alternatives because, you know, it's illegal to use LCM for mass murder...
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 08-22-2017, 12:07 PM
smokehammer's Avatar
smokehammer smokehammer is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 71
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Arent all guns laws built around the fairy tale wish that fewer lawfully owned firearms equals less violent crime?
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 08-22-2017, 12:41 PM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 4,437
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soginator View Post
Even though this doesn't defeat the whole roster of stupidity, am I correct that it would at least enable manufacturers to actually get their firearms on roster if the microstamping requirement is removed?
Possibly, but more MFG's are letting them fall off the roster that were adding them on even when they could.
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 08-22-2017, 12:42 PM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 4,437
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ELBong View Post
Interesting, the marking requirement states:

31910. (7) (A) Commencing January 1, 2010, for all semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015, 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.

The firing pin never touches the case. It strikes the primer, which excludes it from being a part that could imprint a cartridge case.
Yeah, thinking too hard. As it leaves the gun, the primer IS part of the cartridge case. Sure, it can be removed later, but that's like saying the bullet isn't part of the round because it can be removed. I doubt that will be a groundbreaking distinction.
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 08-22-2017, 12:51 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,243
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smokehammer View Post
Arent all guns laws built around the fairy tale wish that fewer lawfully owned firearms equals less violent crime?
That's what they tell us when they're pitching their new laws, but their actual justification for new guns laws is that it wins them votes from the public majority who have an irrational fear of guns. Thus, nothing will change until the overwhelming irrational public fear goes away. Take some antis to the shooting range, it's the best way to really make a difference. When the public quits opposing gun rights, legislators quit trying to ban guns. It's really that simple.

There's a reason why politicians wait for mass shootings before they start calling for more gun bans - they see it as a prime opportunity to play people's heartstrings and make themselves appear to be "the ones who are trying to do something" to gain votes. It works, and that's why CA keeps losing more and more gun rights every year. It's also why nationally we aren't usually losing more and more gun rights every year, even under the Obama regime - because unlike CA, the US as a whole supports gun rights, and so legislators don't really push very hard for gun ban bills, they know it will cost them more votes than it will gain them. Until that's true in CA, we're going to keep losing.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 08-22-2017 at 12:59 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 08-23-2017, 9:05 AM
LoadedM333 LoadedM333 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Mira Mesa
Posts: 875
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
That's what they tell us when they're pitching their new laws, but their actual justification for new guns laws is that it wins them votes from the public majority who have an irrational fear of guns. Thus, nothing will change until the overwhelming irrational public fear goes away. Take some antis to the shooting range, it's the best way to really make a difference. When the public quits opposing gun rights, legislators quit trying to ban guns. It's really that simple.

There's a reason why politicians wait for mass shootings before they start calling for more gun bans - they see it as a prime opportunity to play people's heartstrings and make themselves appear to be "the ones who are trying to do something" to gain votes. It works, and that's why CA keeps losing more and more gun rights every year. It's also why nationally we aren't usually losing more and more gun rights every year, even under the Obama regime - because unlike CA, the US as a whole supports gun rights, and so legislators don't really push very hard for gun ban bills, they know it will cost them more votes than it will gain them. Until that's true in CA, we're going to keep losing.
Well put sir!
__________________
NRA LifeTime Member
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 09-12-2017, 4:06 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 99
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Respondent State applied for and received an extension of time to file its reply brief on the merits to October 11, 2017.

Last edited by TruOil; 09-12-2017 at 4:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 09-12-2017, 4:18 PM
TempleKnight's Avatar
TempleKnight TempleKnight is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lincoln, CA
Posts: 777
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
Yeah, thinking too hard. As it leaves the gun, the primer IS part of the cartridge case. Sure, it can be removed later, but that's like saying the bullet isn't part of the round because it can be removed. I doubt that will be a groundbreaking distinction.
There's still the issue of TWO places on the case.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 09-13-2017, 3:12 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 99
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TempleKnight View Post
There's still the issue of TWO places on the case.
I have not seen the briefs (although I've asked for them), but what I understand is that principle issue on this appeal is NOT whether the existing technology complies with the mandates of the statute, but the procedural issues as to whether NSSF even gets to challenge the law, and if so, what judicial standards are to be applied to the determination of the challenge. For reasons I cannot detail, the State claims that NSSF has no standing to challenge the certification without challenging the law itself, or some such nonsense.

IF the Supreme Court concludes that a challenge may be brought to the AG's determination, THEN the issue of the absence of available technology to produce a firearm complying with the statute will be litigated in the trial court.
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 09-14-2017, 7:17 PM
PMACA_MFG's Avatar
PMACA_MFG PMACA_MFG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 544
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Should challenge the law, there is no possible way for any part of a pistols frame to contact, let alone emboss a number on a cartridge case.
This law could only be applied to break action and revolving chamber firearms.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 09-14-2017, 8:04 PM
twidget1995 twidget1995 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: San Diego
Posts: 137
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default How would that work?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Should challenge the law, there is no possible way for any part of a pistols frame to contact, let alone emboss a number on a cartridge case.
This law could only be applied to break action and revolving chamber firearms.
I don't see how you could get two places on a cartridge even with break action and revolvers.

This is a stupid law, like much of CA's anti-gun laws. Banning cosmetic features on rifles, magazine limits, ammo back ground checks, 10 day waits for people who already have firearms.
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 09-14-2017, 8:05 PM
twidget1995 twidget1995 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: San Diego
Posts: 137
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Oh, and like someone earlier said - make all this apply to the police FIRST. If smartguns are such a great idea then the police should adopt them before anyone else.
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 09-14-2017, 10:07 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 99
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by twidget1995 View Post
Oh, and like someone earlier said - make all this apply to the police FIRST. If smartguns are such a great idea then the police should adopt them before anyone else.

Why would we need to use microstamping with police weapons? Police are responsible for every round fired--and the investigation teams pick up every single casing. It is not like we don't know to whom the police officer's weapon belongs.
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 09-14-2017, 10:10 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 99
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by twidget1995 View Post
Oh, and like someone earlier said - make all this apply to the police FIRST. If smartguns are such a great idea then the police should adopt them before anyone else.

Why would we need to use microstamping with police weapons? Police are responsible for every round fired--and the investigation teams pick up every single casing. It is not like we don't know to whom the police officer's weapon belongs.

The point is that the law was sold as an aid in solving crime, not as a method of diminishing the number of semiauto firearms on the market in California, laws from which the police individually and as a force are exempt. Thus, it is impossible to "sell" the idea of microstamping police guns.
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 09-14-2017, 10:12 PM
PMACA_MFG's Avatar
PMACA_MFG PMACA_MFG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 544
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by twidget1995 View Post
I don't see how you could get two places on a cartridge even with break action and revolvers.

This is a stupid law, like much of CA's anti-gun laws. Banning cosmetic features on rifles, magazine limits, ammo back ground checks, 10 day waits for people who already have firearms.
Both on the bottom of the case, that part contacts the frame.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #221  
Old 09-14-2017, 10:44 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 99
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by twidget1995 View Post
Oh, and like someone earlier said - make all this apply to the police FIRST. If smartguns are such a great idea then the police should adopt them before anyone else.

Why would we need to use microstamping with police weapons? Police are responsible for every round fired--and the investigation teams pick up every single casing. It is not like we don't know to whom the police officer's weapon belongs.

The point is that the law was sold as an aid in solving crime, not as a method of diminishing the number of semiauto firearms on the market in California, laws from which the police individually and as a force are exempt. Thus, it is impossible to "sell" the idea of microstamping police guns.
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 09-15-2017, 6:19 AM
twidget1995 twidget1995 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: San Diego
Posts: 137
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Yes, police NEVER lose their weapons

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Why would we need to use microstamping with police weapons? Police are responsible for every round fired--and the investigation teams pick up every single casing. It is not like we don't know to whom the police officer's weapon belongs.
The idea is that, if the State wants to create a market for firearms with this, then they should create the market. By mandating that the ONLY firearms police may use have to have microstamping they would create a market that would get those weapons into production.

Likewise, if the State wants to create a market for so-called "smart guns" then the obvious first choice would be law enforcement and the military rather than waiting for civilians to purchase these weapons.

The point of my argument, is that the police don't want either microstamping or smart guns for themselves. It's not that I think the police need them but it would add another group in opposition to this idiocy if they were not exempted.
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 09-15-2017, 6:22 AM
twidget1995 twidget1995 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: San Diego
Posts: 137
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Actually, we don't

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Why would we need to use microstamping with police weapons? Police are responsible for every round fired--and the investigation teams pick up every single casing. It is not like we don't know to whom the police officer's weapon belongs.

The point is that the law was sold as an aid in solving crime, not as a method of diminishing the number of semiauto firearms on the market in California, laws from which the police individually and as a force are exempt. Thus, it is impossible to "sell" the idea of microstamping police guns.
The only way you could know which officer fired is if there is only one officer involved. What about instances where several are involved in a shooting? Microstamping would show more specifically which cases belonged to each officer.

I'm not actually trying to sell this idea. I don't think there are very many cops who would support this. But since they are exempted, they don't really care.
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 09-15-2017, 2:06 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 99
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by twidget1995 View Post
The only way you could know which officer fired is if there is only one officer involved. What about instances where several are involved in a shooting? Microstamping would show more specifically which cases belonged to each officer.

I'm not actually trying to sell this idea. I don't think there are very many cops who would support this. But since they are exempted, they don't really care.
Each officer must report all fired rounds as it is, and the purpose of the law was not to trace to a particular individual as the shooter, but to be able to trace to a particular weapon, with the unstated and never established assumption that knowing who owned the gun will lead to the shooter. (Despite all of the fanfare surrounding ATF traces, the exercise is usually one in futility.) After that, you can never tell which bullet hit which person, so even if you can attach a casing to a gun doesn't mean that you can attach the bullets down range to a particular officer.
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 10-11-2017, 3:43 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 99
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The State filed its Reply today, and the case is now fully briefed. At some point, the Supreme Court will schedule oral argument, but there is no way of estimating when that will be. Although I have not been able to obtain the briefs, the issues raised on appeal--which are basically whether NSSF can sue, and if so, what is the standard of proof that the challenged certification is improper/an abuse of the AG's discretion, are not terribly complex, but certainly novel. I would take a WAG that orals will be next spring. In another WAG, I suspect that, contrary to the AG's position that its actions cannot be challenged, the Supreme Court will allow the case to proceed, and thus the "biggie" will be what NSSF has to prove to prevail.

Assuming I am correct, the Supreme Court decision will be just a stepping stone, with a remand to the trial court for trial. The ultimate conclusion of the case is at least a year or two away at a minimum, much much longer if the AG decides to fight this to the bitter end and appeal as far as it can. The longer it delays the case, the fewer the number of new semiauto handguns that will be available here, and for the AG, that is a win.
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 10-11-2017, 4:52 PM
Cortelli Cortelli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 175
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
The State filed its Reply today, and the case is now fully briefed. At some point, the Supreme Court will schedule oral argument, but there is no way of estimating when that will be. Although I have not been able to obtain the briefs, the issues raised on appeal--which are basically whether NSSF can sue, and if so, what is the standard of proof that the challenged certification is improper/an abuse of the AG's discretion, are not terribly complex, but certainly novel. I would take a WAG that orals will be next spring. In another WAG, I suspect that, contrary to the AG's position that its actions cannot be challenged, the Supreme Court will allow the case to proceed, and thus the "biggie" will be what NSSF has to prove to prevail.

Assuming I am correct, the Supreme Court decision will be just a stepping stone, with a remand to the trial court for trial. The ultimate conclusion of the case is at least a year or two away at a minimum, much much longer if the AG decides to fight this to the bitter end and appeal as far as it can. The longer it delays the case, the fewer the number of new semiauto handguns that will be available here, and for the AG, that is a win.
Your WAGs make a lot of sense to me. And that is very depressing.
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 10-11-2017, 4:56 PM
BCA142's Avatar
BCA142 BCA142 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern Corruptifornia
Posts: 585
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Thanks for the update. Instead of the standard "2 Weeks" remark this deserves a "2 Year" designation.
__________________
Dec. 15, 1791
"The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed" EVER!!!!!

NRA Life Member: Patron
Calguns Supporter
Firearms Policy Coalition Supporter
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 4:01 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.