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
  #1  
Old 04-29-2015, 10:34 AM
CMonfort's Avatar
CMonfort CMonfort is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 465
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Update 12-1-16: NSSF v. State of California (Microstamping Challenge)

The trial court denied the State's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Order available here:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...nying-MJOP.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-29-2015, 10:49 AM
Soginator's Avatar
Soginator Soginator is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,654
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

So is this good or bad for us? Sorry, lawyer speak is confusing.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-29-2015, 11:05 AM
thayne's Avatar
thayne thayne is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: CA
Posts: 2,284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It's good
__________________
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."
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-29-2015, 11:25 AM
JonW JonW is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 349
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Not only did they deny the motion, to me, their reasons sounded pretty much like the way they might be ruling.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-29-2015, 11:27 AM
Soginator's Avatar
Soginator Soginator is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,654
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Would this affect the entire roster, or just the microstamping portion?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-29-2015, 11:31 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,390
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soginator View Post
Would this affect the entire roster, or just the microstamping portion?
Just the microstamping, as the suit is now.
__________________
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
  #7  
Old 04-29-2015, 12:35 PM
ELBong ELBong is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 27
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-29-2015, 12:43 PM
Soginator's Avatar
Soginator Soginator is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,654
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

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?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-29-2015, 1:19 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,390
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
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.
Oh, that's fun - good catch!
__________________
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
  #10  
Old 04-29-2015, 1:22 PM
ronlglock's Avatar
ronlglock ronlglock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,137
iTrader: 9 / 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?
Assuming that the firearms also have a compliant loaded chamber indicator (LCI) and a magazine disconnect - which many firearms do not.
__________________

NRA Patron, CRPA Life, SAF Life, GSSF Life, NRA RSO and pistol instructor, ILEETA instructor. Stop me before I join something else!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-29-2015, 1:22 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,390
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
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?
Some.

Wouldn't cover loaded chamber indicator and magazine disconnect, or rulings like Glock/Georgia, USA is different from Glock/Austria.
__________________
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
  #12  
Old 04-29-2015, 1:44 PM
Hanse Davion's Avatar
Hanse Davion Hanse Davion is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 525
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Oh, that's fun - good catch!
Not just that too, but requiring the markings being transferred to the case "when the firearm is fired" as opposed to simply being loaded.
__________________
NRA Endowment Member
CRPA Life Member

The best things in life are beyond money; their price is agony and sweat and devotion . . . and the price demanded for the most precious of all things in life is life itself--ultimate cost for perfect value. -R.A. Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-29-2015, 2:03 PM
postal postal is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Riverside
Posts: 4,567
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Nice!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-29-2015, 2:13 PM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,951
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanse Davion View Post
Not just that too, but requiring the markings being transferred to the case "when the firearm is fired" as opposed to simply being loaded.
.... Plus .... there must be Two totally separate "markings" (with all the info - make model serial #) at that !

Put that on a .22 short !
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby View Post
Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-29-2015, 2:42 PM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,951
iTrader: 1 / 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.
Excellent catch! This was never explored in the pledings as far as I know. A firearm Cartridge is made up of a case, primer, powder and bullet, correct? According to the decision, and the plain language of the Statute, it would seem that the State just lost it's reliance from having two imprints on the head of the firing pin, to having NONE. No?

Having fresh eyes by a new member can be a good thing !
Great job!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby View Post
Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice

Last edited by Southwest Chuck; 04-29-2015 at 2:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-29-2015, 2:55 PM
ojisan's Avatar
ojisan ojisan is offline
Agent 86
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SFV
Posts: 10,218
iTrader: 45 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Oh, that's fun - good catch!
I've pointed this out before.

On and on, people write about filing the numbers off the end of the firing pin as a "fix".
The firing pin cannot be used to stamp.

Read the law, read the patent.
You do need to understand how things are made, too.
MS is not possible.
Even the MS inventor says it's not workable as is.

If this truly is a new idea to you guys, I can explain more if needed.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...&postcount=433
__________________

Last edited by ojisan; 04-29-2015 at 3:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-29-2015, 3:08 PM
YubaRiver YubaRiver is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: polaris
Posts: 910
iTrader: 0 / 0%
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.

So rimfire would work? The arm antics smart gun is rimfire, so they should be required to micro stamp.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-29-2015, 4:01 PM
Mitch's Avatar
Mitch Mitch is offline
Mostly Harmless
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Reno
Posts: 6,564
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ELBong View Post
The firing pin never touches the case. It strikes the primer, which excludes it from being a part that could imprint a cartridge case.
So the microstamping has to be on the bolt face.

We are talking about hypothetical technologies here, after all.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Getting called a DOJ shill has become a rite of passage around here. I've certainly been called that more than once - I've even seen Kes get called that. I haven't seen Red-O get called that yet, which is very suspicious to me, and means he's probably a DOJ shill.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-29-2015, 5:18 PM
Rumline's Avatar
Rumline Rumline is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Escaped to Colorado
Posts: 849
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
So the microstamping has to be on the bolt face.
But then you've got the manufacturer's markings on the head of the case that are going to interfere with the readability of any microstamping applied to this region.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-29-2015, 5:33 PM
Mitch's Avatar
Mitch Mitch is offline
Mostly Harmless
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Reno
Posts: 6,564
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumline View Post
But then you've got the manufacturer's markings on the head of the case that are going to interfere with the readability of any microstamping applied to this region.
Does it saw anywhere in the legislation the microstamping has to be readable?

I think not!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Getting called a DOJ shill has become a rite of passage around here. I've certainly been called that more than once - I've even seen Kes get called that. I haven't seen Red-O get called that yet, which is very suspicious to me, and means he's probably a DOJ shill.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-29-2015, 7:44 PM
stag6.8 stag6.8 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,028
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

so is the microstamping issue officially gone?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-29-2015, 8:03 PM
darkshire's Avatar
darkshire darkshire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,089
iTrader: 66 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stag6.8 View Post
so is the microstamping issue officially gone?
not yet, but based on the opinion (pdf) i read above, it looks like its on the hoizon
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-29-2015, 8:44 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,390
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stag6.8 View Post
so is the microstamping issue officially gone?
No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMonfort View Post
The trial court denied the State's motion for judgment on the pleadings.
That means that the case will go to trial, unless it somehow gets settled another way.
__________________
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
  #24  
Old 04-29-2015, 8:58 PM
command_liner command_liner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Heart of the Valley, Oregon
Posts: 878
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Good catch/review on the primer issue.

How does microstamping work with caseless ammunition?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-29-2015, 10:10 PM
RobertMW's Avatar
RobertMW RobertMW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 707
Posts: 2,119
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ojisan View Post
I've pointed this out before.

On and on, people write about filing the numbers off the end of the firing pin as a "fix".
The firing pin cannot be used to stamp.

Read the law, read the patent.
You do need to understand how things are made, too.
MS is not possible.
Even the MS inventor says it's not workable as is.

If this truly is a new idea to you guys, I can explain more if needed.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...&postcount=433
Unfortunately, according to this order, the plaintiffs (NSSF) have already ceded that the firing pin is likely a workable solution, so that argument may already be moot.

However, if you read through the patent that the law was based on, the wording of the law, and the intent of the law as based on the discussion of the law as it went through the legislature, two places ALWAYS meant on the firing pin, and somewhere in a vastly different location from it. The patent drawings show it coming in on the side of a casing. AKA, let's drill a ****ing hole in the side of the chamber, that sounds like a great idea, not even discounting smearing from chamber in and ejecting, erosion, brass hardness, manufacturing ability.

The legislature wrote an inane law that is impossible to comply with.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
I'm most famous for my positive mental attitude.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-30-2015, 8:01 AM
Iktomi's Avatar
Iktomi Iktomi is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: In YOUR neighborhood. Scary, huh?
Posts: 96
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertMW View Post

The legislature wrote an inane law that is impossible to comply with.

Welllll....the law is being complied with if such guns without the mandated stamping features are no longer available, which is likely the entire point of the law to begin with. Get as many guns as possible off the shelf.

...rotten bass-turds.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-30-2015, 10:49 AM
jrr jrr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 569
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Nice! The ruling seems to address the issues without a lot of hand waving about public safety and such. Hopefully this will be looked at as a technical issue and not a "gun" issue.

I like the reading above re the firing pin marking the primer vs the case. I am not sure, but I don't think that anything in the pleadings up to this point would stop plaintiff from adding that into their complaint. Firing pins, as currently (and for the last hundred years or more) do not strike the "case", which is a different part of the cartridge from the primer. The plain meaning seems to be very clear, although legislative intent seems to have been to include the firing pin as one of the markers.

Go get em!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-30-2015, 11:06 AM
1hotshooter's Avatar
1hotshooter 1hotshooter is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 339
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Seems to happen too often.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertMW View Post

The legislature wrote an inane law that is impossible to comply with.
__________________
Ammo Bros - San Diego
Michelle@AmmoBros.com
AmmoBros.com
Ammo Bros - San Diego Facebook
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-30-2015, 2:29 PM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 550
iTrader: 0 / 0%
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.
Since we are dealing with a statute it is important to determine if there is any statutory definition of case. My quick research turned up the following:
Quote:
Pen. Code Sec. 16840.
(a) [snip]
(b) As used in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 25100) of
Division 4 of Title 4, in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (6) of
subdivision (c) of Section 25400, and in Sections 25850 to 26055,
inclusive,
(1) A firearm shall be deemed to be "loaded" when there is an
unexpended cartridge or shell, consisting of a case that holds a
charge of powder and a bullet or shot
, in, or attached in any manner
to, the firearm, including, but not limited to, in the firing
chamber, magazine, or clip thereof attached to the firearm.
(2) [snip]
I foresee the AG arguing that this definition of case is broad enough to include the primer given that our legislators are unaware of the meaning of accepted gun nomenclature. This argument is weakened by the fact that the definition of case is expressly limited to a specific section of the Penal Code and does not apply to the unsafe handguns laws.
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-30-2015, 2:55 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,390
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Doesn't really help an opposing argument much - the definition is quite clear where it applies:
Quote:
(b) As used in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 25100) of
Division 4 of Title 4, in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (6) of
subdivision (c) of Section 25400, and in Sections 25850 to 26055,
inclusive,
while the Roster related code is 31910, as you quote.

It is possible to argue that the Legislature was specific about this, and since they did not choose to apply one piece of code (definition) to any other piece of code, that is not what they meant.
__________________
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
  #31  
Old 04-30-2015, 4:50 PM
bulgron bulgron is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 2,784
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Boy, reading that decision, I kept thinking, "How many microstamps CAN you have dancing on the head of a pin?"

Echoes of my Catholic upbringing, I suppose.



Hopefully this idiocy gets tossed into the trash bin, although I don't know what would then stop the legislature from coming back and writing a microstamping law that only requires a microstamp on one location.
__________________


Proud to belong to the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County

Disclaimer: All opinions are entirely my own.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-30-2015, 8:50 PM
thorium thorium is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: OC
Posts: 709
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

"...and that can be legibly, reliably, repeatedly, consistently, and effectively transferred..."

Maybe I'm reading too much into that quote, and its string of adjectives hinting at "does this crap even work?", but it seems like the judge is hinting to the state that "science" isn't on their side and they should think of settling.

Even New Jersey's executive branch had the decency to not declare the "smart gun" available yet.

The good news is if our politician's real goal was reducing handgun availability, the gun units sold numbers in recent years blow their thesis right in the face.
__________________
-------------------------

Last edited by thorium; 04-30-2015 at 8:59 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-30-2015, 9:13 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorium View Post
"...and that can be legibly, reliably, repeatedly, consistently, and effectively transferred..."

Maybe I'm reading too much into that quote, and its string of adjectives hinting at "does this crap even work?", but it seems like the judge is hinting to the state that "science" isn't on their side and they should think of settling.

Even New Jersey's executive branch had the decency to not declare the "smart gun" available yet.

The good news is if our politician's real goal was reducing handgun availability, the gun units sold numbers in recent years blow their thesis right in the face.
CA DOJ is smarter than NJ and probably most if not all other opposition groups.
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-01-2015, 10:21 AM
pdoggeth's Avatar
pdoggeth pdoggeth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Gilroy, South Bay Area
Posts: 371
iTrader: 0 / 0%
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.
Not to quibble, because I think microstamping is dumb and unworkable (or easily subverted if workable), but wouldn't the extractor be able to make a marking on the case? Though it could do this even when the gun isn't fired, just merely ejecting a round (spent or not).
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-01-2015, 12:34 PM
tylenol9999 tylenol9999 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 379
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pdoggeth View Post
Not to quibble, because I think microstamping is dumb and unworkable (or easily subverted if workable), but wouldn't the extractor be able to make a marking on the case? Though it could do this even when the gun isn't fired, just merely ejecting a round (spent or not).

Only if the amount of force to extract the case is more than the amount of force to imprint the information.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-01-2015, 1:18 PM
moleculo moleculo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 774
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pdoggeth View Post
Not to quibble, because I think microstamping is dumb and unworkable (or easily subverted if workable), but wouldn't the extractor be able to make a marking on the case? Though it could do this even when the gun isn't fired, just merely ejecting a round (spent or not).
Really? Now we're trying to help them figure out how to make it work?
__________________
Quote:
Those acting in the public interest assume obligations of accountability and transparency. Retroactively redefining goals while claiming — yet refusing to disclose — some “master plan” is just the opposite. So is viciously trashing anyone who questions your judgment. -navyinrwanda
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-01-2015, 1:22 PM
rlc2's Avatar
rlc2 rlc2 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 462
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Talking two comments...

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
CA DOJ is smarter than NJ and probably most if not all other opposition groups.
Brandon, if that is snark its too subtle for me..."CA DOJ smarter"...

Thorium, if I recall the backstory on NJ aspect of the CA smart gun by micro-stamping was that the original sponsor of the NJ law was desperate to unwind her own law, because the fact that the Armatix had been retailed in CA, meant that it triggered the clause written in 2002, that said the ONLY guns that could be sold after 3 years in NJ would be smart guns.
Maybe even cops....

At one point NJ Senate leader Loretta Weinberg went on record 'blaming the NRA for not making a deal' to get the State off the hook of her own petard:

http://www.msnbc.com/all/democrat-we...-smart-gun-law

I know, its so crooked and nonsensical its funny, but remember- its Jersey, and never mind, the fix is in:

Here is the State AG riding to the rescue with a "new interpretation".

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/12/02/...-gun-ag-finds/
__________________
Where there is unity there is always victory.
~ Publius Syrus

NRA Lifetime Member, SAF Lifetime Member
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-01-2015, 5:19 PM
Rossi357's Avatar
Rossi357 Rossi357 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sandy Eggo County
Posts: 1,230
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What is the required text size and font?
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-08-2015, 7:48 PM
rlc2's Avatar
rlc2 rlc2 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 462
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Cool so, Brandon on your assertion that "CA DOJ smarter than..."

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
CA DOJ is smarter than NJ and probably most if not all other opposition groups.
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/206356/

Still trying to parse your one liner- CA DOJ is smart, or was it snark?

I can see Ms Kamala Harris, the politician, being smart- politically.
But I dont see a lot of smart in CA DOJ, leadership or management wise.

But then I am not so close to it as you. Feel free to PM if you like.
__________________
Where there is unity there is always victory.
~ Publius Syrus

NRA Lifetime Member, SAF Lifetime Member
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-08-2015, 8:05 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rlc2 View Post
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/206356/

Still trying to parse your one liner- CA DOJ is smart, or was it snark?

I can see Ms Kamala Harris, the politician, being smart- politically.
But I dont see a lot of smart in CA DOJ, leadership or management wise.

But then I am not so close to it as you. Feel free to PM if you like.
No snark. When Brown was AG, he cleaned up DOJ and brought in some very competent people. Many of those remain at DOJ under Harris. And Harris is more politically aggressive, especially on our issue.
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
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 5:25 AM.




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.