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
  #81  
Old 12-01-2016, 8:09 PM
schrader schrader is offline
Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Idaho
Posts: 109
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

You mean we can someday (maybe) get Gen4 Glocks like the rest of the country?
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 12-01-2016, 8:27 PM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 572
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoystory View Post
The way I read it was that the trial court didn't even allow NSSF and SAAMI to make their case because of some separation of powers issue.

The circuit court said the separation of powers issue doesn't bar their suit because the plaintiffs are invoking a section of state law that basically says that the state can't require impossible things.

The circuit court sent it back down to the trial court and says to the trial court: You need to take testimony and evidence to determine if microstamping as described in the law is an impossible thing.

Not only that, but the trial court is ordered to ignore the lame claim by the state AG that when it says microstamping has to be done on two places on the expended cartridge, you can't count microstamping the primer twice. It has to be the primer and someplace else on the cartridge because that was the legislative intent when the law was passed.

So, there's going to be some back and forth at the trial court level where our side should win because there isn't a soul who's claiming that there's any technology that can microstamp the primer and someplace else on the casing.
You nailed it, except I'm not sure there is nobody claiming they have the ability to microstamp in two places on the cartridge. In any event, the hill just got a lot steeper for the Attorney General, which is always a good thing.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 12-01-2016, 9:25 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Guitar: The Deplorables
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 28,892
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by schrader View Post
You mean we can someday (maybe) get Gen4 Glocks like the rest of the country?
LCI and Mag Disconnect still apply, and the LCI standard has been revised so the "nub" of the extractor no longer qualifies, it needs to be "conspicuous"

Look at the Shield, XD9, and P380 for what is now accepted (sharkfin)
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just gov't will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just gov't. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 12-01-2016, 9:34 PM
BB1776 BB1776 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NorCal
Posts: 120
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

YAY, finally some good news in CA!

What a ridiculous law. Aside from the problem of reliably stamping casing and primer after thousands of rounds (or even one round at this point), WTF would we do if a firing pin needed replacing? Have to get it custom micro stamped to the exact model and serial number of the gun? Ridiculous!
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 12-01-2016, 10:04 PM
XDJYo XDJYo is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NorCal-East Bay
Posts: 3,083
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Wow!!! Good news!!! There's hope for California!
__________________
Les Baer 1911: Premier II w/1.5" Guarantee, Blued, No FCS, Combat Rear, F/O Front, Checkered MSH & LBC Double Diamond Grips
Springfield Armory 4.5" XD-m 45 ACP
Springfield Armory XD-45 4" Service Model
M&P Shield 9 (wifes)
M&P 15 (Mine)
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 12-02-2016, 7:41 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,689
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BB1776 View Post
YAY, finally some good news in CA!
Quote:
Originally Posted by XDJYo View Post
Wow!!! Good news!!! There's hope for California!
We are not there yet. This is just a small step in the right direction.

Also, microstamping was just icing on the cake. The true choke on handguns in CA is still LCI/mag disconnect. This means no Gen 4 Glock, XDm, HK, FNH, etc. We might just get a few more carefully selected Sigs and maybe an M&P or two and even that will take years. That's about it.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 12-02-2016, 7:45 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,689
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Before everybody gets too excited, this is a "technical victory" where Chuck Michel and his guys are winning against the state and developing the framework for the future.

We have ammo bills and all sorts of other issues that are piling up at the moment. The most important new development is going to be Scalia's replacement at the federal level and the health of Bader-Ginsburg...
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 12-02-2016, 12:50 PM
G.F.C. G.F.C. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Hemet Valley, CA
Posts: 252
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I will take a technical victory as a massive leap forward considering where we are at the moment.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 12-02-2016, 2:47 PM
edwardm's Avatar
edwardm edwardm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Tacoma!
Posts: 1,929
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

There's no hope, don't delude yourself.

Assume for now that we go back to the trial court, and NSSF produces sufficient evidence of impossibility, the trial is actually held, and NSSF wins on the merits.

What do you think our new AG is going to do? Say "OK, you won, we lost", roll over, and show his belly? The appeals process will drag out for years to come, with each hearing another bite at the apple for the AG.

Time and time again these things get hung up in the courts, and this won't be any different. The courts are no "vindicator" of anything in this state. Had the 5th District ruled differently, it would have thrown decades of precedent into doubt, creating an untenable situation for non-firearms cases.

The subtext, to the AG, was "Go back and find a better set of arguments so we can rule in your favor next time this is kicked up the ladder, m'kay?"
__________________
More regimes have been brought, piecemeal, to their knees by what was once called “Irish Democracy”—the silent, dogged resistance, withdrawal, and truculence of millions of ordinary people—than by revolutionary vanguards or rioting mobs.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 12-02-2016, 6:24 PM
Jericho261 Jericho261 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 281
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rero360 View Post
Slight, but very important, correction to what you wrote.

The roster was SOLD as preventing "unsafe" handguns being sold in CA. It's true design and intent from day one was to limit and eventually eliminate handgun sales in the state. It has never been about safety.
100% true !!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 12-03-2016, 11:25 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,689
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G.F.C. View Post
I will take a technical victory as a massive leap forward considering where we are at the moment.
It wasn't meant to undermine their effort or diminish the value of the victory. It was meant to let people know that we are not going to see any immediate changes and that we still have a long road ahead of us.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 12-06-2016, 8:59 PM
bubbapug1's Avatar
bubbapug1 bubbapug1 is offline
Dazed & Confused
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: South South OC
Posts: 6,881
iTrader: 271 / 100%
Default

I'm 60. Any chance I'll be able to buy a sig 938 in the state (new) before I die?

What time frame would one put on a new trial, a victory, an appeal, another ruling, and a change to the roster?

I'm thinking 6 years for justice. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Still...a huge step in the right direction.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 01-11-2017, 9:22 AM
rt66paul's Avatar
rt66paul rt66paul is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

How long before the state requires all ammo to have a serial number and when we buy it, we will have to dros it just like firearms.. Then it will be illegal to police our brass, reload, etc.
__________________
I love California, but I am afraid of its government.

Those who choose safety over freedom are neither safe or free!
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." (Tacitus, Roman historian 55-117 A.D.)
“It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.” —- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 01-12-2017, 9:27 AM
darkshire's Avatar
darkshire darkshire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,062
iTrader: 66 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rt66paul View Post
How long before the state requires all ammo to have a serial number and when we buy it, we will have to dros it just like firearms.. Then it will be illegal to police our brass, reload, etc.
didnt they try something like this in Illinois ?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 01-26-2017, 7:11 PM
lawj11 lawj11 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
You nailed it, except I'm not sure there is nobody claiming they have the ability to microstamp in two places on the cartridge. In any event, the hill just got a lot steeper for the Attorney General, which is always a good thing.
Dude, they've got the inventor of micro stamping claiming that it is not only possible, but that it has been tested and worked 100% of the time. How is denying that the technology exists a good argument? GLOCK's argument in their filing on the other hand is solid. What are the chances that the roster gets reversed?
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 01-26-2017, 7:24 PM
ojisan's Avatar
ojisan ojisan is offline
Agent 86
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SFV
Posts: 10,159
iTrader: 45 / 100%
Default

lawj11, please show us where the inventor said this and has working examples that stamp on two places on the case as required by CA law.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 01-26-2017, 7:31 PM
lawj11 lawj11 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ojisan View Post
lawj11, please show us where the inventor said this and has working examples that stamp on two places on the case as required by CA law.
A. Appellants and Their Amici Ignore a Sworn Declaration by the Inventor of Microstamping Technology Attesting that Microstamping Can Be, and Has Been, Successfully Implemented
First—and most tellingly—Appellants and their amici fail to even acknowledge, let alone rebut, the sworn declaration of the inventor of microstamping technology, Todd Lizotte, submitted to the district court in this action. Mr. Lizotte’s declaration makes clear that microstamping is more than theoretically possible—it has been successfully developed and tested. Mr. Lizotte testified that:
 “[O]ver the years I have publicly demonstrated microstamping technology seven times, using firearms outfitted with firing pin and/or breech face elements.” (1SER:0114.)
 “In May of 2007, for instance, I conducted a stress test in which I fired over 2,500 rounds from a Smith and Wesson .40 caliber semiautomatic handgun that had been outfitted with microstamping technology. The test employed fully optimized firing pins that were designed to work with that specific model of firearm, and used five different brands of ammunition. Using optical microscopy and scanning electron microscopy techniques, all eight microstamped digits from the firing pin were legible 97% of the time. Additionally,
-10-
Case: 15-15449, 09/28/2015, ID: 9699195, DktEntry: 33, Page 16 of 28
breech face markings transferred to cartridge casings were legible 96% of the time. Between firing pin and breech face markings, all eight microstamped digits were identifiable in all cases.” (1SER:0119-120.)
 “Although the firing pin and breech face are viable and effective locations for microstamping, various other surfaces—including the firing pin port, ejector, extractor, and chamber wall can be used.” (1SER:0118.)
Mr. Lizotte thus goes on to conclude:
 “Based on my experience, expertise, and my own testing results as the
inventor of microstamping, compliance with microstamping requirements is technologically possible. Thus, manufacturers could meet the microstamping requirement on currently unrostered weapons, allowing such weapons to be rostered.” (1SER:0115.)

Go to page 10: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...t-Appellee.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 01-26-2017, 8:40 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,689
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawj11 View Post
Dude, they've got the inventor of micro stamping claiming that it is not only possible, but that it has been tested and worked 100% of the time. How is denying that the technology exists a good argument?
The term "technology exists" is too loose for this conversation.

Just because something exists in an experimental stages or just because someone ran a set of lab tests in no way implies that the technology is readily available or even possible to implement in real life.

How many millions of miles have the driverless cars driven "successfully" per testimony of the inventor? What would it look like if the legislators today mandated that no car can have front seats - we all have to be passengers?

That's the sort of "technology exists" that we are talking about. There isn't a single commercial microstamping firearm available on the market today. This is a few less than the so-called "smart guns" which worked "real good" (sic) in labs, yet they couldn't make one beyond .22 LR and even that one didn't work well in practice.

When it comes to guns we actually have a very simple test for "technology is useful and it works" - military and police. Any useful and working technology can be forced on the police. It would be the proof we are looking for here.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 01-26-2017, 8:51 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,151
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Kindly stay on the thread topic, which is 'microstamping', not 'other members'.
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. 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
  #100  
Old 01-26-2017, 10:59 PM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 572
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawj11 View Post
Dude, they've got the inventor of micro stamping claiming that it is not only possible, but that it has been tested and worked 100% of the time. How is denying that the technology exists a good argument? GLOCK's argument in their filing on the other hand is solid. What are the chances that the roster gets reversed?
Dude, first, reread my post. I never said it is or is not impossible, just explained what the court said. NSSF will (and should) have the opportunity to test the inventor's claims. Second, this is not my case so I don't understand why you are complaining about your perceived problems with the lawsuit. Third, GLOCK's brief was good, but the lawsuit it was filed in is making a totally different argument than this lawsuit. GLOCK's brief, by the way, says:

"Microstamping is both novel and essentially theoretical because no pistols that are commercially available in the United States currently incorporate it."

So, apparently they doubt the inventor's claims that microstamping works too.

Finally, if I knew the chances of whether the Roster will get reversed, I'd be in a difference line of work.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 01-27-2017, 6:38 AM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,360
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Someone help me with this... Microstamping I assume was thought up as a way to track rounds to a perpetrator of a crime. What would stop said perpetrator from taking one swipe of a file across the firing pin to destroy the stamp, a harshly worded law with severe penalties? The only perpetrators you'll catch with this technology might be a few guys who went shooting in the woods and left their brass on the ground. Bam! Felony Littering.
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg

New NRA Campaign to Liberals: "Afraid of a tryannical Trump Administration? Buy a gun..."
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 01-27-2017, 10:15 AM
R-Cubed's Avatar
R-Cubed R-Cubed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 657
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

A glimmer of hope, but how many years will it take to reverse a near impossible/un-workable requirement?

Imagine...well yes gay marriage is legal but you have to have your ceremony on the moon. Technically it's possible.

Beating the dead horse. I know.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 01-27-2017, 10:43 AM
ojisan's Avatar
ojisan ojisan is offline
Agent 86
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SFV
Posts: 10,159
iTrader: 45 / 100%
Default

It's two places marked on the case.
It's two places marked on the case.
It's two places marked on the case.

Hate to be repetitive, but it's two places marked on the case.

The firing pin cannot be used to make the stamp because the primer is not the case.
Then there is the issue of primer swipe upon ejection, ruining the stamp mark.

The breech face cannot be used to mark the case because of the ammo maker's stampings are already on the case head, leaving little or no room for another stamp....or requiring that each round fired be aligned so a blank area on the case head would be hit by the stamp.
Failure to align your ammo would be a crime as one stamp would be missing.
Not practical in the real world.

The ejector can not be used to stamp as the mark would be on the case head.

The extractor does not have the power to stamp in the extractor groove.
Given different extractor grove shapes, consistent stamping is not possible.

Primer swipe and limited case head area:


Ca law requires two legible stampings every time.
With primer and case head eliminated, the case sides must be marked.
This means some sort of stamping when the case is in the chamber.

This is what nobody can figure out how to do.

lawj11, again, show me where the inventor has a working example that stamps the case in two places.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 01-27-2017, 11:04 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,151
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfpcservice View Post
Someone help me with this... Microstamping I assume was thought up as a way to track rounds to a perpetrator of a crime. What would stop said perpetrator from taking one swipe of a file across the firing pin to destroy the stamp, a harshly worded law with severe penalties? The only perpetrators you'll catch with this technology might be a few guys who went shooting in the woods and left their brass on the ground. Bam! Felony Littering.
Again, this objection and many more were made known to the Legislature before the bill passed, and it passed anyway.

Please remember that before you try to apply logic to CA gun laws - they're not about guns.
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. 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
  #105  
Old 01-27-2017, 12:04 PM
nicky c nicky c is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 281
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfpcservice View Post
Someone help me with this... Microstamping I assume was thought up as a way to track rounds to a perpetrator of a crime. What would stop said perpetrator from taking one swipe of a file across the firing pin to destroy the stamp, a harshly worded law with severe penalties? The only perpetrators you'll catch with this technology might be a few guys who went shooting in the woods and left their brass on the ground. Bam! Felony Littering.
Just use a revolver.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 01-27-2017, 2:28 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,989
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicky c View Post
Just use a revolver.
Or one of the millions of handguns/rifles already in the state that don't (never will) have microstamping. Its not about crime... it's about stopping sales of firearms in the PRK.

Through the roster they will eventually stop sales of all new semi-auto handguns (and revolvers in the future).
The AW laws are the start of stopping all sales of new semi-auto rifles and shotguns.
There will be more...your pump shotguns and sniper rifles will be next. There is no doubt that CA is the progressive model for how some would like to see things happen.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 01-27-2017, 4:38 PM
packnrat's Avatar
packnrat packnrat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,788
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Post

and here i thought as seen on tv that they already can know what gun fired said round just by looking at a spent case.
and every bullet proved the barrel it came out of.

no need for a new tech way.


.
__________________
big gun's...i love big gun's
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 01-27-2017, 5:43 PM
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 11,913
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ojisan View Post

Hate to be repetitive, but it's two places marked on the case.

The firing pin cannot be used to make the stamp because the primer is not the case.
That's such a slippery assertion I'd suspect there's a law school diploma above your work bench. I mean that as a compliment.

But to explore further, is that a viable position, that the primer is not for purposes of the requirement not considered "the case"? I'd like to think you're right, but ...
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 01-27-2017, 6:38 PM
ojisan's Avatar
ojisan ojisan is offline
Agent 86
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SFV
Posts: 10,159
iTrader: 45 / 100%
Default

Theoretically, words have meanings.
Currently a round of center fire ammunition that would be used in a semiauto pistol consists of four parts: a case, a primer, a propellant and a bullet.
The laws and regulations are to be written so those affected can understand them.
If I'm at the reloading bench, and I say to you "Hand me some cases", you're not going to hand me powder, bullets or primers...you will hand me cases.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 01-27-2017, 6:42 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Guitar: The Deplorables
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 28,892
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ojisan View Post
If I'm at the reloading bench, and I say to you "Hand me some cases", you're not going to hand me powder, bullets or primers...you will hand me cases.
I'd be handing you a box of Hangar 24
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just gov't will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just gov't. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 01-27-2017, 6:47 PM
ojisan's Avatar
ojisan ojisan is offline
Agent 86
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SFV
Posts: 10,159
iTrader: 45 / 100%
Default

^

Note that UC Davis tried to make this work using the firing pin as a stamp.
It did not work out... with stamping on brass being much more difficult than stamping on soft primer metal.

https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/gun-mic...s-more-testing
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 01-27-2017, 6:50 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,240
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ojisan View Post
It's two places marked on the case.
It's two places marked on the case.
It's two places marked on the case.

Hate to be repetitive, but it's two places marked on the case.

The firing pin cannot be used to make the stamp because the primer is not the case.
Then there is the issue of primer swipe upon ejection, ruining the stamp mark.

The breech face cannot be used to mark the case because of the ammo maker's stampings are already on the case head, leaving little or no room for another stamp....or requiring that each round fired be aligned so a blank area on the case head would be hit by the stamp.
Failure to align your ammo would be a crime as one stamp would be missing.
Not practical in the real world.

The ejector can not be used to stamp as the mark would be on the case head.

The extractor does not have the power to stamp in the extractor groove.
Given different extractor grove shapes, consistent stamping is not possible.

Primer swipe and limited case head area:


Ca law requires two legible stampings every time.
With primer and case head eliminated, the case sides must be marked.
This means some sort of stamping when the case is in the chamber.

This is what nobody can figure out how to do.

lawj11, again, show me where the inventor has a working example that stamps the case in two places.
All excellent points, and I'd like to also add - what are we supposed to do if we need or want to replace our barrel? Do we need to order one with identical stamps on it? What about our old barrel, they can't have 2 barrels floating around with the same microstamp information in them, so then what? Do they require us to send the old barrel back before we can get the new one? What if we lost the old one, do we then have to throw the rest of the gun away because it's worthless now? And we're not allowed to have spare barrels? The only way to avoid those issues is by not mandating microstamping on individual barrels, only on factory pistols, as the law is right now. So then, why even have it in the first place if anyone can buy a $75 part to legally get rid of it?
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 01-27-2017, 6:53 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Guitar: The Deplorables
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 28,892
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
So then, why even have it in the first place if anyone can buy a $75 part to legally get rid of it?
No different than the LCI and mag disconnect.
Both easily bypassed on most guns.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just gov't will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just gov't. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 01-27-2017, 7:18 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,240
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cokebottle View Post
No different than the LCI and mag disconnect.
Both easily bypassed on most guns.
The LCI can be easily bypassed on all guns, as far as I know. Since there is no law against replacing your slide with a different one from out of state.

Not to mention the obvious safety hazard that they cause. It completely gets rid of the perhaps the most important firearms safety rule of them all, that "all firearms are always loaded", and replaces it with "No red flag, so it must not be loaded". Which is especially hazardous for those most susceptible to that mistake - new gun owners, who assume all guns must have a LCI, because the guy at the gun store told them that all pistols in CA have one. When they handle one that doesn't, they could very well assume it's empty when it is in fact loaded.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 01-27-2017 at 7:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 01-27-2017, 7:41 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Guitar: The Deplorables
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 28,892
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
The LCI can be easily bypassed on all guns, as far as I know. Since there is no law against replacing your slide with a different one from out of state.

Not to mention the obvious safety hazard that they cause. It completely gets rid of the perhaps the most important firearms safety rule of them all, that "all firearms are always loaded", and replaces it with "No red flag, so it must not be loaded". Which is especially hazardous for those most susceptible to that mistake - new gun owners, who assume all guns must have a LCI, because the guy at the gun store told them that all pistols in CA have one. When they handle one that doesn't, they could very well assume it's empty when it is in fact loaded.
Yep.
It's like the push to vehicles with electronics that are susceptible to attack by EMP, or as simple and non-destructive as a remote shutdown by Onstar-like technology, self-driving cars, connected vehicles, etc...

There is ALWAYS going to be "legacy" equipment out there. In the case of guns, it will always make up the majority of what is "in the wild", unlike vehicles which wear out and are replaced and scrapped regularly.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just gov't will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just gov't. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 01-27-2017, 9:07 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,151
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
That's such a slippery assertion I'd suspect there's a law school diploma above your work bench. I mean that as a compliment.

But to explore further, is that a viable position, that the primer is not for purposes of the requirement not considered "the case"? I'd like to think you're right, but ...
Current PC definition of 'ammunition' is
Quote:
16150.
(a) As used in this part, except in subdivision (a) of Section 30305 and in Section 30306, “ammunition” means one or more loaded cartridges consisting of a primed case, propellant, and with one or more projectiles. “Ammunition” does not include blanks.
'Primed case' means there are also 'unprimed' cases, so a primer is a separate piece from the 'case'.

At least, that's how it seems to me.
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. 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
  #117  
Old 01-27-2017, 10:04 PM
greensoup greensoup is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 788
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ojisan View Post
It's two places marked on the case.
It's two places marked on the case.
It's two places marked on the case.

Hate to be repetitive, but it's two places marked on the case.

The firing pin cannot be used to make the stamp because the primer is not the case.
Then there is the issue of primer swipe upon ejection, ruining the stamp mark.

The breech face cannot be used to mark the case because of the ammo maker's stampings are already on the case head, leaving little or no room for another stamp....or requiring that each round fired be aligned so a blank area on the case head would be hit by the stamp.
Failure to align your ammo would be a crime as one stamp would be missing.
Not practical in the real world.

The ejector can not be used to stamp as the mark would be on the case head.

The extractor does not have the power to stamp in the extractor groove.
Given different extractor grove shapes, consistent stamping is not possible.

Primer swipe and limited case head area:


Ca law requires two legible stampings every time.
With primer and case head eliminated, the case sides must be marked.
This means some sort of stamping when the case is in the chamber.

This is what nobody can figure out how to do.

lawj11, again, show me where the inventor has a working example that stamps the case in two places.
The other question I didn't see answered. Since the guy invented it, is it public domain or does he collect on every gun produced.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 01-27-2017, 10:10 PM
cleonard cleonard is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 143
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greensoup View Post
The other question I didn't see answered. Since the guy invented it, is it public domain or does he collect on every gun produced.
It was patented, but has expired. The requirement did not come into force until after expiration. That makes it public domain because anyone can read the patent and there is no restriction on use.

Just because there was a patent does not mean it was actually possible. If it were possible someone would be selling it in this large market.

Sent from my ASUS_Z00TD using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 01-27-2017, 10:44 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,240
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

The way the law was written, the microstamping requirement would only go into effect when the AG (cameltoe harris) signed off that it was usable, real technology that was unrestrained by patent protections. None of those things were true for a couple years, so the law didn't take effect. Then the patent finally expired, and miss cameltoe took it upon herself to lie and announce that microstamping is alive and well, and the law can go into effect.

I wasn't around at the time so I don't remember the exact details, but I thought a gun group (maybe calguns?) bought the patent rights from the original owner to make sure it remained patented (and thus unusable). I'm not sure what happened with that, but clearly we don't have the patent rights anymore, for some reason. Or maybe someone just found another method that didn't infringe on the patent. Hopefully someone else remembers how that all played out.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 01-27-2017 at 10:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 01-27-2017, 11:55 PM
UberPatriot's Avatar
UberPatriot UberPatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,866
iTrader: 73 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarhead4 View Post
One question and it may have been asked and answered. Once a case has been stamped, what happens if you reload it? Could you potentially have several stamps on the case which would defeat the purpose of the law?
You could have a million different stamps on a cartridge and it still wouldn't defeat the purpose of the law.
__________________
Location: North Bay Area/Marin

NRA Member
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 1:19 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 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.