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
  #121  
Old 01-28-2017, 12:16 AM
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 UberPatriot View Post
You could have a million different stamps on a cartridge and it still wouldn't defeat the purpose of the law.
Indeed, it was never about solving crime. Our legislators don't care if the stamps actually do anything. Even LE investigators have said that microstamps would be worthless for them, anyone can scoop up used brass from a range and sprinkle it around a crime scene, and no criminal is ever going to leave the microstamps in their guns.

Heck, if I was a criminal, I would file off the microstamps and exclusively shoot reloaded brass from the local range. It would conclusively clear me of the crime. "Your honor, these cases were stamped with the serial number 23h234bh32 when they were fired. As you can plainly see in exhibit A, my gun is not capable of such stamps, nor is that my gun's serial number. I suggest you go find the guy who owns the gun with that serial, and ask him where HE was on the night of the murder." Case dismissed.

It's nothing less than an arbitrary impossible requirement designed to prevent new models of guns from being sold. It's insulting for our politicians to pretend it's something other than that.

If microstamping actually came to fruition, legislators would just invent some new impossible requirement to take its place. Like all pistols have to have a GPS beacon that alerts the authorities when it detects that it's been fired at a person, or something equally ridiculous and impossible.

That's why the roster just needs to go away. They can invent new nonsense a lot faster than we can get rid of it, until we can get rid of the tools they use for implementing that nonsense.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 01-28-2017 at 12:29 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 01-28-2017, 12:30 AM
UberPatriot's Avatar
UberPatriot UberPatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,866
iTrader: 73 / 100%
Default

I wish there was a way to hold individual lawmakers responsible for violating our constitutional rights.
__________________
Location: North Bay Area/Marin

NRA Member
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 01-28-2017, 6:47 AM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 463
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Current PC definition of 'ammunition' is '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.
'primed case' + 'propellant' + 'projectile(s)' is a little wonky, as opposed to saying 'primer' + 'case' ..., but it's probably just their way of making sure they catch both rimfire and center fire ammunition in the definition. In any event, I agree with your assertion.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 01-28-2017, 8:50 AM
lawj11 lawj11 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Ojisan,

"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."....

"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.)

Ojisan, you're missing the point that the inventor of microstampoing technology has made modified parts for specific models of firearms so that his technology will work.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 01-28-2017, 9:06 AM
ojisan's Avatar
ojisan ojisan is offline
Agent 86
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SFV
Posts: 10,161
iTrader: 45 / 100%
Default

He made a couple firing pin samples...so what?
The firing pin marks the primer, not the case.
No solutions or suggestions to mark the case in two places were found or made.

He only made a few characters on the end of the firing pin.
He did not engrave make, model and full serial number as required by law, and check that for consistency of transfer and legibility.
A partial test like this does not prove feasibility or practicality....other than to prove that "the idea needs more work" (that means it does NOT work).

You should read the microstamp patent, and see that it requires use of a hologram.
Next read up on how to make a hologram.
(A unique, individually coded hologram is needed because there is no way to put make, model and serial number on a small stamp).
Tell me how the hologram will be made during the firing process.

You know that if any gun maker could do this, they would have the CA market to themselves.
They could all retire rich by just charging license fees for the process....no need to make guns anymore.
Given the huge profit potential, why hasn't anyone, gun maker or private inventor, figured out how to do this?
Simple...it can't be done.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 01-28-2017, 9:08 AM
lawj11 lawj11 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ojisan View Post
He made a couple firing pin samples...so what?
The firing pin marks the primer, not the case.
No solutions or suggestions to mark the case in two places were found or made.

He only made a few characters on the end of the firing pin.
He did not engrave make, model and full serial number as required by law, and check that for consistency of transfer and legibility.
A partial test like this does not prove feasibility or practicality....other than to prove that "the idea needs more work" (that means it does NOT work).

You should read the microstamp patent, and see that it requires use of a hologram.
Next read up on how to make a hologram.
(A unique, individually coded hologram is needed because there is no way to put make, model and serial number on a small stamp).
Tell me how the hologram will be made during the firing process.

You know that if any gun maker could do this, they would have the CA market to themselves.
They could all retire rich by just charging license fees for the process....no need to make guns anymore.
Given the huge profit potential, why hasn't anyone, gun maker or private inventor, figured out how to do this?
Simple...it can't be done.
I really hope it can't be done. This is the patent, right? https://www.google.com/patents/US6886284
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 01-28-2017, 9:20 AM
lawj11 lawj11 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
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.
I dunno why I'm complaining, guess I'm just frustrated. I keep reading conflicting reports on whether or not the technology works. I really want to be able to purchase newer handgun models and don't want to get my hopes up.

I agree with what you're saying, but I also think the argument that Glock uses (which is missing from NSSF and NRA's argument) is that the second amendment allows for every individual to arm themselves with the same type of arms that are commonly being used my the majority of citizens. Since nobody in the USA is using micro stamp enabled guns, Californians don't need to either.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 01-28-2017, 9:23 AM
ojisan's Avatar
ojisan ojisan is offline
Agent 86
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SFV
Posts: 10,161
iTrader: 45 / 100%
Default

There were / are several versions of the patent.
I just skimmed this one, the glaring fault is that this explanation presumes that fired cases can be extracted from a chamber with uneven internal surfaces.
Note how carefully chambers are made smooth and even so the fired cases can be extracted.
Assuming a convex transfer to the case, two sets of characters, large enough and protruding far enough into the chamber to make legible stamps every time will certainly cause casings to be stuck in the chamber.
Assuming a converse transfer to the case, the case brass expanding outwards to fill the character holes in the chamber walls will also surely cause stuck cases on extraction.

The whole idea shows a complete lack of understanding of how firearms actually work.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 01-28-2017, 10:55 AM
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
I agree with what you're saying, but I also think the argument that Glock uses (which is missing from NSSF and NRA's argument) is that the second amendment allows for every individual to arm themselves with the same type of arms that are commonly being used my the majority of citizens. Since nobody in the USA is using micro stamp enabled guns, Californians don't need to either.
To be clear, Glock filed its brief in a case that is asserting a Second Amendment claim. NSSF is making a claim under CA law, where the Second Amendment is irrelevant. You can like one argument more over the other, but you can't fault NSSF for not making that argument in a case where it would be irrelevant. It doesn't hurt to have two different theories in the courts for why this thing is illegal. Doubles the chances of getting struck down.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 01-28-2017, 11:08 AM
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
There were / are several versions of the patent.
I just skimmed this one, the glaring fault is that this explanation presumes that fired cases can be extracted from a chamber with uneven internal surfaces.
Note how carefully chambers are made smooth and even so the fired cases can be extracted.
Assuming a convex transfer to the case, two sets of characters, large enough and protruding far enough into the chamber to make legible stamps every time will certainly cause casings to be stuck in the chamber.
Assuming a converse transfer to the case, the case brass expanding outwards to fill the character holes in the chamber walls will also surely cause stuck cases on extraction.

The whole idea shows a complete lack of understanding of how firearms actually work.
Additionally, the transferred characters would get smeared off as soon is the casing gets "dragged" back through the chamber upon extraction. That is true regardless of whether the characters or protruding or recessed.

The only way to stamp the side of a casing and have it be legible, is to have the stamper physically move out of the way before the cartridge gets extracted, and that technology definitely does not exist.

The only other place available to stamp is the rear of the case, which as we already discussed, is impossible because of the pre-existing manufacturer's stamps that are there.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 01-28-2017 at 11:13 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 01-28-2017, 4:19 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
To be clear, Glock filed its brief in a case that is asserting a Second Amendment claim. NSSF is making a claim under CA law, where the Second Amendment is irrelevant. You can like one argument more over the other, but you can't fault NSSF for not making that argument in a case where it would be irrelevant. It doesn't hurt to have two different theories in the courts for why this thing is illegal. Doubles the chances of getting struck down.
I see what you're saying, thanks for the explanation.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 01-29-2017, 10:28 AM
readysetgo's Avatar
readysetgo readysetgo is offline
Voted Most Ready CGN'er
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ventura County, Caught Between My Woman And My Pistol And My Chips
Posts: 7,420
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Default

Thought we had this all figured out?
__________________

Stand up and be counted, or lay down and be mounted... -Mac
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 01-29-2017, 12:27 PM
broofy's Avatar
broofy broofy is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 373
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UberPatriot View Post
I wish there was a way to hold individual lawmakers responsible for violating our constitutional rights.
There is a whole due process for holding lawmakers responsible. Ballot box, Jury box, cartridge box.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 01-29-2017, 11:10 PM
CurlyDave CurlyDave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 119
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Additionally, the transferred characters would get smeared off as soon is the casing gets "dragged" back through the chamber upon extraction. That is true regardless of whether the characters or protruding or recessed.

The only way to stamp the side of a casing and have it be legible, is to have the stamper physically move out of the way before the cartridge gets extracted, and that technology definitely does not exist.

The only other place available to stamp is the rear of the case, which as we already discussed, is impossible because of the pre-existing manufacturer's stamps that are there.
Actually, there is a reasonably easy method to stamp the sides of a case. And, it would be readily applied in two separate locations at that.

Unfortunately, I think that if I disclose details of this method on a public forum, I have just placed it into the public domain, and the technique would be "unencumbered by patents".

If anyone is interested in helping to patent the method, I would gladly describe it privately after a secrecy agreement was executed.

I don't want any money for it, I just think that if a few like-minded people collaborated and filed for a patent, we could keep it from being available to the state of CA.

I am a retired engineer and don't want to put a lot of time into it, but would collaborate with anyone to help prevent CA from being able to use a technique that I think would be workable.

Send me a PM if you are interested.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 01-29-2017, 11:39 PM
Smoothie Smoothie is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Not a free state
Posts: 46
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The legislature would probably just pass a mandatory licensing law.
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 01-30-2017, 2:02 AM
Sgt5811's Avatar
Sgt5811 Sgt5811 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North County San Diego
Posts: 307
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoothie View Post
The legislature would probably just pass a mandatory licensing law.
They already have. It's called the FSC.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 01-30-2017, 9:32 AM
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 CurlyDave View Post
Actually, there is a reasonably easy method to stamp the sides of a case. And, it would be readily applied in two separate locations at that.

Unfortunately, I think that if I disclose details of this method on a public forum, I have just placed it into the public domain, and the technique would be "unencumbered by patents".

If anyone is interested in helping to patent the method, I would gladly describe it privately after a secrecy agreement was executed.

I don't want any money for it, I just think that if a few like-minded people collaborated and filed for a patent, we could keep it from being available to the state of CA.

I am a retired engineer and don't want to put a lot of time into it, but would collaborate with anyone to help prevent CA from being able to use a technique that I think would be workable.

Send me a PM if you are interested.
Shoot an email over to CRPA, if anyone can help you it's them - they're attorneys, and they're on our side. And they have money.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 03-23-2017, 5:32 AM
winwithagrin winwithagrin is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 32
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/C...w-11021536.php

California Supreme Court to rule on gun law
By Bob Egelko Published 7:38 pm, Wednesday, March 22, 2017



The state Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether gun manufacturers have the right to challenge a California law requiring identifying microstamps on bullets fired from semiautomatic pistols, a requirement the manufacturers claim canít be met with current technology.
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 03-26-2017, 11:37 AM
KC_to_CA KC_to_CA is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 427
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Indeed, it was never about solving crime. Our legislators don't care if the stamps actually do anything. Even LE investigators have said that microstamps would be worthless for them, anyone can scoop up used brass from a range and sprinkle it around a crime scene, and no criminal is ever going to leave the microstamps in their guns.

Heck, if I was a criminal, I would file off the microstamps and exclusively shoot reloaded brass from the local range. It would conclusively clear me of the crime. "Your honor, these cases were stamped with the serial number 23h234bh32 when they were fired. As you can plainly see in exhibit A, my gun is not capable of such stamps, nor is that my gun's serial number. I suggest you go find the guy who owns the gun with that serial, and ask him where HE was on the night of the murder." Case dismissed.

It's nothing less than an arbitrary impossible requirement designed to prevent new models of guns from being sold. It's insulting for our politicians to pretend it's something other than that.

If microstamping actually came to fruition, legislators would just invent some new impossible requirement to take its place. Like all pistols have to have a GPS beacon that alerts the authorities when it detects that it's been fired at a person, or something equally ridiculous and impossible.

That's why the roster just needs to go away. They can invent new nonsense a lot faster than we can get rid of it, until we can get rid of the tools they use for implementing that nonsense.
Such as owner-only activating device to make it impossible to fire a gun you don't won. And if a gun is fired, then it means the owner fired it. Think Jusge Dredd.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 03-26-2017, 1:54 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 KC_to_CA View Post
Such as owner-only activating device to make it impossible to fire a gun you don't won. And if a gun is fired, then it means the owner fired it. Think Jusge Dredd.
Yep, I believe CA's sister-state New Jersey passed legislation doing exactly that a few years ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Je...of_Handgun_Law
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 03-27-2017, 2:07 AM
iheartmywasr10 iheartmywasr10 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 14
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

All i want is my FDE GEN 4s
__________________
WILL BUY YOUR FDE Glock 19 PM ME
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 03-27-2017, 2:17 AM
iheartmywasr10 iheartmywasr10 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 14
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

that kind of technology is untested and unreliable
__________________
WILL BUY YOUR FDE Glock 19 PM ME
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 03-27-2017, 8:33 AM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,880
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

If the owner of the patent freely admits micro stamping doesn't work (he produced no proof of concept) instead of doing battle with the 9th district trying to get to SCOTUS (millions of years and thousands of lives), challenge the patent at the US patent office and have it rejected. No patent, no AG certification, no requirement to micro stamp.
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 03-27-2017, 10:30 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,156
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade Gunner View Post
If the owner of the patent freely admits micro stamping doesn't work (he produced no proof of concept) instead of doing battle with the 9th district trying to get to SCOTUS (millions of years and thousands of lives), challenge the patent at the US patent office and have it rejected. No patent, no AG certification, no requirement to micro stamp.
I don't think that helps.

The PC (31910(b)) says
Quote:
(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.
With no patent, it seems "the technology used to create the imprint is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions."

The law does not require that the technology 'work'.
__________________
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
  #145  
Old 04-13-2017, 3:31 AM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 135
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
I don't think that helps.

The PC (31910(b)) says With no patent, it seems "the technology used to create the imprint is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions."

The law does not require that the technology 'work'.
If the microstamping doesn't need to work can't all manufacturers claim to have it on all current and future models already? Suppose we were talking about loaded chamber indicators. Is the language similar? Could a manufacturer claim to have one but state it just doesn't work and still expect to have that gun placed on the roster?
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 04-13-2017, 8:08 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,692
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
If the microstamping doesn't need to work can't all manufacturers claim to have it on all current and future models already?
You are misreading the Librarian's post. Replace "work" with "exist" and remember that he is talking about the trigger in the law that activates the microstamping requirement, not the technology itself.

So, the law goes into effect when there are no patent issues regardless of whether the technology exists. The requirements for stamping are spelled out in the law and they must be satisfied for a gun to be added to the roster. If a gun cannot stamp the case in two different location with certain size markings, etc., it cannot be added to the roster.

Even if there was new technology that was newly patented and thus unavailable to the manufacturers "unencumbered by patents," the law has already gone into effect so nothing would change.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 04-13-2017, 8:10 AM
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 Uncivil Engineer View Post
If the microstamping doesn't need to work can't all manufacturers claim to have it on all current and future models already? Suppose we were talking about loaded chamber indicators. Is the language similar? Could a manufacturer claim to have one but state it just doesn't work and still expect to have that gun placed on the roster?
It IS required to actually work in pistols that are submitted for roster testing. There are strict rules for what the microstamping must be able to do, before they can be added to the handgun roster.

What Librarian meant, I believe, is that there was no requirement for microstamping to be a working technology, before making it a general requirement that all new guns need to have it.

There *sort of* was a requirement for it to be a working technology before it could be mandated, but it was a half-@**ed requirement that could be sidestepped by simply having the AG sign a letter saying "ya, sure it's available"




It's sort of like, if the state were to require all new cars to be able to operate submerged underwater. So then, all new cars are required to be able to prove that they can do that, even though the technology to make a modern car operate submerged underwater doesn't really exist. The law never said the technology had to work before they could require it, they only require it to work on a particular product before that product can be sold. The net result is: no new cars. Excuse me, handguns.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 04-13-2017 at 8:18 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 04-13-2017, 10:59 AM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 135
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Ah I understand now. All handguns must have 1oz of unobtainium and that requirement was triggered because Kamala Harris said so.

Welp that is clear cut a handgun ban. I'm sure the courts will straighten this out in two weeks.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 04-13-2017, 11:04 AM
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 Uncivil Engineer View Post
Ah I understand now. All handguns must have 1oz of unobtainium and that requirement was triggered because Kamala Harris said so.

Welp that is clear cut a handgun ban. I'm sure the courts will straighten this out in two weeks.
Precisely.

More specifically, Harris signed a letter saying that she believes unobtanium is freely available to anyone who wants it, which of course makes it true.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 04-13-2017 at 11:06 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 05-08-2017, 8:26 AM
Zoongide Zoongide is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Micro-stamping is a ruse, designed to delay constitutional right to purchase!


If case stamping of fired rounds was a viable legal strategy to connect a firearm to a crime, California would simply pass the following:

1. Gun owners place their ammunition orders with the FFL.

2. FFL orders the ammunition from the manufacturer stamped with owners required firearm info, (make, model, serial, etc)

3. Ammunition chain of custody is strictly enforced.

4. Pass a law that possession of another owner's ammunition or casing(s) is a felony [loss of legal right to possess a firearm]

I present this alternative scenario to show how ridiculous the statute is to require a firearm to stamp the casings of fired rounds.

Neither scenario provides legal proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular projectile came from casings found at a crime scene nor the owner of a casing fired it.


It is not hard to to switch bullets to different shells and can be difficult to match bullets with the casings found at the scene.

http://www.firearmsid.com/bullets/bullet1.htm

It is also easy to scatter casings picked up from a shooting range at the scene of the crime.

Other than an eyewitness, it will be the bullet, firearm (if found), and the suspects fingerprints/DNA will be the evidence that convicts.
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 05-08-2017, 9:41 AM
hoystory hoystory is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 203
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoongide View Post
Micro-stamping is a ruse, designed to delay constitutional right to purchase!


If case stamping of fired rounds was a viable legal strategy to connect a firearm to a crime, California would simply pass the following:

1. Gun owners place their ammunition orders with the FFL.

2. FFL orders the ammunition from the manufacturer stamped with owners required firearm info, (make, model, serial, etc)

3. Ammunition chain of custody is strictly enforced.

4. Pass a law that possession of another owner's ammunition or casing(s) is a felony [loss of legal right to possess a firearm]

I present this alternative scenario to show how ridiculous the statute is to require a firearm to stamp the casings of fired rounds.

Neither scenario provides legal proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular projectile came from casings found at a crime scene nor the owner of a casing fired it.


It is not hard to to switch bullets to different shells and can be difficult to match bullets with the casings found at the scene.

http://www.firearmsid.com/bullets/bullet1.htm

It is also easy to scatter casings picked up from a shooting range at the scene of the crime.

Other than an eyewitness, it will be the bullet, firearm (if found), and the suspects fingerprints/DNA will be the evidence that convicts.
Why would you even want to give them this idea? Ridiculous, costly and useless gun laws are seen as features in this state.

Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 05-08-2017, 9:51 AM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoystory View Post
Why would you even want to give them this idea? Ridiculous, costly and useless gun laws are seen as features in this state.

Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk
I agree, also if micro stamping ever became a viable option Iím sure it could be easily defeated in several ways from only using a revolver to sanding the rounds before using.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 05-08-2017, 9:57 AM
southernsnowshoe southernsnowshoe is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Ramona, CA
Posts: 275
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Dale View Post
I agree, also if micro stamping ever became a viable option Iím sure it could be easily defeated in several ways from only using a revolver to sanding the rounds before using.


Or just a brass catcher? LOL
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 05-08-2017, 11:26 AM
Zac911 Zac911 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 114
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by southernsnowshoe View Post
Or just a brass catcher? LOL
Which reminds me... I tend to spend more time at the range picking up brass casings than I actually do shooting.

If someone could come up with a brass magnet... that would be greeeeeat.
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 05-08-2017, 6:28 PM
cleonard cleonard is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 143
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What we need is a "Safety for Law Enforcement" initiative. All firearms owned by the state must meet all safety requirements as passed by the legislature.

No loaded chamber indicator, the state must melt it down for safety. The state can only buy firearms with functional microstamping. When the first "fire-able by the owner" only firearm is available, the state must replace every no complying firearm immediately with the safe tech,

It's for the children.

Oh and police are not killers, they have no need for magazines with more than 10 rounds. Only murderous thugs have a need for that.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 05-08-2017, 6:32 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 cleonard View Post
When the first "fire-able by the owner" only firearm is available, the state must replace every no complying firearm immediately with the safe tech,
Unless you also want YOUR guns to be required to have that, I wouldn't be recommending that they make LE guns have it, or the rule for civilian guns will quickly follow.

There's never been a rule for mandated smartguns in CA. Not yet, anyways.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 05-08-2017 at 6:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 05-08-2017, 9:18 PM
southernsnowshoe southernsnowshoe is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Ramona, CA
Posts: 275
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zac911 View Post
Which reminds me... I tend to spend more time at the range picking up brass casings than I actually do shooting.

If someone could come up with a brass magnet... that would be greeeeeat.

Its called an eddy current. Might be a little bulky to carry to the range though.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 05-09-2017, 7:06 AM
Zoongide Zoongide is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Sorry, no intent to give the legislature new ideas.

Please note I included how simple stamping can be accomplished and defeated.

Even if a firearm could microstamp a casing, proving the bullet came from the casing is difficult and likely impossible!
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 05-09-2017, 7:18 AM
Zoongide Zoongide is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Btw, never knew eddy current could be used to pick up brass. In my trade it was used to check the integrity of welded piping installed in nuclear and non nuclear steam generation plants
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 05-09-2017, 9:09 AM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,880
iTrader: 10 / 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?
The stamp would be on the primer, which is replaced during reloading. The concept is bad guy don't stick around to pick up their brass and certainly don't bother to reload spent brass.
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong.
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 1:45 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.