|
2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#161
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...ctionNum=31910. Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by SkyHawk; 05-09-2017 at 9:33 AM.. |
#162
|
||||
|
||||
The concept they don't understand, is the bad guy also isn't going to bother buying a microstamped gun, and even if he does, he certainly isn't going to leave the firing pin stamps intact.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#163
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#164
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
These "true crime" shows crack me up, with all the ballistic match BS. Change the firing pin before crime and change the barrel after the crime. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong. |
#165
|
||||
|
||||
I edited and posted the patent info above, and the penal code. It says two places on the firearm interior must be marked, I'd think the firing pin only counts as one place but who knows.
Last edited by SkyHawk; 05-09-2017 at 9:38 AM.. |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
On a related subject, does any firearm manufacturer have an 'operational' microstamping pistol or rifle available for sale? |
#168
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Admittedly changing a barrel is simple (if not expensive). The firing pin is not challenging. Most semi auto's it's a 15 minute operation to change the firing pin and YouTube abounds with instructions on how to do it. Some guns are really simple. Any Glock it's a 5 minute job to change the striker pin. I've stripped so many semi autos to the frame to cerakote or polish, I've lost count. Just keep a bunch of spare pins, detents, and springs around. No firearm manufacturer has viable microstamping technology. The dufuss that patented it didn't ever have a proof of concept. He was trying to make a fast buck off gun manufacturers. When he had no luck, he released the patent into the public domain. Get the patent office to declare the patent null and void. No patent, no micro stamping therefore open up the roster. The law can't ask something that is impossible. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong. |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
There would seem to be more opportunity to challenge a law for asking something that is impossible. However, that will still require a lawsuit (and the $ to sustain the lawsuit). |
#170
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#171
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Yes that is how the law in written. "Technology" unencumbered by patents. Get the patent rescinded on the basis there is "no technology" to patent, therefore DOJ is certifying a non existent technology is unencumbered by patents. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong. |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The stronger argument against microstamping would seem to be that no manufacturer has produced a working implementation that is ready for prime time. An idea is not a working implementation. I can have an idea for an internal combustion engine that gets 200 mpg. Until I can deliver a working version, it is just my idea. Ironically, the microstamping patent-owner should have contacted NRA or CRPA for a license - the patent would have been a perfect way to block the legislation.... |
#173
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong. |
#174
|
||||
|
||||
Having the NRA or CRPA own the patent would have been an excellent out come. That's true out of the box thinking.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong. |
#175
|
||||
|
||||
plenty of technology is patented before it actually works, for precisely the reason of encumbering (preventing) others from beating you to it. See Boeing's "plasma shield" patent a couple years ago.
https://www.engadget.com/2015/03/23/...plasma-shield/ Clearly still fantasy, but if they get it to work they make a fortune. That's the point. So the entire idea of using a filed patent as a basis to say something is viable is extremely stupid, that's not how patents work. Great last line in this article "we'll believe it when we see it". |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
Debatable. Remember, utility patents expire and then the idea is in the public domain. It's pretty astounding how many "patents" reach popularity after their expiration date.
|
#177
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
That Librarian guy, always a few steps ahead of me. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong. |
#179
|
||||
|
||||
No such thing as a 'wrong'* librarian!
* for some usages of 'wrong' and 'right'
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#181
|
||||
|
||||
Is there anything new with this case? Last I recall, oral arguments were presented to the 9th. Is it still in a holding pattern while we wait for the 9th to say something?
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#182
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Last edited by ronlglock; 06-30-2017 at 5:30 PM.. |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
FIFY
|
#184
|
|||
|
|||
*sigh*
This case is not now and never has been in the federal court system, as the Eleventh Amendment to the US Constitution provides an immunity from prosecution to the states and state officers. That said, this state law case resulted in a summary judgment in favor of the state in the trial court, followed by an appeal and reversal by the court of appeal, in a ruling that allowed the plaintiffs to attempt to show that the technology mandated by the statute to microstamp cartridges does not currently exist, and that therefore the AG's certification is in error and an abuse of her discretion. Unsurprisingly, the State filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court in January of this year, which petition was granted as follows: Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Can a statute be challenged on the ground that compliance with it is allegedly impossible? (2) If so, how is the trial court to make that determination? The State, after several extensions, filed its opening brief on the merits June 21, 2017 along with a request for judicial notice. My request to the attorney for NSSF (which is no longer Chuck Michel) went unanswered, so I have no idea what the State argued. Appellant's (plaintiff's) brief on the merits is due July 21, unless a request for an extension is sought and granted. NSSF is represented by Lance Alan Selfridge, Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000, Los Angeles, CA. Maybe someone can get them to post a link or at least send the .pdf of the state's brief (which was filed electronically so it is already in thatformat) Last edited by TruOil; 07-05-2017 at 2:49 PM.. |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
As I recall, that was tried, but I think the purchase was Calguns.org. Working with the AG, the inventor waived his patent protection (mooting the extension), and thus the tech entered the public domain, at which time the certification was issued.
|
#186
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The case number for those interested is S239397 It looks like NSSF filed a motion for an extension of time until Aug 21, 2017 yesterday. And so the wait continues... |
#187
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Anyways, nice to see the wheels are turning, I had just assumed that the case was dormant, waiting for some judge to find it behind the file cabinet and dust it off.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#190
|
|||
|
|||
It seems an undue burden to prove that something doesn't exist. The state should have to prove that a)the techology exists and b)that it can be manufactured "economically". Let's ignore whether the technology would have any benefit whatsoever and the potential to increase revolver use by the criminal elements.
|
#191
|
|||
|
|||
The Attorney General, in her infinite wisdom, "certified" that the technology does exist, and therefore, as far as the law is concerned, it does exist until proved otherwise. Further, although we will have to wait and see what the Supreme Court has to say, I suspect that Plaintiff will also have to show that her "factual" determination was not just wrong, but that she "abused her discretion" in making that determination, a significant burden. Under the abuse of discretion standard, it must be shown that the decision was "outside the bounds of reason." Given that the technology that is currently available (although experimental) does not stamp a casing in two places as mandated by the law, I think that Plaintiff has a pretty good shot at winning this case, depending of course, on what the Supreme court ultimately decides. If it reverses, the court of appeal, the case is over. If it sustains, then it will set the evidentiary standard that the Plaintiff will have to meet to overturn the certification.
|
#192
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#193
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
and he has done nothing on this front at all. he is just like any other elected zombi. just doing nothing for the tax payers. and lining his ( and $ friends) pockets with our tax dollars.
__________________
big gun's...i love big gun's |
#194
|
|||
|
|||
Trump has no authority over state laws or cases in federal courts challenging state laws. What would you have him do, within constitutional limits that is?
|
#195
|
|||
|
|||
Wait, What! You mean, Obama took his "Magic Pen" with him when he left?
Last edited by retired; 08-20-2017 at 3:49 PM.. Reason: rule 3 |
#196
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#197
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#198
|
||||
|
||||
Changing the striker in a Glock would only take 30 seconds more. Same for a 1911. There is, practically speaking and for purposes of this conversation, no difference. There is no barrier to the remedy, zero.
And try changing out the barrel on a PPK or similar, maybe a Ruger Mk series 22 - let me know how your 15 second rule works out. Last edited by SkyHawk; 08-14-2017 at 7:44 PM.. |
#199
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
But then again, they never intended to solve crimes, did they?
__________________
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|