Miller v. Bonta 9th Ckt "assault weapons": Held for Duncan result 1-26-24

[beenawhile]

"Date stamped", where?

Right here

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[bwiese]

Agreed w ar15barrels.

937e PC generally relates to antitheft identifier tampering.

Date stamps on mags are just for inventory freshness matters and are nonunique.

Yeah, I don't see magazines even being close to ANY of those categories and I'm not worried about the "but is not limited to" part because nobody is looking at date codes until after some supposed crime has been committed when they are just looking for more charges to tack on to give the DA more bargaining power.

Also, a date code is NOT an identifying mark because it can't differentiate a specific item from another of the same items made with the same date code.
That law is about discreet item differentiating markings like serial numbers or VIN numbers where there are no duplicates in circulation.
Pmags don't have serial numbers.

[RickD427]

Yeah, I don't see magazines even being close to ANY of those categories and I'm not worried about the "but is not limited to" part because nobody is looking at date codes until after some supposed crime has been committed when they are just looking for more charges to tack on to give the DA more bargaining power.

Also, a date code is NOT an identifying mark because it can't differentiate a specific item from another of the same items made with the same date code.
That law is about discreet item differentiating markings like serial numbers or VIN numbers where there are no duplicates in circulation.
Pmags don't have serial numbers.

Agreed w ar15barrels.

937e PC generally relates to antitheft identifier tampering.

Date stamps on mags are just for inventory freshness matters and are nonunique.

Gents,

Your read of PC 537e may be reasonable, but there's nothing mandating such a read, and a prosecutor seeking to file charges is gonna be inclined to read the section broadly.

There's nothing in PC 537e that requires the manufacturer's identifying mark to be one that uniquely identifies the item. The section only requires that "identify" the item in some way.

A manufacturer's date code identifies the date of manufacture of the item.

[curtisfong]

identifies the item

We have differing views of the word "identify" then.

What follows is a practical usage (aka not to be confused what the courts do, which is typically entirely arbitrary and not worth discussing, because the courts can do whatever they wish, by fiat, and no amount of real life reasoning changes what they have decreed)

*Identify* is a means to distinguish one thing from another, thus, an *identifier* is (by this practical definition), unique in some scope. Most commonly, globally.

What date stamps do not do is identify. They provide information about the (approximate) date of "manufacture", which is also a gray area. The contents of that information can be anything. Date of manufacture of the part? Assembly? Raw material?

Batch *identifiers*, however, *uniquely* identify batch membership, but do not *uniquely* identify the item.

If they are not, for example, serial numbers guaranteed to be globally unique, they do not *identify* the magazine.

Again, the courts may choose to define "identify" however they want. They can choose to define that the sun sets in the east, or that pi is 3.13

I cannot challenge those, no matter how inane or obviously stupid, and make no mistake, the courts routinely make these determinations. Lawyers love to think of themselves of wonderful logicians, but I rarely find that to be the case.

[alowercaseq]

We have differing views of the word "identify" then.

Your view is limited and by usage, demonstrably wrong.

One can identify characteristics, without uniquely identifying an object. And object with an identifiably illegal characteristic is an illegal item. End of discussion.

You cannot use a narrow usage of a term to preclude other valid usages. If identify necessarily meant "uniquely identify", we wouldn't need to say "uniquely". Something that is identified must be unambiguous, not unique. A magazine stamped with a date code after xx/xx/xxxx was unambiguously manufactured on or after that date. Having multiple magazines stamped with the same date code does not stop one from identifying them by that date code.

We identify a plant as belonging to a specific genus and species without care as to its individual lineage or the GPS coordinates of its root ball. Your argument is foolish and willfully ignorant.

[curtisfong]

Having multiple magazines stamped with the same date code does not stop one from identifying them by that date code.

You are not identifying the magazine, you are identifying the (unique) date on which it was manufactured, identifying a group of magazines to which it belongs.

We identify a plant as belonging to a specific genus and species without care as to its individual lineage or the GPS coordinates of its root ball. Your argument is foolish and willfully ignorant.

You are identifying the genus/species of which the plant shares with other, similar plants, not that individual plant.

An "identifier" is only as good as the scope in which it is unique.

[Big Chudungus]

They were requiring pix to show it was a legal gun. No bullet button, proper sized serial number, vsible, no collapsible stock, or flash hider, etc. The problem was, that with the rules changing and nuances not known, some people were accidentally making themselves potential felons because they accidentally created an AW (via an accidental feature). There were a <<<dozen little traps involved, some obvious, some not>>>. And the poor guy trying to do the right things was getting hammered.
Fast forward to now, with your question: Yes, there is a process, but it is convoluted and the website I think is better, but not by much. And you can still out yourself by accident.

very interesting. be nice if some LGS offered a service of a guy who knew this stuff and would even have a bin of cheap parts if a couple things needed to be changed for the Publicity Photos.

Maybe I will build a "featureless" after all Thordsen"Barbarella" rifle after all.

I've been noticing a sharp rise in Creative Incompetence in Govt Webs when DNC is in power and the Incompetence is a match for Policy. I only took about a 1/2 class on HTML and webpage creation/user interface but I do remember them covering how a GUI can "work" but be defacto non-starter IRL, and that is sometimes done for unhanded legal reasons.

[jcwatchdog]

High Capacity Magazines that are date stamped post "Freedom Week" will be viewed by California Law Enforcement as Prima Facie Evidence. It's a reasonable assumption. An individual can protest, argue and explain, but their statements will likely be against self interests.

[MountainLion]

We have differing views of the word "identify" then.

That's a nice view. Or perhaps it's nonsense. To find out which of the two, you should ask your friendly neighborhood appeals court panel. Most people don't want to use that technique to answer a deep philosophical question, there is too much at stake.

But try this argument: If your argument is correct, and the "date code" does not uniquely identify that particular item, yet the defendant goes to considerable effort with his Dremel tool to grind it off, and then claims that this magazine was bought during freedom week, in spite of the fact that a preponderance of evidence (such as credit card receipts) do support that they didn't buy any magazines during that week, but bought some a few months ago in Arizona: What view of 537(e) do you think the DA and judge will apply in this situation? Clearly, the defendant interprets the "date code" as being something worthy of removing to destroy the evidence.

Anecdote: I'm in a courtroom. The judge asks "Did the defendant cause an accident?". I try "You know, cause and effect can be a complicated philosophical concept." I was trying to convey that in this particular case, the car accident had several causes, of which the defendant's driving behavior was just one. The judge didn't want to hear that, and turned to me quite angrily, and said: "Cut that out. Was there in accident, yes or no." To which I gave the only correct answer: "I'm sorry your honor, yes there was an accident." The defendant was convicted (this was a bench trial).

[curtisfong]

Most people don't want to use that technique to answer a deep philosophical question, there is too much at stake

It's not purely philosophical; it underpins both formal logic and group theory, which, in turn, inform real physics and real science, both of which bring you the tools and technologies you use today, which rely on actual, formal, provable, objective, immutable, agreed on laws.

Anecdote: I'm in a courtroom

Don't care. Everything in there is a construct based on completely arbitrary metrics.

As I've said before the court could find (as fact) that the sun sets in the east.

That they might define a word differently than objective reality does is no surprise.

For example, "large capacity magazines".

[ar15barrels]

Gents,

Your read of PC 537e may be reasonable, but there's nothing mandating such a read, and a prosecutor seeking to file charges is gonna be inclined to read the section broadly.

There's nothing in PC 537e that requires the manufacturer's identifying mark to be one that uniquely identifies the item. The section only requires that "identify" the item in some way.

A manufacturer's date code identifies the date of manufacture of the item.

A pmag is clearly identified without any date codes.



The descriptions of marks in 537 are unique identifiers.

537e.
(a) Any person who knowingly buys, sells, receives, disposes of, conceals, or has in his or her possession any personal property from which the manufacturer’s serial number, identification number, electronic serial number, or any other distinguishing number or identification mark

Date codes are NOT a "distinguishing number or identification mark" because they do not distinguish a specific magazine from other specific magazines.
So while the law does not spell out "unique identifier", the only things it lists specifically ARE unique identifiers.

Date codes do NOT uniquely identify a specific magazine from another as a unique serial number or VIN does.

[aBrowningfan]

A pmag is clearly identified without any date codes.

Ummm, perhaps you could flip the magazines in the picture over to show the side (left?) that is facing down? You will find a manufacture date stamp that shows year and month of manufacture.

Date codes do NOT uniquely identify a specific magazine from another as a unique serial number or VIN does.

You appear to be hung up on the absence of a serial number or VIN. Having a magazine with a manufacture date that is significantly past the freedom week period or one with the manufacture date removed by a Dremel generally shifts the burden of proof to the defendant.

[curtisfong]

Having a magazine with a manufacture date that is significantly past the freedom week period or one with the manufacture date removed by a Dremel generally shifts the burden of proof to the defendant.

I agree with this. In addition, I have no doubt that a suitably motivated prosecutor would throw 537(e) into the mix with absolutely no hesitation, and given the right judge with the right political leanings, the court would agree that a date stamp is an "identifier", and not just something that indicates membership in a group. Similar to them declaring that an 11 round capacity magazine in, say, a G17 (one of the single most common magazine fed pistols on the planet), is "large", despite it being significantly smaller (in capacity) than the (literally) standard capacity magazine.

And similar to them finding, as fact, that the sun sets in the "east", where "east" really means "west". They're that dishonest, and that corrupt. They do not deserve an iota of respect or deference, only contempt.

[Paperchasin]

So if date codes can potentially be used against the defendant, is it fair to say that they can also be used as a legitimate defense?

[lastinline]

The Court literally manufactured State standing for Peruta out of nothing. If CA literally had no governor or AG, the Court would find a way to manufacture standing for somebody.

You underestimate how corrupt Sidney Thomas is.

That is an excellent summation of too many jurists now sitting on various benches. The black robed thieves of liberty.