Peņa v. Cid (Handgun Roster) **CERT DENIED 6-15-2020**

[mej16489]

I think most gun buyers DGAF if there is microstamping or not. It's mostly the vocal minority (us) that really don't want microstamping, but that is mostly because we have thought about the potential worst case scenarios (aka we are all slightly paranoid )

And yes, I would think that the manufacturers WILL argue that MS is impossible to implement in the current form that the CA .gov prescribed.

Doing the firing pin thing, that is pretty easy and truly would only cost a couple bucks per gun, and would work well'ish until it wears out or is filed off.

The "Second Location" is where the whole law falls apart. There is no second location in the chamber of a gun that would work. If you put it on the bolt or breech face, you will be imprinting onto the area that will already have head stamps on them, it will be harder material, and there will be less force on those areas to imprint with. If you try and put it on the case wall, you will be weakening the chamber wall by drilling out and press fitting a stamp into the chamber wall. This stamp will always have to be protruding, so you will have brass constantly scraping over the stamp on the way in and out. The stamping will likely not imprint, which is necessary for it to be legal, per the law, and the protruding stamp has a high likelyhood of causing feed and extraction malfunctions.

The second location will either not work, invalidating the legality of it. Or it will reduce the safety of the firearm, so a company can not sell it. So yeah, a company would spend some amount of money developing the stamps, and never recuperate a cent, because it will never be sold.

This is simply a pipe dream idea, created by people who are not engineers.

...and it has todo all of that while, "identify[ing] the make, model, and serial number of the pistol." That's quite allot of information even if digital techniques are used.

[IVC]

I think most gun buyers DGAF if there is microstamping or not.

Microstamping, much like magazine disconnect and LCI, primarily limits availability.

Sure it wouldn't matter *much* if ANY gun could be purchased as-is, then have the local FFL install different firing pin. It would add cost, but at least wouldn't limit availability.

As it stands, most modern handguns do NOT have the magazine disconnect and only a few have natural LCI (which is often insufficient for CA.) None have microstamping, though. That's the REAL problem.

[JDay]

What if...gun manufacturers simply put magazine disconnects and loaded chamber indicators on their "latest and greatest" models (the plaintiffs in Pena helpfully submitted all the evidence and studies to justify these safety regulations when they filed their first MSJ) and just got on board with microstamping (notice that their evidence stops more than a little short of saying it's not possible to do it), then they could sell those models to their heart's content! Even if the number of approved handguns keeps on dwindling, the DOJ has a good argument that it's the gun manufacturer's intransigence not the law that's responsible for that.

Do you have any idea how much a firearm with microstamping would cost? It would price handguns out of reach of the poor.

[JDay]

I think most gun buyers DGAF if there is microstamping or not. It's mostly the vocal minority (us) that really don't want microstamping, but that is mostly because we have thought about the potential worst case scenarios (aka we are all slightly paranoid )

And yes, I would think that the manufacturers WILL argue that MS is impossible to implement in the current form that the CA .gov prescribed.

Doing the firing pin thing, that is pretty easy and truly would only cost a couple bucks per gun, and would work well'ish until it wears out or is filed off.

Most gun owners in this state are unaware of microstamping. And there is no way it'll only cost a couple bucks per firing pin to implement. In fact the firing pin alone will likely add $100 to the cost.

[advocatusdiaboli]

Most gun owners in this state are unaware of microstamping. And there is no way it'll only cost a couple bucks per firing pin to implement. In fact the firing pin alone will likely add $100 to the cost.

The DOJ will never accept a scheme where the micro-stamp is added by an FFL or dealer because they don't trust firearms owners not to just skip it. The idea that pistol manufacturers would perform and expensive re-tool for less than 10% of their US civilian market ignores economic realities: the IRR and ROI would never justify it. Which is why they are not doing it.

Besides, they know just like we do that every time they jump through a hoop the politicians will add another because the goal of The Roster is to eliminate affordable pistols for civilian sale in California. They'll demand that hair-brained battery-powered electronic ID scheme within 5 years watch and see. It is not nor never was about public safety. Per capita pistol deaths are no higher in states that do not require LCI, MD, and MS so there is no supporting evidence the scheme works to promote public safety. In fact, the per capita murder rate is 20% higher in CA than Texas and most murders occur with pistols.

It does't matter, the next governor after Brown will be fervently and zealously anti-gun. You ain't seen nothing yet.

[paultakeda]

The requirement isn't just for the firing pin stamp. I believe as written the casing needs to be stamped as well.

[RobertMW]

Microstamping, much like magazine disconnect and LCI, primarily limits availability.

Sure it wouldn't matter *much* if ANY gun could be purchased as-is, then have the local FFL install different firing pin. It would add cost, but at least wouldn't limit availability.

As it stands, most modern handguns do NOT have the magazine disconnect and only a few have natural LCI (which is often insufficient for CA.) None have microstamping, though. That's the REAL problem.

Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. I was just pointing out that the typical gun buyer is, essentially, a Fud. They will see what is behind the counter in their local gun shop, and believe that is the selection available. Out of sight, out of mind. As long as they can buy something that seems to fit into their description of their intended gun, they won't see a problem. Those of us who care, we just have a much narrower description of what gun we want. It won't be until manufacturers are forced to drop most guns from the roster, through manufacturing changes seen as "significant" by the DOJ most likely, that enough people will be able to truly see their limitation in choices, and wonder what is up with that.

In fact the firing pin alone will likely add $100 to the cost.

The firing pin would be an insignificant cost in the long run. The extra manufacturing necessary to do the case stamp, that's where the big bucks (comparatively) would have to be spent. And I still don't think it would work, or be safe, following the letter of the law.

The requirement isn't just for the firing pin stamp. I believe as written the casing needs to be stamped as well.

It does, that's why no manufacturer can come up with a way to do it. No matter how you implement it, you are fundamentally weakening the most important piece of a gun. It would be like giving someone an air compressor, but first drilling a hole in it and covering it with some epoxy, then calling it good. Sure, it might hold, but probably not forever. People have guns blow up in their hand often enough.

[RuskieShooter]

How is MS even a safety feature?!

What I still can't fathom is why micro-stamping is even a requirement. The stated purpose of the roster is to ensure that a pistol is "safe" for sale in CA. Can someone explain to me how the presence, or lack of, micro-stamping affects the "safety" of the pistol?

I would understand if the Legislature were to pass a separate law that required micro-stamping on all guns sold in CA as an aid to LE; but including it as a requirement on the roster (implying it is a safety feature) makes zero sense.

-Ruskie

[glockman19]

What I still can't fathom is why micro-stamping is even a requirement. The stated purpose of the roster is to ensure that a pistol is "safe" for sale in CA. Can someone explain to me how the presence, or lack of, micro-stamping affects the "safety" of the pistol?

I would understand if the Legislature were to pass a separate law that required micro-stamping on all guns sold in CA as an aid to LE; but including it as a requirement on the roster (implying it is a safety feature) makes zero sense.

-Ruskie

The Roster has NOTHING to do with Safety.

[paultakeda]

The Roster has NOTHING to do with Safety.

An unsafe handgun act would have been a simple set of restrictions based on concealability and user safety: barrel lengths (like the exemption rule for SA revolvers), safety mechanisms, etc.

A roster is a revenue machine.

[advocatusdiaboli]

The Roster has NOTHING to do with Safety.

[RobertMW]

An unsafe handgun act would have been a simple set of restrictions based on concealability and user safety: barrel lengths (like the exemption rule for SA revolvers), safety mechanisms, etc.

A roster is a revenue machine.

Yup.

Drop safety requirement for guns intended to be carried in public (open carry or CCW) would be a safety law that would have been reasonable, with the exception that you can buy any gun for hunting or range shooting.

The roster as is, it's just BS.

[Firefox70066]

If the micro stamping goes in to effect, do you think we will still be grandfathered to still own our older NONROOSTER guns?

[Rastoff]

If the micro stamping goes in to effect, do you think we will still be grandfathered to still own our older NONROOSTER guns?

You're late friend. Microstamping is in effect. No new semi-auto pistols in CA unless they have the ability to do the microstamp.

[umd]

If the micro stamping goes in to effect, do you think we will still be grandfathered to still own our older NONROOSTER guns?

This question makes no sense. Microstamping is already "in effect".