Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

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

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • advocatusdiaboli
    replied
    Originally posted by Sputnik
    And don't anyone think there isn't a desire by the D majority to do just that...it may be illegal as can be but that won't stop the attempts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rastoff
    replied
    Originally posted by Sputnik
    And don't anyone think there isn't a desire by the D majority to do just that...it may be illegal as can be but that won't stop the attempts.
    The "safe" handgun roster is illegal. The 10 day wait is illegal. The one handgun in 30 days is illegal. Yes, the law has never stopped them before. It's up to us to challenge them. We do that by supporting organizations like the NRA and Calguns Foundation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Firefox70066
    replied
    Thanks

    Leave a comment:


  • Sputnik
    replied
    Originally posted by IVC
    Well, that can change with a single AB/SB. They already have the registry...
    And don't anyone think there isn't a desire by the D majority to do just that...it may be illegal as can be but that won't stop the attempts.

    Leave a comment:


  • IVC
    replied
    Originally posted by RipVanWinkle
    Yes, they'll be legal to own if they're legal now. You can legally sell them to other CA residents via Private Party Transaction through a dealer. They are grandfathered in. The micro stamping regulation has no effect on what you currently own.
    Well, that can change with a single AB/SB. They already have the registry...

    Leave a comment:


  • RipVanWinkle
    replied
    Originally posted by Firefox70066
    If the micro stamping goes in to effect, do you think we will still be grandfathered to still own our older NONROOSTER guns?
    Yes, they'll be legal to own if they're legal now. You can legally sell them to other CA residents via Private Party Transaction through a dealer. They are grandfathered in. The micro stamping regulation has no effect on what you currently own.

    Leave a comment:


  • umd
    replied
    Originally posted by Firefox70066
    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".

    Leave a comment:


  • Rastoff
    replied
    Originally posted by Firefox70066
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Firefox70066
    replied
    If the micro stamping goes in to effect, do you think we will still be grandfathered to still own our older NONROOSTER guns?

    Leave a comment:


  • RobertMW
    replied
    Originally posted by paultakeda
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • advocatusdiaboli
    replied
    Originally posted by glockman19
    The Roster has NOTHING to do with Safety.

    Leave a comment:


  • paultakeda
    replied
    Originally posted by glockman19
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • glockman19
    replied
    Originally posted by RuskieShooter
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • RuskieShooter
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • RobertMW
    replied
    Originally posted by IVC
    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.

    Originally posted by JDay
    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.

    Originally posted by paultakeda
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
UA-8071174-1