2023 SB452 Unsafe handguns, Microstamping. Passed today, 9/13/23

[Helmut]

" It is the intent of the Legislature to enact subsequent legislation to require all semiautomatic pistols sold in the state to be equipped with a microscopic array of characters used to identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched or otherwise imprinted in one or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, that are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired."

Shooting ranges will be consumed by criminals picking up your brass and scattering them at their crime scenes.

https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB452/2023

[9Cal_OC]

Just a rehash of the current law

These authors are just a waste of taxpayer money.

[SunkenShadow]

Are we allowed to sue our legislators for wasting tax payer money?

[OlderThanDirt]

Actually, when read literally, it means that every semiautomatic pistol sold would require microstamping. This would include all the semiautomatic pistols currently on the roster, and presumably all used semiautomatic pistols as well. Until there is some actual text who knows what they really mean, but being California and a complete disregard for the Constitution and SCOTUS decisions, I suspect they really intend to ban all sales of semiautomatic pistols that do not have microstamping.

[jcwatchdog]

Good, I hope this is for every gun on the roster, which will then create a total ban, and that will make things move that much quicker.

[Librarian]

I am not familiar with this 'legiscan' source; it's probably fine.

But the CA OFFICIAL place is

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...202320240SB452

It's a 'spot bill'; a 'place holder' for something else. Bills are considered in bill-number order where possible, so having something in place provides a vehicle. Very common.

[DrewN]

Actually, when read literally, it means that every semiautomatic pistol sold would require microstamping. This would include all the semiautomatic pistols currently on the roster, and presumably all used semiautomatic pistols as well. Until there is some actual text who knows what they really mean, but being California and a complete disregard for the Constitution and SCOTUS decisions, I suspect they really intend to ban all sales of semiautomatic pistols that do not have microstamping.

Sounds like some brain surgeon thinks he found a "loophole" that needs closing.

[ritter]

Since microstamping doesn't exist, this bill would ban all semiautomatics, as contained by "Section 1."

[DolphinFan]

[DrewN]

I can hear it now. "Manufacturers have had x years to comply with California law, yet stubbornly refuse to comply with our common sense, life saving measures. In fact, they would rather pull out of California than cooperate. Well, today we are here to show them the door. Don't let it hit you on the way out. If manufacturers want to continue to do business here they must obey the law! Anything else is a betrayal of our schoolchildren". yada yada yada.

[DisgruntledReaper]

worthless bags of human genetic dna...these strains must be filtered from the pool.... cant say more ,may get ban hammer for 1st A exercising...

[Scratch705]

I can hear it now. "Manufacturers have had x years to comply with California law, yet stubbornly refuse to comply with our common sense, life saving measures. In fact, they would rather pull out of California than cooperate. Well, today we are here to show them the door. Don't let it hit you on the way out. If manufacturers want to continue to do business here they must obey the law! Anything else is a betrayal of our schoolchildren". yada yada yada.

The few republicans should add on that even police handguns should be equipped with this. "As public safety."

This will ensure the bill goes down in flames since there will be zero police union support. And on the off chance, it will strengthen the case thst microstamping is a total ban and thus should be removed as a requirement for roster

[TrappedinCalifornia]

It's presumed 'lawful' until it is declared 'unlawful' by a court or by the public.

It's the very reason Scalia noted, in relation to the Heller decision, that it was going to take further litigation to address specifics. That's really where Bruen falls; i.e., it provided a clarified standard (or a 'new test,' depending on your point of view) to be used by way of making the decisions related to specifics. As stated in... SCOTUS Vacates 4 Decisions Upholding Gun Control Laws Whose Constitutionality Now Looks Doubtful...

...In any event, the Supreme Court in Bruen made it clear that the relevant question is not whether a gun law passes a "judge-empowering 'interest-balancing inquiry' that 'asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute's salutary effects upon other important governmental interests.'" The question is whether the law resembles historical antecedents that were generally viewed as consistent with the right to armed self-defense...

While historical evidence is sometimes equivocal or difficult to find, it still imposes a constraint on judges who might otherwise be inclined to uphold any gun law they personally view as appropriate. That sort of broad discretion is dangerous to civil liberties, which include the fundamental right to armed self-defense, even if many judges view it as an inconvenient obstacle to enlightened policy.

[abinsinia]

This bill seems to eliminate all semi auto handguns currently rostered. Welp that's all folks.

[Dvrjon]

Senator Catherine Blakespear said:

We need to use every tool available to reduce the gun violence epidemic. If law enforcement can solve crimes more quickly, we can break the cycle of gun traffickers using ghost guns. This is a common sense pro-safety bill that will close an existing loop hole.