Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 52

Thread: Micro Stamping requirement for handguns is on the Govoners Desk!

  1. #1
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    UPDATE OCTOBER 11TH, 2007 WE NEED A VETO NOW!


    ONLY A FEW DAYS LEFT TO STOP THIS BILL FROM AUTOMATICALLY BECOMING LAW IF CA. GOV. SCHWARZENEGGERDOES NOT VETO!!!!




    PLEASE HELP STOP THIS CANCER IN CA BEFORE IT SPREADS!


    CALL AND OPPOSE AB 1471

    E-mail the govoner:

    http://gov.ca.gov/interact

    and oppose AB 1471



    This is so important. Call right now! You don't have to speak to anyone. This takes 20 seconds.

    CALL Gov's Sac number (916-445-2841)

    Press 1 - for English
    Press 2 - for Voice your opinion on Assembly Bills
    Press 1 - for Micro Stamping Bill (AB1471)
    Press 2 to OPPOSE the gun control bill.

    That's it! I repeat, you do not need to speak to anyone.






  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Santa Clarita, California, USA
    Posts
    49

    Post imported post

    Done.

    I will probably send a letter via snail mail as well, and call again from my phone at home. The line was busy the first few times I called it, so hopefully that's a good indication that lots of people are calling... I just hope all of them are opposing.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Moscow, ID
    Posts
    218

    Post imported post

    No problem.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chesapeake, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    20

    Post imported post

    Do you have to be a CA citizen to call and oppose?

  5. #5
    Regular Member VAopencarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The 'Dena, Mаяуlaпd
    Posts
    2,147

    Post imported post

    line's busy, I hope it's our guys hitting it hard.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

  6. #6
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    I got through with no delay20 minutes ago.



    Here's a good video with NRA-IL's Ed Worley discussing the issue.

    http://www.townhall.com/video/nranews/1450_144001

    Although the basic idea of micro-stamping is pretty interesting, there is obviously no formulated plan to actually make it work. It's feelgood legislation. Its proponents, including the LE advocates are pathetically unprepared to implement an effective program. I'm not sure they can ever do it.

    The NRA is opposing the CA legislation, and is gearing up to oppose the imminent federal bill on micro-stamping that Ted Kennedy is getting ready to propose.

    Fortunately, we have the NRA to lobby against this kind of nonsense.




  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Regardless of the effectiveness of the microstamping, couldn't this be an effort to drive the cost of guns up so high that average people will no longer be able to afford them?

    Also, nice to see the NRA acting here... but they wouldn't have to be doing this if they had lobbied to end the requirement to put serial numbers on guns in the first place. But hey, what's the point in being proactive rather than reactive?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    48

    Post imported post

    Just called, got through on 2nd try, i don't think a lot of people are calling to vote, i just think they are calling cause arnold's phone secretary sounds hot... I'd move to Cali for the women but they got to many gun laws.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Moscow, ID
    Posts
    218

    Post imported post

    freedom1776 wrote:
    Just called, got through on 2nd try, i don't think a lot of people are calling to vote, i just think they are calling cause arnold's phone secretary sounds hot... I'd move to Cali for the women but they got to many gun laws.
    Hot is one thing, but I would hate to live for very long in California. Just not my kind of people, present company excluded.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Peoria, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    125

    Post imported post

    I called in & voted twice with caller id block. It is an awful bill, I'd hate to see it introduced anywhere, and California has enough bad gun laws as it is without throwing more fuel on the fire.

  11. #11
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Regardless of the effectiveness of the microstamping, couldn't this be an effort to drive the cost of guns up so high that average people will no longer be able to afford them?
    That's exactly the motivation. I've heard many people express the opinion that microstamping technology is so expensive that no manufacturer would make the guns CA legal. I'm not sure about that, but it is certainly a possibility.

    So, this may be an effective complete gun ban for CA.

    EDIT: by the way, sent an e-mail and voted by phone.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  12. #12
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Regardless of the effectiveness of the microstamping, couldn't this be an effort to drive the cost of guns up so high that average people will no longer be able to afford them?
    That's exactly the motivation. I've heard many people express the opinion that microstamping technology is so expensive that no manufacturer would make the guns CA legal. I'm not sure about that, but it is certainly a possibility.

    So, this may be an effective complete gun ban for CA.
    How would this "effective complete ban" work? I don't see how it could be a "ban," "complete," or "effective."




    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Also, nice to see the NRA acting here... but they wouldn't have to be doing this if they had lobbied to end the requirement to put serial numbers on guns in the first place. But hey, what's the point in being proactive rather than reactive?
    You're gonna blame the NRA for not lobbying to remove serial numbers from guns?

    Fascinating.

    And exactly how would the NRa lobbying for removing serial numbers from guns stop the CA legislature from proposing a micro-stamping bill?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    CA Libertarian is using "effective" as a synonym for "de facto".

    And, HankT, if the NRA had successfully lobbied to remove serial numbers from guns, then there wouldn't be the "problem" of removed serial numbers, hence there being no need to introduce microstamping. It would be doing the same thing to the anti's that they have been doing to us all these years. Is a hot topic for us legalizing the carry of automatic weapons? No, because first we need to fight for carry of semi-automatic weapons, and just for possession of automatic weapons. We can't even begin to fight for carry of automatic weapons. If the NRA were acting proactively, the anti-gun crowd would have to keep scurrying to introduce serial numbers on guns, and the idea of microstamping wouldn't even be entering their tiny minds yet.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,043

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    [ snip]

    Press 1 - for English


    [ snip]
    I've called to indicate my opposition to the bill.

    As to the quote above, need I say more?

    ETA: If the bill were to even pass, I wonder how they would get around people replacing the firing pins or filing the microstamp off of the tip of it. This is amazing that we could even get to this point. I'm sad that the bill even made it through the legislature and got to the Governor's desk. Sickening!

  15. #15
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    How would this "effective complete ban" work? I don't see how it could be a "ban," "complete," or "effective."

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    CA Libertarian is using "effective" as a synonym for "de facto".
    OK. How would it be a "ban" and how would it be "complete?"



    imperialism2024 wrote:
    And, HankT, if the NRA had successfully lobbied to remove serial numbers from guns, then there wouldn't be the "problem" of removed serial numbers, hence there being no need to introduce microstamping. It would be doing the same thing to the anti's that they have been doing to us all these years. Is a hot topic for us legalizing the carry of automatic weapons? No, because first we need to fight for carry of semi-automatic weapons, and just for possession of automatic weapons. We can't even begin to fight for carry of automatic weapons. If the NRA were acting proactively, the anti-gun crowd would have to keep scurrying to introduce serial numbers on guns, and the idea of microstamping wouldn't even be entering their tiny minds yet.


    This thread is not about automatic weapons.

    There is nothing that I can see in your description that would preclude the CA legislature from proposing micro-stamping--even if the NRA had taken up the, um, brilliant idea of eliminating serial numbers on guns. Your position doesn't make sense. CAlegislaturecan still do what they want.

    I hesitate to ask, but I will. How do you expect to actually ask any legislative entity to seriously consider a law that would eliminate gun serial numbers? That's a far-fetched idea to say the least. And what would you do with the serial numbers on the presently owned guns in the U.S? Out of the 270 million or so guns, almost all of them have serial numbers now. Do we rub those out somehow.


    It 's really interesting how strained and simplistic the NRA-basher arguments can be...

    The NRA isn't perfect but thank God there are adults in charge over there.




  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Peoria, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    125

    Post imported post

    I've called in to vote against microstamping about 10 times since yesterday. I just hit redial whenever I get the hankering.

    Does anyone know if the microstamping bill is a ban against newly manufactured guns without microstamping or all sales of guns?

    If only newly manufactured guns will be required to have the micro-stamping than I imagine that the used gun trade in Califorina is going to be doing very well if the Governer signs the bill. I imagine there may be a few models from a few manufactures that would be willing to add the micro-stamping (with a very large corresponding increase in price for the "california legal" model), but the selection for new guns in Califorinia would be greatly reduced. Hopefully Arnold will veto it as it is the most rediculous legislation I've ever heard of. What kind of morons are in the California Legislature? I can't believe it passed. Hopefully Arnold will be able to see the problems with the bill & veto it.

  17. #17
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    swift wrote:
    I've called in to vote against microstamping about 10 times since yesterday. I just hit redial whenever I get the hankering.
    Why do you keep voting multiple times?



  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    KC,MO, ,
    Posts
    168

    Post imported post

    I wonder how LEO's in Kalifornia will get new guns? I cannot see any manufactures spending the kind of money it would take to just supply LEO's They don't really buy that many new Guns in the state just for LEO use. If an exemption for LEO guns exists. Then thisin sense couldbe a defacto new handgun ban for citizensin kalifornia. I don't see anyone spending the money to do this for one state.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,043

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    swift wrote:
    I've called in to vote against microstamping about 10 times since yesterday. I just hit redial whenever I get the hankering.
    Why do you keep voting multiple times?
    And announcing that fact on a public board? So, the governor's office hears of people calling multiple times and voting, thus rendering the results pretty much useless. Not only that, but it gives the anti's something to call us out on and/or they can do the same, except each one of them votes 20 times, instead of your 10.

    ETA: I am just as much against this legislation as the next guy, but voting multiple times is not the appropriate way to go about opposing such legislation. Think about personal integrity.

  20. #20
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    How would this "effective complete ban" work? I don't see how it could be a "ban," "complete," or "effective."
    imperialism2024 wrote:
    CA Libertarian is using "effective" as a synonym for "de facto".
    OK. How would it be a "ban" and how would it be "complete?"
    As I said in my post, it is possible that no gun manufacturer will be able to make a profit if they have to incorporate this technology into their guns.

    To correct my poorly worded statement, I intended to say, "This may become a de facto ban on gun sales in CA."

    This would be a de facto ban ('complete' is redundant) because the bill would place all non-compliant guns on our 'unsafe firearms' list, making them illegal to manufacture, import, sell, or transfer in CA.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Peoria, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    125

    Post imported post

    HankT & vrwmiller - those are good points, I can see your viewpoint. I was only voting multiple times because these types of polls are not actually scientific, and there is no requirement to only vote once - it is bound to not be like a real scientific survey. When there is a "call in" poll like this or any other type of phone or on-line poll such as American Idol, they receive calls from people who care enough to take the time to call in, and multiple calls just mean you care that much more. For American Idol they specifically said vote as many times as you wish, and people did - some people hundreds of times in a single night. Not that I watched it, I just saw blurbs in the nightly news.

    For a scientific survey they'll try to get a scientific slice of people including those who don't really want to be bothered & will ask them all a quick question, nobody will be called twice etc. Everyone knows that phone calls to legislators & on-line polls are only going to show which group of people cares enough to take the effort to call in one or more times. It does not make me dishonest to show that I care more than the guy next door.

    The Governor knows the difference between a scientific survey & a call-in poll. The thing is, he also knows that the people who take the time to call in one or more times are also more likely to take the time to go to the polls & vote when it is election time. He has not ruled out running for President if that ever becomes an option, so he'll be interested in what the Nation thinks of his 2nd Amendment related decisions.

  22. #22
    Regular Member sccrref's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA, , USA
    Posts
    741

    Post imported post

    vrwmiller wrote:
    And announcing that fact on a public board? So, the governor's office hears of people calling multiple times and voting, thus rendering the results pretty much useless. Not only that, but it gives the anti's something to call us out on and/or they can do the same, except each one of them votes 20 times, instead of your 10.

    ETA: I am just as much against this legislation as the next guy, but voting multiple times is not the appropriate way to go about opposing such legislation. Think about personal integrity.
    Is there something that says you may only enter your vote once? If not, then it is okay to submit your vote as many times as you want to. Personal integrity does not figure in. The law does not say it is illegal to OC, therefore OC is legal. Same thing with this vote. If they wanted an official type vote they would have hired a pollster, required some type of identification or put this on a referendom. Vote your opinion as many times as you want.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Peoria, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    125

    Post imported post

    Thanks sccrref - my thoughts exactly.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Peoria, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    125

    Post imported post

    vrwmiller wrote:
    Not only that, but it gives the anti's something to call us out on and/or they can do the same, except each one of them votes 20 times, instead of your 10.
    I welcome the gun grabbers who care about their viewpoint to call as many times as they wish. There really are so few of them that care that even if they all called in 100 times it would make little impact. The truth is that the Brady Bunch has very few true "supporters" and the so called "Million Moms" group only wishes they could have a million members, much less a million moms. If you take a poll of Californians or DC residents there are many folks who have fallen for the lies & propaganda put out by the gun grabbing groups & biased media that would be willing to say that we would be better off if we could ban all guns. However, the majority of those same people really don't care enough about it to actually take the time to make a phone call, for the vast majority of them it's just one small thing near the bottom of their list of priorities, if it makes it on their list at all. I doubt many of them would take the time to read a board like this, otherwise they'd probably become educated & would end up joining our cause.

    Folks like you & I on the other hand are dedicated to the cause of protecting our bill of rights. I'd be willing to call 100 times if I thought it was needed, but I have confidence in my fellow defenders of freedom on this board who are making the phone call so I'm confident that the Governor will hear our voice loud & clear.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    This thread is not about automatic weapons.

    There is nothing that I can see in your description that would preclude the CA legislature from proposing micro-stamping--even if the NRA had taken up the, um, brilliant idea of eliminating serial numbers on guns. Your position doesn't make sense. CAlegislaturecan still do what they want.

    I hesitate to ask, but I will. How do you expect to actually ask any legislative entity to seriously consider a law that would eliminate gun serial numbers? That's a far-fetched idea to say the least. And what would you do with the serial numbers on the presently owned guns in the U.S? Out of the 270 million or so guns, almost all of them have serial numbers now. Do we rub those out somehow.


    It 's really interesting how strained and simplistic the NRA-basher arguments can be...

    The NRA isn't perfect but thank God there are adults in charge over there.
    HankT, I'm going to take the higher ground here and avoid labeling you and undermining your character, like you did to me.

    I brought up automatic weapons as an analogy to answer your question about how I think that the NRA's defensive position led to this proposed microstamping. Basically, you can't take the hill a mile into enemy territory until you clear a path to it first. And, if you keep getting pushed back, it greatly decreases your chances of being able to take said hill.

    As far as serial numbers go... serial numbers are what enable gun registration. If you're not registering guns, then what's the point of serial numbers? And, the only legislation that would be required would be to eliminate the criminalization of removing serial numbers. Then, if people choose to remove their serial numbers, they can do so, or just leave them on. At any rate, to get away from that digression, if people accept no serial numbers as the norm, then it would make the idea of mandating microstamping much more ridiculous. So sure, they could do it, but they'd try to mandate the much more easily applied serial numbers first, giving pro-gun groups a better footing on which to fight.

    Not that I except for my arguments to be accepted, and I rather expect them to be torn apart for typos and for going against the norm, but hey, I made an effort.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •