• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Micro Stamping requirement for handguns is on the Govoners Desk!

cato

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
imported post

[align=center]UPDATE OCTOBER 11TH, 2007 WE NEED A VETO NOW![/align]

[align=center]ONLY A FEW DAYS LEFT TO STOP THIS BILL FROM AUTOMATICALLY BECOMING LAW IF CA. GOV. SCHWARZENEGGERDOES NOT VETO!!!![/align]

[align=center][/align]

[align=center]PLEASE HELP STOP THIS CANCER IN CA BEFORE IT SPREADS![/align]

[align=center]CALL AND OPPOSE AB 1471[/align]
[align=center]E-mail the govoner:

http://gov.ca.gov/interact

and oppose AB 1471
[/align]


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.
 
C

CaliforniaCarry

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
49
Location
Santa Clarita, California, USA
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.
 
HankT

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
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. :monkey
 
I

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
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?
 
F

freedom1776

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
48
Location
, ,
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.
 
L

Lew

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
217
Location
Moscow, ID
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.
Click to expand...
Hot is one thing, but I would hate to live for very long in California. Just not my kind of people, present company excluded.
 
S

swift

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
125
Location
Peoria, Arizona, USA
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.
 
C

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
HankT

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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? :uhoh:
 
I

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
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.
 
V

vrwmiller

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
1,043
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

cato wrote:
[ snip]

Press 1 - for English

[ snip]
Click to expand...
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!
 
HankT

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

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


imperialism2024 wrote:
CA Libertarian is using "effective" as a synonym for "de facto".
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...



This thread is not about automatic weapons. :uhoh:

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.
 
S

swift

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
125
Location
Peoria, Arizona, USA
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.
 
HankT

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
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.
Click to expand...
Why do you keep voting multiple times?
 
H

hogleg

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2007
Messages
168
Location
KC,MO, ,
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.
 
V

vrwmiller

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
1,043
Location
Virginia, USA
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.
Click to expand...
Why do you keep voting multiple times?
Click to expand...
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.
 
C

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
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."
Click to expand...
imperialism2024 wrote:
CA Libertarian is using "effective" as a synonym for "de facto".
Click to expand...
OK. How would it be a "ban" and how would it be "complete?"
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top