Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 41

Thread: CA - Non Existant MicroStamping Technology Bill Signed into law

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

    Post imported post


    To the Members of the California State Assembly:
    I am signing Assembly Bill 1471.
    While I appreciate and understand that this technology is not without limitations, I am
    signing this bill to provide law enforcement with an additional tool for solving crimes
    committed with semi-automatic handguns in California.
    Public safety is one of the most important roles of government and I encourage all
    stakeholders to work on improving this technology so that it may become an even more
    effective crime fighting tool.

    Sincerely,
    Arnold Schwarzenegger

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tulalip, Washington, USA
    Posts
    40

    Post imported post

    And there are so called Americans that wanted to makethis left wing liberal gun grabberthe president of (our) United States. Ha! this girlymanisn't fit to be in this country much less part of it (Governor of the peoples socialist republic of California is more like it)!!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    Let's see... This will increase the cost of manufacture and the cost of purchase of a handgun. An increase in expense that will NOT be passed onto the criinal, who pays a fraction of what we do already for black market guns that are often NOT new. Which means even the technology will not be passed onto the criminal. A swapout of the firing pin defeats it. The collection of spent casings that are not yours avoids it. Worse than that, now incriminates an innocent. I could go on...

    It's one of those laws that is passed today, some innocent will get trapped within the system, his lawyer will *slaps head, duh* point out that the microstamp alone is not proof he was there or at all involved, the law will be disproven and therefore either struck down, or just plain never enforced. It's padding to an already overswollen lawbook whose only purpose is to make the lawmakers/governor look like they're doing anything at all. We can clearly see that thinking things through before passing them along to the peasants isn't one of them.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Hmm I have an idea. How about the gun manufacturers in this country get together and agree to not sell any guns to California, including law enforcement? Maybe the ammunition manufacturers could get together as well and stop selling ammunition to California. When the LAPD can't get enough guns and ammo to rape the people of their rights, perhaps the state government will be influenced to be a little less stupid. Sure, they'd be losing a market... but isn't it worth a loss now to combat the loss of their industry if gun-grabbers have their way?

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834

    Post imported post

    maybe somebody should file a lawsuit against this bill claiming it violates the constitution, in the sense that the state of california has no constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce.

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

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Hmm I have an idea. How about the gun manufacturers in this country get together and agree to not sell any guns to California...
    What a brilliant idea! You would blithely deprive the rights of our fellow men to purchase a new gun?

    And you would just deny the manufacturers the opportunity to obtain revenues and profits from their sales in CA? Just for your version of what is right?

    You have no right to stop commerce or to infringe on CA gun buyers' rights.


    imperialism2024 wrote:
    ...including law enforcement?
    You want the gun manufacturers to do that? Get serious.



    imperialism2024 wrote:

    Maybe the ammunition manufacturers could get together as well and stop selling ammunition to California.
    The two points made above for the manufacturers would apply here too.

    Why on earth would a manufacturer ever do what you suggest?


    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Sure, they'd be losing a market... but isn't it worth a loss now to combat the loss of their industry if gun-grabbers have their way?
    Wow. What a strategic mind...

    More evidence that our educational system has failed us...

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

    Post imported post

    I'm sorry I didn't spell out every single step of thinking in my post. To appeal to simpler minds, let me rephrase it:

    If the United States arms industry wishes to retain their civilian market in the long term, it may be in their interest to consider a stop to sales in California. It is clear that California's state government has the aim of total civilian disarmament. It is also clear that civilian complaints in California have no impact on stopping, much less reversing this trend toward total gun elimination for peaceable citizens.

    The micro-stamping technology that will be necessary on new guns is expensive. When the price of an item increases significantly, the demand generally will drop for the item as it falls out of the price range of potential buyers. Thus, the manufacturers will have to sell guns with lower margins, decreasing their profits. So, the gun manufacturers have two options here: comply with the California regulations and introduce micro-stamping to all guns they produce (wouldn't make sense to pay for the technology and only use it for a small portion of arms produced) and reduce their margins and total sales across the United States; or start a gun embargo against California, and continue business as usual in the rest of the country.

    Now, the manufacturers also face the reality that so long as California continues on this path, there will eventually be no civilian arms market in California. A refusal to sell to law enforcement in California will spark an outrage among the law enforcement community in the state, putting pressure on them to persuade the legislature to repeal this *************. Or else they don't get any guns.

    The gun manufacturers, if politics continue as usual, will be forced out of business. That's a hell of a lot more of a loss than the sales of California. And those sales will only be lost if the threats alone fail to cause any action.

    I don't want to see California gun owners lose the ability to buy new guns, but it would be very naive of them to think that they will have access to new guns for much longer. Which is better: a permanent inability to buy new guns due to restrictive anti-gun legislation, or a temporary inability to make these purchases until the state government gives in to the demands of the manufacturers?

    And since I haven't outright stated it, I'm offering this as a suggestion to the manufacturers to take upon themselves. I'll draw an analogy to conclude: if OPEC can use oil embargoes to push around the United States of America and the rest of world into complying with goals of the Arab world, why can't a gun embargo work to force state governments to comply with the gun manufacturers' demands? If anything, to the oversized police forces in this country, guns and ammunition are much more valuble than oil.

    HankT, are you just upset that your beloved NRA once again failed (or chose not) to stop anti-gun legislation?

  8. #8
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    I'm sorry I didn't spell out every single step of thinking in my post. To appeal to simpler minds, let me rephrase it:

    If the United States arms industry wishes to retain their civilian market in the long term, it may be in their interest to consider a stop to sales in California. It is clear that California's state government has the aim of total civilian disarmament. It is also clear that civilian complaints in California have no impact on stopping, much less reversing this trend toward total gun elimination for peaceable citizens.

    The micro-stamping technology that will be necessary on new guns is expensive. When the price of an item increases significantly, the demand generally will drop for the item as it falls out of the price range of potential buyers. Thus, the manufacturers will have to sell guns with lower margins, decreasing their profits. So, the gun manufacturers have two options here: comply with the California regulations and introduce micro-stamping to all guns they produce (wouldn't make sense to pay for the technology and only use it for a small portion of arms produced) and reduce their margins and total sales across the United States; or start a gun embargo against California, and continue business as usual in the rest of the country.

    Now, the manufacturers also face the reality that so long as California continues on this path, there will eventually be no civilian arms market in California. A refusal to sell to law enforcement in California will spark an outrage among the law enforcement community in the state, putting pressure on them to persuade the legislature to repeal this *************. Or else they don't get any guns.

    The gun manufacturers, if politics continue as usual, will be forced out of business. That's a hell of a lot more of a loss than the sales of California. And those sales will only be lost if the threats alone fail to cause any action.

    I don't want to see California gun owners lose the ability to buy new guns, but it would be very naive of them to think that they will have access to new guns for much longer. Which is better: a permanent inability to buy new guns due to restrictive anti-gun legislation, or a temporary inability to make these purchases until the state government gives in to the demands of the manufacturers?

    And since I haven't outright stated it, I'm offering this as a suggestion to the manufacturers to take upon themselves. I'll draw an analogy to conclude: if OPEC can use oil embargoes to push around the United States of America and the rest of world into complying with goals of the Arab world, why can't a gun embargo work to force state governments to comply with the gun manufacturers' demands? If anything, to the oversized police forces in this country, guns and ammunition are much more valuble than oil.

    HankT, are you just upset that your beloved NRA once again failed (or chose not) to stop anti-gun legislation?
    Doo doo doo doo...doo doo doo doo...doo doo doo doo....






  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post


  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    317

    Post imported post


    "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
    Thomas Jefferson

  11. #11
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Hmm I have an idea. How about the gun manufacturers in this country get together and agree to not sell any guns to California, including law enforcement?
    I personally support this idea. I know, it sucks for the good citizens of Commiefornia, but this **** is just going to keep happening if nobody puts their foot down. Follow the example of Barrett Firearms!

    Oh, ahd HankT...
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    377

    Post imported post

    Demarest wrote:
    It's one of those laws that is passed today, some innocent will get trapped within the system, his lawyer will *slaps head, duh* point out that the microstamp alone is not proof he was there or at all involved, the law will be disproven and therefore either struck down, or just plain never enforced. It's padding to an already overswollen lawbook whose only purpose is to make the lawmakers/governor look like they're doing anything at all.
    Demarest sums it up very well. Anyone who fires one of these new guns better police there brass. All it takes is a gang-banger (or half-way intelligent lawyer) to collect some shell casings and spread them around a crime scene (or court room) and you've got reasonable doubt.

    "See, someone else could have collected these shell casings and thrown them around the crime scene to confuse the police and make the police think my client was the shooter."

    And how hard is it to file off the microstamp on the firing pin, or even buy an unmarked firing pin from a neighboring state and swap it out?

    Idiots.

    Anyway, this law does not go into effect until 2010, right? I foresee some pretty healthy semiauto pistol sales in 2008 and 2009, and then sales will drop off a cliff in California.


    And I predict that mandatory embedded-GPS tracking chips in pistols will be passed in California in 2015. So stock up on guns before all this new crap technology is mandated. (Remember smart pistols which identify the user? Some people think that is a good idea. Just hope that the pistol manufacturers have good tech support.)

    Hello - PistolSoft? My pistol has lost its GPS signal, and I really need to shoot this home invader who is in my bedroom. Oh, just reboot it by dropping the magazine and reinserting a fresh one? No that didn't work either. Oh, you think a fresh lithium battery installed under the firing pin will make it work? Nope. So I should go outside and point my barrel at the IntelSat-Vbird and look for the signal lock indicator to light up? Let me give that a try. <Call terminates.>



  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    What a load of noise!

    Now some group of shipdits in the CA DOJ are going to have to define the standards for this. Size of lettering, number of digits, minimum number of rounds fired with stamp still legilble. And will they try to define how the stamping part (firing pin maybe?) will have to be permanently retained in the firearm?

    How do you do this with technology that doesn't exist for any practical purposes? What a freaking joke!

    Even if/when they come up with some fantasy rules to roll out for the firearms makers - I would bet that this will make revolvers a lot more popular than semi-autos.

  14. #14
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    SGT Jensen wrote:
    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Hmm I have an idea. How about the gun manufacturers in this country get together and agree to not sell any guns to California, including law enforcement?
    I personally support this idea. I know, it sucks for the good citizens of Commiefornia, but this **** is just going to keep happening if nobody puts their foot down. Follow the example of Barrett Firearms!

    Oh, ahd HankT...


    Two of the 3 future winners of the Mobell Prize in Gun-Rights Economics (T.Hawk absent)

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Is that Al Gore on the left?

    As for swapping out the firing pin, there will probably be a law making it illegal. If the microstamp doesn't match the serial # you lose. They'd have to test it to find out, of course, but if your gun gets confiscated for some reason, you'll be screwed. Buy guns now!

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tulalip, Washington, USA
    Posts
    40

    Post imported post

    Not to worry just like every other county that bans guns, we will be able to buy them on the black market or manufacturing them our selves.Of coarse we will become criminals butt then the authorities think we are all ready. What really bothers me is who gave our employees the power the power to tell us what to do, where, and when. I did NOT vote them this kind of power over us did you?

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    flagwaver wrote:
    Not to worry just like every other county that bans guns, we will be able to buy them on the black market or manufacturing them our selves.Of coarse we will become criminals butt then the authorities think we are all ready. What really bothers me is who gave our employees the power the power to tell us what to do, where, and when. I did NOT vote them this kind of power over us did you?
    You bring up some good points. This is why I get upset when some people on this board say things like, "we should torture and kill all the criminals", because once the government finally succeeds in making gun ownership and carry illegal, we'll be the ones who are "criminals".


    And, I'll resign myself from the discussion of an embargo of guns against California, since apparently the way to stay in business is to submit to the will of the socialist government with totalitarian aspirations.

  18. #18
    Guest

    Post imported post

    "The California legislature has banned the .50 BMG from the good citizens of the state of California violating their rights and the constitution of our republic. Therefore, Barrett will not sell to or service any california government agencies."

    Thats from an adfor the model 99 .416 cal rifle. Titled "California Here we come"

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    269

    Post imported post

    I think a lawsuit along the lines mentioned earlier could be viable (states lacking power over interstate commerce adn everything).

  20. #20
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    And, I'll resign myself from the discussion of an embargo of guns against California, since apparently the way to stay in business is to submit to the will of the socialist government with totalitarian aspirations.
    Oh, c'mon. No need to pout. Remember, theylaughed at Ricardo....Veblen...Keynes...even Fisher.

    Brilliant new economic concepts always attract derision. (Of course, so do naive and ridiculous ones.)

    You're in the running for the Mobell Prize for Pete's sake! Hang in there.

    Just think of that stage in Stockholm...all the crowds...the fame....the glory...




  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    134

    Post imported post

    I hope that some day California will quit trying to be its own country.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Particle wrote:
    I hope that some day California will quit trying to be its own country.
    Actually, wouldn't California's secession help all of us? All of those "liberal" Democrats no longer in the House...

    :celebrate

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Is that Al Gore on the left?

    As for swapping out the firing pin, there will probably be a law making it illegal. If the microstamp doesn't match the serial # you lose. They'd have to test it to find out, of course, but if your gun gets confiscated for some reason, you'll be screwed. Buy guns now!
    It was my understanding that it is already illegal to modify a firearm in a manner that subverts or violates a law.

  24. #24
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Demarest wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    As for swapping out the firing pin, there will probably be a law making it illegal. If the microstamp doesn't match the serial # you lose. They'd have to test it to find out, of course, but if your gun gets confiscated for some reason, you'll be screwed. Buy guns now!
    It was my understanding that it is already illegal to modify a firearm in a manner that subverts or violates a law.
    None of that matters since the bad guys don't obey the laws. No matter how many of these stupid statutes are passed, it will NOT affect the bad guys.

    As for the economic issue, you can't expect EVERY firearm manufacturer to boycott CA. It's bad for business, and that means hurting shareholders, employees, suppliers, etc in other states (and countries).

    I'm thoroughly convinced there is simply no hope for CA. I'll be moving in about 6 months (if not sooner). For those that are trapped here, you have my sympathy.
    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.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    134

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Demarest wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    As for swapping out the firing pin, there will probably be a law making it illegal. If the microstamp doesn't match the serial # you lose. They'd have to test it to find out, of course, but if your gun gets confiscated for some reason, you'll be screwed. Buy guns now!
    It was my understanding that it is already illegal to modify a firearm in a manner that subverts or violates a law.
    None of that matters since the bad guys don't obey the laws.* No matter how many of these stupid statutes are passed, it will NOT affect the bad guys.

    As for the economic issue, you can't expect EVERY firearm manufacturer to boycott CA.* It's bad for business, and that means hurting shareholders, employees, suppliers, etc in other states (and countries).

    I'm thoroughly convinced there is simply no hope for CA.* I'll be moving in about 6 months (if not sooner).* For those that are trapped here, you have my sympathy.
    Moving to New Hampshire by chance?

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •