-
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.
-
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.
CA - Non Existant MicroStamping Technology Bill Signed into law
- Thread starter cato
- Start date
imperialism2024
Regular Member
imported post
Particle wrote:
Actually, wouldn't California's secession help all of us? All of those "liberal" Democrats no longer in the House...
:celebrate
Particle wrote:
Actually, wouldn't California's secession help all of us? All of those "liberal" Democrats no longer in the House...
:celebrate
Demarest
Regular Member
imported post
Tomahawk wrote:
Tomahawk wrote:
It was my understanding that it is already illegal to modify a firearm in a manner that subverts or violates a law.
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
imported post
Demarest wrote:
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.
Demarest wrote:
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.
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
CA_Libertarian wrote:
Imp 2024 andSGT Jensen think so. They think that ALL firearm manufacturers should feel compelled to do so. (Ammo makers, too!). Imp and SGT J are, don't forget, up forthe famed Mobell Prize in Economics. They're gonna spend the prize on ammo and new guns. Well, maybe just on ammo. OK, maybe just a pack of paper targets...
Will Imp 2024 and SGT Jensen actually win the Mobell Prize? I dunno. But Gore just snagged the peace prize for some work about the weather. So, anything's possible.
If the Mobell Committee sets up a phone dial-up voting system, I'll vote for those guys severall times...
CA_Libertarian wrote:
Imp 2024 andSGT Jensen think so. They think that ALL firearm manufacturers should feel compelled to do so. (Ammo makers, too!). Imp and SGT J are, don't forget, up forthe famed Mobell Prize in Economics. They're gonna spend the prize on ammo and new guns. Well, maybe just on ammo. OK, maybe just a pack of paper targets...
Will Imp 2024 and SGT Jensen actually win the Mobell Prize? I dunno. But Gore just snagged the peace prize for some work about the weather. So, anything's possible.
If the Mobell Committee sets up a phone dial-up voting system, I'll vote for those guys severall times...
imported post
Yes, because we should avoid any form of suffering and inconvenience at all costs for the sake of leading uneventful lives. No, I don't support a total boycott because it would never, ever happen. I do, however, wish that people would be willing to make some sacrifice in order to stay free. How is this any different from not open carrying in order to avoid run-ins with law enforcement? It's the same principle. I'm glad somebody is at least willing to sacrifice in order to keep a little more of their freedom from slipping away.
How can you sit there and be so easily fooled? They will not stop with this. It's not going to be "We got microstamping, folks, so let's sit back and enjoy the end of crime as we know it." It will continue. This is an old trick that never quits working. If you take away just a sliver of freedom as often as you can squeak it by the legislature and public, you will eventually achieve a large deprivation of liberty. If you will not defend even the small things, you do not deserve the large.
Yes, because we should avoid any form of suffering and inconvenience at all costs for the sake of leading uneventful lives. No, I don't support a total boycott because it would never, ever happen. I do, however, wish that people would be willing to make some sacrifice in order to stay free. How is this any different from not open carrying in order to avoid run-ins with law enforcement? It's the same principle. I'm glad somebody is at least willing to sacrifice in order to keep a little more of their freedom from slipping away.
How can you sit there and be so easily fooled? They will not stop with this. It's not going to be "We got microstamping, folks, so let's sit back and enjoy the end of crime as we know it." It will continue. This is an old trick that never quits working. If you take away just a sliver of freedom as often as you can squeak it by the legislature and public, you will eventually achieve a large deprivation of liberty. If you will not defend even the small things, you do not deserve the large.
cato
Newbie
imported post
From:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=792297#post792297
There is a lot of quite justified unhappiness with AB-1471 but the sky may not have fallen as badly as everyone here is worried about. Let's look at the actual text of the law:
Here is the full text.
There are lots of things to note. First, note that all guns that are on the safe list up until the earlier of 2010 or the AG certifying some technology are eligible to remain on the safe list indefinitely.
Second, filing off your microstamp or replacing parts that microstamp with parts that don't microstamp is not illegal. That's this section:
But here is the most interesting part:
What that means is that whatever technology gets adopted has to go through an APA (Administrative Procedures Act) compliant process with the OAL - just like the magazine "permanence/capacity to accept" stuff that we so successfully beat in the last couple of years.
Now what is really interesting is the line "provided that the Department of Justice certifies that the technology used to create the imprint is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions." Right now one company (ID Dynamics) claims the patents (7111423 and 6886284 amongst others) to microstamping spent shells in firearms and subsequently reading them. Those patents are valid until about 2023 and I'm quite sure that Mr. Lizotte and Mr. Ohar claim that they are patent that occupy the entire field of firearm microstamping - kind of how NTP claims all of the space of push email against RIM/Blackberry and others. Since the legislature required that the technology be avialable from more than one provider and not encumbered by patent I'm quite confident that DOJ can not complete an OAL rulemaking that conforms with the legislation and Patent Law before the expiration of ID Dynamic's patents in 2023.
I wonder who worked those changes into the law?
-Gene
From:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=792297#post792297
There is a lot of quite justified unhappiness with AB-1471 but the sky may not have fallen as badly as everyone here is worried about. Let's look at the actual text of the law:
Here is the full text.
There are lots of things to note. First, note that all guns that are on the safe list up until the earlier of 2010 or the AG certifying some technology are eligible to remain on the safe list indefinitely.
Second, filing off your microstamp or replacing parts that microstamp with parts that don't microstamp is not illegal. That's this section:
But here is the most interesting part:
What that means is that whatever technology gets adopted has to go through an APA (Administrative Procedures Act) compliant process with the OAL - just like the magazine "permanence/capacity to accept" stuff that we so successfully beat in the last couple of years.
Now what is really interesting is the line "provided that the Department of Justice certifies that the technology used to create the imprint is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions." Right now one company (ID Dynamics) claims the patents (7111423 and 6886284 amongst others) to microstamping spent shells in firearms and subsequently reading them. Those patents are valid until about 2023 and I'm quite sure that Mr. Lizotte and Mr. Ohar claim that they are patent that occupy the entire field of firearm microstamping - kind of how NTP claims all of the space of push email against RIM/Blackberry and others. Since the legislature required that the technology be avialable from more than one provider and not encumbered by patent I'm quite confident that DOJ can not complete an OAL rulemaking that conforms with the legislation and Patent Law before the expiration of ID Dynamic's patents in 2023.
I wonder who worked those changes into the law?
-Gene
Dutch Uncle
Campaign Veteran
imported post
A company that decides to make and market replacement firing pins for all the new pistols will do a real land office business in the coming years.... unless it turns out to be just as easy to spend a few minutes with some crocus paper.
A company that decides to make and market replacement firing pins for all the new pistols will do a real land office business in the coming years.... unless it turns out to be just as easy to spend a few minutes with some crocus paper.
imported post
Regular sandpaper should take care of it. The cheap paper uses aluminum oxide grit, which has a moh's hardness of about 9. Hardened steel maxes at about 7-8. Piece of cake.
Of course, I'd never suggest you do it if it is against the law. That would appear to not be the case, however.
Regular sandpaper should take care of it. The cheap paper uses aluminum oxide grit, which has a moh's hardness of about 9. Hardened steel maxes at about 7-8. Piece of cake.
Of course, I'd never suggest you do it if it is against the law. That would appear to not be the case, however.
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
Anybody have any idea how many legal guns are in California today?
Anybody have any idea how many legal guns are in California today?
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
flagwaver wrote:
Fortunately, without the passageof a Constitutional amendment, he could never be President.
:celebrate
flagwaver wrote:
Fortunately, without the passageof a Constitutional amendment, he could never be President.
:celebrate
cato
Newbie
imported post
HankT wrote:
Don't know butin the last two yearsabout 40,000 - 70,000+ legal black rifles (ar and ak style) have come into CA. If the manufacturers had cut us off from these rifles they would have aided the CA government in their ultimate goal. As it is, a whole new generation is learning about those rifles and demonstrating the bogus nature of the CA AWB.
Embargos hurt the little guy anddon't work except to entrench the hierarchy (like Castro and Ca. Democrats)
http://www.paul.net/guns/CaliforniaRifles.pdf
HankT wrote:
Don't know butin the last two yearsabout 40,000 - 70,000+ legal black rifles (ar and ak style) have come into CA. If the manufacturers had cut us off from these rifles they would have aided the CA government in their ultimate goal. As it is, a whole new generation is learning about those rifles and demonstrating the bogus nature of the CA AWB.
Embargos hurt the little guy anddon't work except to entrench the hierarchy (like Castro and Ca. Democrats)
http://www.paul.net/guns/CaliforniaRifles.pdf
Attachments
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
Shotgun wrote:
Shotgun wrote:
I don't see that such a Constitutional amendment would ever be ratified. I am 100% opposed to such an amendment.
imperialism2024
Regular Member
imported post
HankT wrote:
:celebrate
HankT wrote:
Well, HankT, I'm glad you pointed out how my line of thinking doesn't work. The truth that you exude proves why OPEC never existed, and has no impact whatsoever on US foreign policy. You also prove why labor unions never accomplished anything, either. Oh, and how guns and ammo grow on trees in California, providing law enforcement with an endless supply. Thanks for the enlightenment. Now, I'll go sign over this week's paycheck to the NRA, but only after painting my face, spraying myself with deer urine, and thanking God that I can still have a muzzleloader.
:celebrate
cato
Newbie
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
imperialism2024 wrote:
Yah, no problem, I2024.
I know it's always attractive to start grabbing someone else's rights whenever you think it just might possibly help your rights. You and SGT Jensen mean well, of course. But simple-minded causal models ("Just make 10 gun manufacturers and 20 ammo manufacturers STOP ALL THEIR SALES IN CALI! Shazam-make it so!") just don't work very well in the real world. Such models are very naive. And the only people that don't laugh at them are very very naive.
The political action taken by the Cali legislature will fizzle out. The technology relied upon is highly suspect but more importantly, the fundamental concept is highly flawed. This makes it very likely that the effort of micro-stamping will never be operationalized. This will be the same as the "smart gun" fiasco where the Clinton admin and the NJ legislature imposed requirements upon the industry to produce and sell personalized guns. See any of those yet?
Just remember, that to really be a responsible guy, which you claim to be, you pretty much must let the marketplace operate in an open and unrestricted fashion. If you start autocratically taking away the liberties of companies or entire industries, you end up with totalitarianism. See, for a recent example, what Hugo Chavez is doing now in Venezuela, taking control of entire industries for political purposes. Nobody elected you or the good SGT Jensen to the position of commerce czars. And any ideas you two have about wavinga magic wand under color of 2A to restrict two entire industries are doomed to dismissed as the petulant and simplistic rantings of some misguidedrights grabbers.
We've got enough rights grabbers. Let the adults handlethe problem.
imperialism2024 wrote:
Yah, no problem, I2024.
I know it's always attractive to start grabbing someone else's rights whenever you think it just might possibly help your rights. You and SGT Jensen mean well, of course. But simple-minded causal models ("Just make 10 gun manufacturers and 20 ammo manufacturers STOP ALL THEIR SALES IN CALI! Shazam-make it so!") just don't work very well in the real world. Such models are very naive. And the only people that don't laugh at them are very very naive.
The political action taken by the Cali legislature will fizzle out. The technology relied upon is highly suspect but more importantly, the fundamental concept is highly flawed. This makes it very likely that the effort of micro-stamping will never be operationalized. This will be the same as the "smart gun" fiasco where the Clinton admin and the NJ legislature imposed requirements upon the industry to produce and sell personalized guns. See any of those yet?
Just remember, that to really be a responsible guy, which you claim to be, you pretty much must let the marketplace operate in an open and unrestricted fashion. If you start autocratically taking away the liberties of companies or entire industries, you end up with totalitarianism. See, for a recent example, what Hugo Chavez is doing now in Venezuela, taking control of entire industries for political purposes. Nobody elected you or the good SGT Jensen to the position of commerce czars. And any ideas you two have about wavinga magic wand under color of 2A to restrict two entire industries are doomed to dismissed as the petulant and simplistic rantings of some misguidedrights grabbers.
We've got enough rights grabbers. Let the adults handlethe problem.
imperialism2024
Regular Member
imported post
HankT wrote:
And, isn't kind of ironic that I'm being accused by an NRA-basher-basher of taking it upon myself to "start grabbing someone else's rights" in order to achieve an end?
HankT, you may want to go check out skeptics.org.uk to learn how to make nonsensical arguments without fabricating your target's post content.
HankT wrote:
Where did I say that the government should be restricting gun sales or interfering with commerce? Nowhere. In fact, on the last page, I stated, "And since I haven't outright stated it, I'm offering this as a suggestion to the manufacturers to take upon themselves." No government involvement whatsoever. I am saying that it is an idea for consideration by the arms industry independent of government involvement.
And, isn't kind of ironic that I'm being accused by an NRA-basher-basher of taking it upon myself to "start grabbing someone else's rights" in order to achieve an end?
HankT, you may want to go check out skeptics.org.uk to learn how to make nonsensical arguments without fabricating your target's post content.