• 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.

New Microstamping Regulation in CA?

Diesel-n-Lead

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
82
Location
, California, USA
imported post

Picked this up on the CA AGs website(full PDF attached):

"Pursuant to California Penal Code sections 12125 and 12126, only handguns that are on a DOJ roster of handguns identified as not unsafe can be sold by licensed firearms dealers in this state. As of January 1, 2010, a new law mandates that for a new model of semi-automatic pistol to be placed on the DOJ roster of “not unsafe” handguns (models currently on the roster are excluded), the pistol must be designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model and serial number of the pistol, etched or otherwise imprinted in two or more places on the interior surface or internal workings parts of the pistol, that are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case expended from the pistol when the firearm is fired."

How the hell did this slip by? I don't recall hearing anything about this in the news or any magazines or websites. This is absolutely ridiculous.
 

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,711
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
imported post

Well the NRA talked about it for quite a while. I suppose in a few years they will mainly only sell revolvers in California.

Probably won't be long until CA tries to extend it to guns other than semi-automatic pistols.
 

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
imported post

Everything to do with tracing firearms. Nothing to do with "safety".

Then again, everybody here knows that.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

As always, one needs to read the text of the law.

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12126.html

Allow me to quote section of 12126:

As used in this chapter, "unsafe handgun" means any pistol,
revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the
person, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 12001, for which any
of the following is true:
...
(7) Commencing January 1, 2010, for all semiautomatic pistols that
are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 12131, it
is not designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters
that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol,
etched or otherwise imprinted in two or more places on the interior
surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that are
transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is
fired, 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.
The Attorney
General may also approve a method of equal or greater reliability and
effectiveness in identifying the specific serial number of a firearm
from spent cartridge casings discharged by that firearm than that
which is set forth in this paragraph, to be thereafter required as
otherwise set forth by this paragraph where the Attorney General
certifies that this new method is also unencumbered by any patent
restrictions. Approval by the Attorney General shall include notice
of that fact via regulations adopted by the Attorney General for
purposes of implementing that method for purposes of this paragraph.
The microscopic array of characters required by this section shall
not be considered the name of the maker, model, manufacturer's
number, or other mark of identification, including any distinguishing
number or mark assigned by the Department of Justice, within the
meaning of Sections 12090 and 12094.
Notice the part in bold? Such certification is not forthcoming, and is unlikely to be brought about any time soon, as the only patent holder for a viable microstamping process has little incentive to give up their patent rights.


Aside: This is yet another amusing result of the fictitious and irrational concept of "intellectual property" (a massive fraud few Americans are willing to question).

Consider: The patent holder has no motivation to give up the patent, because to do so would negate the competitive advantage provided thereby. Because the is only one viable technology and it is encumbered by patent, this law remains unenforceable. Because the law is unenforceable, there is no microstamping in CA. Because there is no microstamping in CA, there is no demand for microstamping technology, so no market for the same. With no demand and no market, there is no incentive for other processes to be developed and patented.

Finally, inventors have become so dependent upon and hence crippled by the supposed crutch of patents, that there is little incentive to develop new products for which there is already a competitor with firm patents of their own.

So, although you might expect some entrepreneur would see that the market can be instantly and artificially flooded with demand simply by patenting an alternative microstamping process that allows the law to come into effect, this is actually unlikely as it would mean going into competition on even terms, without the advantage of being the only (or at least first) patent holder.

Therefore, as is the case with so much other progress "stimulated" by the existence of patenting, the very system designed to stimulate progress actually halts it totally for arbitrary, fixed periods -- which increase whenever the right interest controls enough of our bought-and-paid-for legislature to increase patent terms.

However, even a broken clock is right twice a day. We should feel lucky that this broken clock was "right" at such a fortuitous time!
 

Diesel-n-Lead

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
82
Location
, California, USA
imported post

marshaul wrote:
As always, one needs to read the text of the law.

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12126.html

Allow me to quote section of 12126:

As used in this chapter, "unsafe handgun" means any pistol,
revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the
person, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 12001, for which any
of the following is true:
...
(7) Commencing January 1, 2010, for all semiautomatic pistols that
are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 12131, it
is not designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters
that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol,
etched or otherwise imprinted in two or more places on the interior
surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that are
transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is
fired, 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.
The Attorney
General may also approve a method of equal or greater reliability and
effectiveness in identifying the specific serial number of a firearm
from spent cartridge casings discharged by that firearm than that
which is set forth in this paragraph, to be thereafter required as
otherwise set forth by this paragraph where the Attorney General
certifies that this new method is also unencumbered by any patent
restrictions. Approval by the Attorney General shall include notice
of that fact via regulations adopted by the Attorney General for
purposes of implementing that method for purposes of this paragraph.
The microscopic array of characters required by this section shall
not be considered the name of the maker, model, manufacturer's
number, or other mark of identification, including any distinguishing
number or mark assigned by the Department of Justice, within the
meaning of Sections 12090 and 12094.
Notice the part in bold? Such certification is not forthcoming, and is unlikely to be brought about any time soon, as the only patent holder for a viable microstamping process has little incentive to give up their patent rights.


Aside: This is yet another amusing result of the fictitious and irrational concept of "intellectual property" (a massive fraud few Americans are willing to question).

Consider: The patent holder has no motivation to give up the patent, because to do so would negate the competitive advantage provided thereby. Because the is only one viable technology and it is encumbered by patent, this law remains unenforceable. Because the law is unenforceable, there is no microstamping in CA. Because there is no microstamping in CA, there is no demand for microstamping technology, so no market for the same. With no demand and no market, there is no incentive for other processes to be developed and patented.

Finally, inventors have become so dependent upon and hence crippled by the supposed crutch of patents, that there is little incentive to develop new products for which there is already a competitor with firm patents of their own.

So, although you might expect some entrepreneur would see that the market can be instantly and artificially flooded with demand simply by patenting an alternative microstamping process that allows the law to come into effect, this is actually unlikely as it would mean going into competition on even terms, without the advantage of being the only (or at least first) patent holder.

Therefore, as is the case with so much other progress "stimulated" by the existence of patenting, the very system designed to stimulate progress actually halts it totally for arbitrary, fixed periods -- which increase whenever the right interest controls enough of our bought-and-paid-for legislature to increase patent terms.

However, even a broken clock is right twice a day. We should feel lucky that this broken clock was "right" at such a fortuitous time!
Hmm. You could be right. However, I have a hard time believing that they would allow themselves to be trapped by such a loophole of their own creation. Remember that we are talking about the People's Socialist Republic of Kalifornia here. They operate on the false premises that; guns are evil and that anyone who would possess a gun is going to, sooner or later, become a criminal; and that the state can dowhatever it needs to to protect innocent civilians.
 
Top