ALL NON-CA residents.


PDA






glockman19
September 6, 2007, 10:42 PM
If AB 1471 gets signed into law your state will be next. Please call Gov. Arnold and ask him NOT to sign the bill into law if you're a resident or not. Urge your Gov. to call him too.

Call Glock, S&W, Beretta and every other manufacturer and as them to call too before microstamping sweeps through the entire Country & Industry.

Let's STOP this before it gains the traction to spread around the country.

Whether you like it or not you will be next.

Link to the legislation:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/...ed_sen_v96.pdf

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-445-4633

California State Senate:
http://www.senate.ca.gov/~newsen/senators/senators.htp

California State Assembly:
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset7text.htm

If you enjoyed reading about "ALL NON-CA residents." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Omaney
September 6, 2007, 10:47 PM
AB 1471

Semi-automatic pistols must have make, model, and serial number etched inside the pistol that are transferred on to each cartridge case when the firearm is fired.

I read the brief synopsis. Does this technology exist?

Omaney
September 6, 2007, 10:50 PM
Googled the bill. This is lunacy.
NEWTOWN, Conn., June 25 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The California
Senate Public Safety Committee will take up the issue of firearms
microstamping early tomorrow morning and the National Shooting Sports
Foundation (NSSF) -- the firearm industry's trade association -- is wasting
no time in warning all members of the California Senate that passage of the
legislation is a de facto ban of firearms. The microstamping bill (AB 1471)
would require manufacturers to micro laser engrave, in two separate
locations, the gun's make, model and serial number so, in theory, that
information would be imprinted on any cartridge casing fired in the gun.
Opposition to the legislation has intensified as firearm manufacturers have
indicated that passage of microstamping legislation would force them to
stop sales into the state because completely reconfiguring their
manufacturing and assembly process would be cost prohibitive.
"Compelling the use of this unreliable sole-sourced technology will
dramatically reduce the product selection available to law-abiding
consumers in California," said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice
president and general counsel. "Many manufacturers will choose to abandon
the California market rather than incur substantial costs associated with
complying with microstamping legislation, which would include purchasing
(at monopolistic prices) very expensive equipment and patented technology
and completely redesigning their manufacturing processes, plant and
equipment."
Further emboldening opposition to the microstamping bill is the recent
release of a study by researchers at the University of California at Davis
proving that the technology is "flawed" and "does not work well for all
guns and ammunition." The authors' concluded that, "At the current time it
is not recommended that a mandate for implementation of this technology in
all semiautomatic handguns in the state of California be made. Further
testing, analysis and evaluation is required."
The research demonstrated that results varied widely, "depending on the
weapon [and] ammunition used." The authors of the study note that "more
testing in a wider range of firearms is needed to determine the costs and
feasibility" of mandating microstamping.
"The UC Davis study confirms an earlier study on firearms
microstamping," said Keane, referring to an independent, peer-reviewed
study published last year in the professional scholarly journal for
forensic firearms examiners. That study proved that microstamping firearms
was unreliable and did not function as the patent holder claimed and could
be easily defeated in mere seconds using common household tools.
A similar bill (AB 352) failed last year over concerns about
reliability, cost and the fact that it is a patented sole-sourced
technology. The patent holder, New Hampshire-based ID Dynamics and its
owner Todd Lizotte, have been aggressively lobbying the legislature to pass
AB 1471, despite opposition from the firearms and ammunition industry and
law enforcement groups such as the Peace Officers Research Association of
California and the Orange County Sheriff.
"The U.C. Davis study and earlier peer-reviewed research only serve to
further validate our longstanding concerns that this technology is
unreliable, that it simply does not work as advertised and can and will be
easily defeated by criminals in seconds using common household tools,"
continued Keane. "Given this and the fact that passage of microstamping
legislation will lead to manufacturers refusing to sell firearms in the
state, we encourage the Senate Public Safety Committee to oppose this
dangerous bill."
For more information on the facts concerning microstamping please
visit: http://www.nssf.org


SOURCE National Shooting Sports Foundation

kermit315
September 7, 2007, 02:07 AM
yes, it is lunacy. Please, if you guys have a few minutes, drop a line and help us out. If you need backup from us let us know and we will drop lines to whomever you need contacted when it is your turn in the chamber so to speak.

thanks in advance guys,

Jamie

gunsmith
September 7, 2007, 03:23 AM
to cease selling to the CA? & if so does that include the CA LEO market?
It would be sweet if the manufactuerers(SIC) stood up for the consumers like Barret did, and refuse to sell to LE angencies of offensive states.

Librarian
September 7, 2007, 05:03 AM
I read the brief synopsis. Does this technology exist? Debatable. A group maintains it can do this laser etching, and apparently that works, but the transfer to cartridges is less certain.

And it's irrelevant - revolvers don't eject cartridges, shotguns and rifles are not covered, and criminals are not so stupid that they won't figure that out by 2010.

FieroCDSP
September 7, 2007, 08:00 AM
http://www.gunfacts.info/

THere's a section there on micro-stamping and how useless it is. Not only can the stamper be filed away, the test models had an unreadable stamp after only a few firings. I agree we should cut this one of before it spreads. Most states would see it as useless and a waste of money, but NJ, NY, and Mass, would sign on in a heartbeat. A CA passage would only give it an amount of credibility, however wrong it is.

glockman19
September 7, 2007, 01:43 PM
While California may be the first state to pass the microstamping legislation, Massachusetts and Rhode Island introduced similar legislation this year and the Maryland Police Department is promoting consideration there. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA and Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Los Angeles) intend to introduce legislation to require microstamping on a Federal level.

Everyone MUST contact the Gov. of California if you live here or not. IT WILL AFFECT YOU TOO.

glockman19
September 7, 2007, 09:44 PM
Just wanted to say...

Thank you...:)

to everyone who contacted a CA legislator, the Gov. or a Manufacturer today. Let's keep it up Arnold has until October 14th to sign the bill into law.

If this passes it will soon be comming to your state too

G19

"Don't go down without a fight"

Gord
September 7, 2007, 11:31 PM
Hasn't this already come up two or three times?

Guess they're just going to keep trying until it gets passed...

gunsmith
September 9, 2007, 01:30 PM
because Gov Arnold may well wish to continue being a politician somewhere.
(veep?) so others around the country should keep up the heat.
be polite!

glockman19
September 10, 2007, 11:51 AM
Arnold has until October 14th to sign the bill into law. Let's contact him every day until 10/14/2007.

Keep the e-mails, letters faxes & phone calls comming.

Link to the legislation:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/...ed_sen_v96.pdf

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-445-4633

http://gov.ca.gov/interact#contact

fletcher
September 10, 2007, 11:58 AM
Does anyone have email addresses for the big companies? S&Ws kept bouncing, Beretta and Ruger didn't seem to have anything but a form available, etc.

glockman19
September 10, 2007, 12:25 PM
Beretta
http://berettausa.com/contact_us.htm
In the United States:

Beretta U.S.A. Corp
17601 Beretta Drive
Accokeek, MD 20607,
USA

In Europe:

Fabbrica D' Armi Pietro Beretta S.p.A.
Via Pietro Beretta, 18
25063 Gardone Val Trompia
Brescia, Italy
Tel 030.8341.1
Fax 030.8341421


Glock
http://www.glock.com/english/index_contact.htm
GLOCK, Inc.
6000 Highlands Parkway
Smyrna, GA 30082
U.S.A.
Tel.: +1 770 - 432 1202
Fax: +1 770 - 433 8719


Smith & Wesson
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CustomContentDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10001&catalogId=11101&content=12010&sectionId=10504
By Email: qa@smith-wesson.com

By Telephone:
1-800-331-0852 (USA)
Mon-Fri 8:00AM-8:00PM Eastern Time

1-413-781-8300 (International)
Mon-Fri 8:00AM-5:00PM Eastern Time

By Fax:
1-413-747-3317 (USA)
1-413-731-8980 (International)

By Mail:
Smith & Wesson
2100 Roosevelt Avenue
Springfield, MA 01104


Springfield Armory
http://www.springfield-armory.com/contactus.php
Mailing Address:
420 West Main Street
Geneseo, IL 61254

Phone:
800-680-6866
309-944-5631
Fax:
309-944-3676
E-mail:
sales@springfield-armory.com

Ruger

Corporate
Headquarters
Lacey Place
Southport, CT 06890
Telephone: 203-259-7843
Fax: 203-256-3367

fletcher
September 10, 2007, 12:44 PM
Thanks.

Submitted my thoughts on this issue to all of the above.

For anyone interested in shooting off a fax to the companies not accessible by email, this company claims to offer free online faxing (used them for Glock and Ruger):
https://faxzero.com/

Guitargod1985
September 21, 2007, 05:35 AM
If I've done the automated call-in thing 200 times in a day will that count as 200 "againsts" or just one?

learn2shoot
September 21, 2007, 09:52 AM
It depends on how they are counting calls - total vs. unique If they are looking at unique Caller IDs (CID) then you would have been counted once for all your hard work. If I was running the phone system there I would look at both but give more far weight to unique CIDs. The work around for this is to use *67 before dialing and this will block the CID from being captured on their end.

enkindler
September 21, 2007, 11:51 AM
learn2shoot: *67 does not block the ANI only consumer CID, I'm betting they would use the ANI.

glockman19
September 23, 2007, 08:54 PM
To important to get burried.

BTT

orionengnr
September 23, 2007, 09:40 PM
emailed Ahhhnold as an ex-(and never again, although I did not tell him that part :) ) California citizen about four weeks ago.

No reply whatsoever, and no surprise.

Snowdiver
September 25, 2007, 11:39 PM
Plus, the way I read the bill it will make it illegal to sell guns that do not have the microstamp technology. This is serious and it will be the proverbial line drawn in the sand. Many people will ignore this type of law and exert their Second Amendment right.

TexasRifleman
September 25, 2007, 11:45 PM
If AB 1471 gets signed into law your state will be next.

I been hearing the "so goes California so goes the rest of the country" line for years. Somehow I'm just not that afraid that Texas will line up behind California.

Doesn't mean I won't do what I can to help defeat this, but I'm not living in fear that we'll emulate everything the good Gov Schwarz signs.....

TnShooter83
September 26, 2007, 04:00 AM
done it 3 times now......
So far NO reply.

Hummm???????
I hope they at least read them

Spot77
September 26, 2007, 09:36 AM
If you are awaiting a response, you might have to wait until after he signs or vetoes the bill.

My two Senators dont respond to me for months after I contact them.

fletcher
September 26, 2007, 11:27 AM
Here's the response I got from Beretta concerning this bill:

Thank you for your correspondence regarding California Bill AB1471.

Beretta is very much aware of the implications of Bill AB1471. Beretta has long been in the forefront of efforts to preserve the private ownership and responisble use of firearms, as well as efforts to insure that the industry is not put under the constraints of unrealistic legislation that fails to identify and hold accountable those responsible for the criminal missuse of firearms. Be assured that Beretta will continue to support these efforts on all fronts.

In return we would ask that you, as a resident of Caflifornia, work actively
with those who are willing and able to support the shooting sports at the municipal, state and federal levels of government. The 2008 Federal election will be critical to preserving the Second Ammendment.

Yours truly,
Beretta Corp

Henry Bowman
September 26, 2007, 04:17 PM
Does the bill provide exemption for law enforcement?

I looked at the draft bill, but can't tell for sure without infinite cross-referencing. Appears to apply the same as the drop test and "approved safe" list. Are LE firearms currently exempt from those requirements?

Librarian
September 26, 2007, 05:06 PM
Does the bill provide exemption for law enforcement?

I looked at the draft bill, but can't tell for sure without infinite cross-referencing. Appears to apply the same as the drop test and "approved safe" list. Are LE firearms currently exempt from those requirements?

Short answer: yes, LE is exempt.

Slightly longer answer: as you suggest, since the implementation method is adding a requirement to get on the Roster of Handguns, and LE is not restricted to handguns on the Roster, this bill will have no effect on LEOs.

Which, of course, is pretty silly - LEOs have their guns stolen, too. LEOs have been known to buy off-Roster handguns, and at some future date sell such a thing to a non-LEO in a legal private party transfer (PPT guns need not be on the Roster). Sometimes a LEO might even commit a criminal act with a handgun - why should it be harder to investigate them than the rest of us?

For that matter, since the Roster is supposed to prevent 'unsafe' guns from being sold in California, shouldn't we value the lives of our LEOs enough to be sure they don't have 'unsafe' handguns?

Kindly use those points in a polite note to the Governor - soon, please. Arnold now has the bill on his desk and he has been signing things over the last week.

glockman19
September 26, 2007, 05:14 PM
Does the bill provide exemption for law enforcement?

YES Law Enforcement is exempt from just about every law that the ordinary citizen has to follow including the exemption of buying guns NOT on the CA Approved list.

This type of legislation festers the "Us & Them".

If you enjoyed reading about "ALL NON-CA residents." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!