Interesting info on CA microstamping.


PDA






glennv
April 25, 2008, 09:27 PM
Here in RI we had two microstamping bill, one in the house and the other in the senate. The house bill was tabled and the senate judiciary heard their's last night. Some VERY interesting info came out during our state crime law's testimony.

The RI State Crime Lab testified against the bill citing a whole host of reasons. One of them was their run-in with the microstamping manufacture. (Can't remember the name.) Anyway, way back before your hearings the company approached the RI Crime Law and asked to have them conduct research on their technology. The lab refused on the basis that the technology was useless and not something they were interested in wasting their time with.

Fast forward to your congressional hearings in CA. This a-hole testifies that the RI Crime Lab had tested and stands behind the technology. He lied! Even the senators who had sponsored the bill here were shocked. No such research had ever taken place.

Just thought it was incredible.

Ours died in committee thank God.

If you enjoyed reading about "Interesting info on CA microstamping." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
kermit315
April 25, 2008, 10:16 PM
well, arnie didnt belive UC Davis either, when they testified that it was worthless technology that wouldnt help anybody, and could possibly entrap innocent people.

Not a huge surprise.

gbran
April 25, 2008, 10:40 PM
Fast forward to your congressional hearings in CA. This a-hole testifies that the RI Crime Lab had tested and stands behind the technology. He lied! Even the senators who had sponsored the bill here were shocked. No such research had ever taken place.


Here in CA, our inspired leaders hear only what they want to hear.

Flyboy
April 26, 2008, 12:52 AM
The microstamping bills have nothing whatsoever to do with preventing or solving crimes. They're strictly concerned with increasing barriers to ownership.

The Second Amendment may allow citizens to own firearms, but it doesn't specify that they have to be affordable.

ghschirtz
April 26, 2008, 11:34 AM
Glenn,

Have you got a reference to the liar?...I would love to post this in some places in CA

TAB
April 26, 2008, 11:58 AM
Here in CA, our inspired leaders hear only what they want to hear.

the bell letting know its time for the pigs to come to the troff.

glennv
April 26, 2008, 08:59 PM
Have you got a reference to the liar?...I would love to post this in some places in CA

It was senate testimony here so I could try and track down any public documents. I can try the lab itself too. PM me in a week or so in case I forget.

billwiese
April 27, 2008, 02:36 PM
The microstamping law is moot in CA. Because of specific wording included,
(likely by a legislator that had to vote for it but was able to get favorable phrasing in), it can't go forward if their are licensing/intellectual property/sole-source issues, which abound.

Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

dogma512
April 27, 2008, 05:48 PM
The microstamping law is moot in CA. Because of specific wording included,
(likely by a legislator that had to vote for it but was able to get favorable phrasing in), it can't go forward if their are licensing/intellectual property/sole-source issues, which abound.

Can you provide a link to the text of that legislation?

thorn726
April 27, 2008, 08:55 PM
ARGH.
what drives me most nuts about this is having discussed it with people who are borderline anti- always the same responses-

knee jerk- "that sounds great! they should do it!"

a few minutes later after some explanation- "oh that is pretty stupid"

of course the majority will never hear the full story of how this will not work, so they think it sounds great. ARGH ARGH ARGH!

Librarian
April 27, 2008, 11:39 PM
Can you provide a link to the text of that legislation?PC 12126 (b)(7) (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=3538877108+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve) (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.That last bit, 'shall not be considered...' is the part where it would be legal to modify or destroy the markings, since those are not the required serial number on the receiver. (The markings might match the content of the 'official' number.)

If you enjoyed reading about "Interesting info on CA microstamping." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!