Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Ca Microstamping, AB1471

Discussion in 'Activism' started by glockman19, Aug 15, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. glockman19

    glockman19 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,699
    This is BAD legislation that if signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger would quickly be repeated throughout the country. There are many inherint flaws in the legislation and I urge everyone whether CA residents or not to contact ALL manufacturers of handguns, Glcok, Beretta, S&W ect... and urge them to lobby against it. Here are some reasons:

    1) Microstamping would cost millions of dollars to manufacturers to retool production lines and track the parts.

    2) Firing pins can be and are commonly replaced, easily.

    3) Increased cost of firearms to the public, lowering sales.

    4) Microstamping DOES NOT WORK for Revolvers that do not eject spent shell casings.

    5) Will NOT stop crime, criminals, and illegal gun ownership.

    6) Microstamping the shell casing is nearly impossible the firing pin hits the primer NOT the shell casing.

    7) removable in less than 10 seconds with a nail file. Replaceable with after market, new firing pin.

    8) guns used by criminals are stolen and NOT easily tracible to the user

    9) If CA does it Your state will/might be next.

    10) increases the already widening disparity between Law Enforcement the "Haves" and ordinary citizens, the "Have Not's". CA LEO's already can purchase guns NOT on the CA DOJ approved list we can't.


    If you're in CA please call or write the Assembly & Senate members in your district and the Gov. urging the m NOT to approve and sign. If you DO NOT live in CA please contact the manufacturers, Glock, S&W, Beretta and otheres and urge them to lobby against suck stupid, inneffective legislation that will hurt their business.

    Thank You

    Link to the legislation:
    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1451-1500/ab_1471_bill_20070711_amended_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
     
  2. Talonap

    Talonap Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2005
    Messages:
    52
    Perhaps they already know that this is a stupid law and are hoping that instead of trying to comply, gun manufacturers will just stop selling guns to CA. Back Door total gun control!
     
  3. glennv

    glennv Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    228
    This isn't gun control. It's a ban on all guns. The people behind this know that manufactures will never comply with this, thus will not sell firearms in your state.

    Rhode Island tried this and it died in committee. For us it didn't matter because it would violate state law. Unlike CA, gun ownership IS a civil right in RI per the RI Supreme Court.

    In short, if it passes your screwed.
     
  4. Librarian

    Librarian Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,475
    Location:
    Concord, CA
    The bill is currently in the Senate, so contact with your State Senator is the right thing to do. See this NRA Member's Council link for contact and bill information.

    Remember there is a majority of Democrats in the Senate, as well as the Assembly, and party loyalty is seen as a Good Thing. To overcome that influence will require a lot of contact - please write.
     
  5. everallm

    everallm Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,504
    This issue has been debated AND tested at length by the ATFE (Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners) and was published in their Journal in 2006.

    http://www.nssf.org/share/legal/docs/AFTEVol38No1KrivostaNanoTag.pdf

    These are the folks who would actually have to use this technology and they stated categorically that it is not ready to live useage.

    I would suggest any correpondance refer this documentation
     
  6. obxned

    obxned Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,490
    Location:
    OBX, NC
    If the object of gun control laws is the reduction of gun crimes, then mandatory additional sentences of 25 years without parole for any felony committed with a firearm would do it!

    If the object of gun control laws is actually control of the citizens by their government, then laws which restrict or prevent ownership and use of firearms by that subject people are what is required.

    Guess which this crap is.
     
  7. bluto

    bluto Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Messages:
    355
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Thank you Glockman19. This bill is like a vampire. It will not die. The CA assembly has tried this for the past several years. I'm writing my legislators and the Guv - again - to demand he veto this bill which serves only to harass law abiding voters.
     
  8. SoCalShooter

    SoCalShooter Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Messages:
    3,091
    Location:
    That's for me to know and not you!
    I have lost faith in contacting senators or assembly men for this state but as for contacting the goventator I think I can do that.
     
  9. orionengnr

    orionengnr Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    5,434
    Although I am no longer a CA resident (thank God) I wrote the Governator about a month ago on this subject.
    Tried to appeal to his Libertarian/Conservative/Republican side (not sure that he actually has one..)

    Received no response.

    Good luck on this. Reasoning with fanatics is seldom fruitful though, so you have your work cut out for you.
     
  10. glockman19

    glockman19 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,699
    Yesterday was a busy day I contacted almost ALL Democratic Assembly persons and the Govorneor's office. It appears to be supported along pary lines so even if you are not in the district is would be good to call other Democratic legislators. Ialso contacted the Senators who were listed as sponsors of the bill.

    Other key points:

    11) Handguns already on the DOJ approved list DO NOT HAVE TO COMPLY.

    12) Criminals don't buy new guns. Don't follow the laws anyway. So in a perfect Adherence the only ones who would own guns with microstamps would be those purchasing NEW guns from FFL's.

    Keep up the good fight and again for ALL NON-CA residents. if this passes it won't be long before it comes to your state too.
     
  11. glockman19

    glockman19 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,699
    I just recieved a call back from Glock in GA. They are putting pressure on CA legislators and appealing to the Governor. They are prepared to stop selling to CA LEO's should the law pass. One down S&W & Beretta to go.
     
  12. Librarian

    Librarian Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,475
    Location:
    Concord, CA
    Some facts and some reasonable estimates:

    According to the AG's office, Californians bought between 300,000 and 400,000 guns each year, 2000-2004.

    Of these, about half are handguns. Of handguns, about 70% are semi-automatic, the ones covered by the bill - 1/2 * 7/10 = 35/100; or about 35% of new handguns, in 2010, will be subject to this law, if passed.

    Estimating from BATF gun sales/import numbers, California now has about 13 million handguns and 40 million long guns, none of which have or will have the microstamping. Values plus/minus a million or so don't change the problem much.

    Say Californians buy 300,000 guns in 2010, and the proportions remain the same. About 105,000 new guns would have the microstamping (presuming manufacturers will cooperate). That's about 0.24% of the total California gun stock.

    How many crimes is this supposed to solve? 99.75% of guns will not have the microstamping, 195,000 new guns - almost twice as many as have the microstamping - will be added to the stock each year, and semiautomatics on the Roster of Handguns already are exempt from microstamping.

    This bill can't work the way it's proponents claim.​

    So they must expect this not to be the end. So we have to stop this bill, so they cannot get to the next step.

    Tune up your letters and faxes, ready for the Governor - but don't send them yet.

    The Governor, consistent with previous governors, really doesn't pay any attention to bills (unless he sponsors them) until they get out of the Legislature. For maximum effect (unless, of course, you're a Major Campaign Donor or you can speak to him personally) hold off contacting Arnold until the Senate votes on it.

    Given the state of the budget, we might get a delay; on the other hand, some fine elected folks might figure that since they are getting nothing done anyway, it might be time to clean up some other business.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2007
  13. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,385
    This would effectively kill pistol sales to LE, security and civilians in CA.
     
  14. sharpie613

    sharpie613 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Messages:
    183
    Location:
    SF East Bay Area
    LAR-15 said
    If this ridiculous bill passes, I hope this is exactly what happens. I hope every firearms maker refuses to sell to the very same agencies that are out there touting this bill's made-up non-science. Sheriff Lee Baca, I'm looking at you. If those of us in this sad state(who, despite all of your slander and harassment and threats of prison rape, have done nothing wrong) are going to be subjected to this, then let these liars* throw rocks in the streets like the Palestinians. Maybe then we law abiding gun owners in California can get some public support.


    *Yes, I am very aware that several folks aren't signing on to the nonsense. But they aren't calling Bravo Sierra on it either.
     
  15. coyote_jr

    coyote_jr member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2006
    Messages:
    456
    Location:
    Providence, RI
    I hope it passes. There have to be some people in CA with a breaking point.
     
  16. SoCalShooter

    SoCalShooter Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Messages:
    3,091
    Location:
    That's for me to know and not you!
    I am past breaking point. But the problem is that so many california gun owners are not, they are fat and happy and do not care or do not understand. Gun owners are not as united as we need to be in this state. And it confounds me on what to do about it...we complain and complain but so many do nothing and do not contact their reps or make it known that we will not take it any more.
     
  17. kermit315

    kermit315 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    454
    Location:
    Pensacola, FL
    i agree with SoCalShooter, even though i am only here temporarily, we are not united enough.

    there are the fudds that are convinced it will never happen to them because "its just a skeet gun", the EBR owners that are too scared to be seen with them in public for fear of having police called on them and getting shot in the process of trying to explain that it is indeed legal, the (average) pistol owners that think the interpretation of the law means that they have to lock their guns under 7 layers of security and nobody talks to anybody enough to get all the information.

    i am only here for a short time, but when this crap comes up i contact the people that i can, even though i am not registered to vote here, and let them know if the vote doesnt go a certain way that i will actively campaign against them and for their competition during the next electionl. i might not be allowed to vote here, but the policies effect me none the less.

    that being said, i did contact people and voice my disgust.
     
  18. Blackbeard

    Blackbeard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,722
    Location:
    Behind the Daley Curtain (IL)
    It seems to me that requiring guns to have non-existent technology is a de facto ban on guns, which Parker/Heller said was unconstitutional. Unfortunately you'd have to try your test case in the 9th Circus. Cross your fingers on Heller.
     
  19. SoCalShooter

    SoCalShooter Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Messages:
    3,091
    Location:
    That's for me to know and not you!
    Please remember the california DOJ does not care they do not want guns here and they will work hard to get any legislation pushed through. The california DOJ does not even do background checks through NICS. they look through their database and find out if you are legit or not.

    What counfounds me is what is necessary to get those that do not participate as frequently as others of us, how do we get them more involved how bad does it have to get before they get angry and start making a political change. What I also see as necessary is how do we get younger generations involved? these are truly what I cannot figure out how to do effectively with gun owners and non gun owners.
     
  20. kermit315

    kermit315 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    454
    Location:
    Pensacola, FL
    ^^lost me on that one. so, they dont do NICS checks in cali, or they do both checks in cali?
     
  21. Librarian

    Librarian Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,475
    Location:
    Concord, CA
    As far as I can tell, we do not do NICS in California. All background checks go through the CA DOJ; what they do in Sacramento I don't know, but there's nothing 'instant' about them.

    No web-casts on 1471 are scheduled for today (8/20) but floor sessions can often be seen through the California Channel. Faxes and phone calls to the Sacramento offices of legislators, while they are on the floor, appear to have some influence. Legislator's addresses and phone numbers available through this link.
     
  22. SoCalShooter

    SoCalShooter Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Messages:
    3,091
    Location:
    That's for me to know and not you!
    The DOJ here takes its damn time 10 days to be exact before you are allowed to have your weapon. I do not know if the checks are instant or not. But I do know that they do not follow federal guidelines and check with the FBI because they do not have to. That is why I in part would not mind seeing the latest legislation go through because it could get the ball rolling for those of us who want instant background checks by the FBI.
     
  23. kermit315

    kermit315 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    454
    Location:
    Pensacola, FL
    this is from the brady bunch.

    http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=waitxstate

    not trying to argue, just trying to get it straight.
     
  24. SoCalShooter

    SoCalShooter Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Messages:
    3,091
    Location:
    That's for me to know and not you!
    No argument here kermit315 its good info to know. My understanding is that they did no checks with the feds.
     
  25. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,385
    I think states can substitute their own checks in place of the NICS.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page