California Senate approves bill to 'microstamp' pistol cartridges

[deadin]

I think I've missed something here. I can understand how a firing pin or breach face could be designed to "microstamp" a shell case with "make, model and serial number" . (I agree that it is possible but not feasible and too easy to circumvent.)(And stupid.)
However, I can't visualize how they would manage to do this on on the bullet.
Microstamping would have to be done by the gun when fired. How are they going to stamp all of that information on a moving bullet? Or are they talking about having the bullets pre-stamped with the info from the gun they're going to be used in? This ought to work well.

 

[fletcher]

I too hope that ALL manufacturers do a Ronnie Barrett & STOP selling guns in CA entirely.

+1, although I highly doubt that many of the manufacturers, namely ones like S&W, would dare do such a thing for fear of losing $$ (they are a business, afterall).

Sounds like we need to start a letter-writing campaign to our manufacturers demanding such a response.

 

[walking arsenal]

Here is an idea. Instead of writing your legislator write your gun companies and tell them that if they comply with this law you will not buy from them.

Or we could all hope that they go the Barret method and not sell to any california agency.

 

[otcconan]

Isn't microstamping a pretty iffy technology at the moment?

Damn, why don't we make every future technology mandatory? Let's mandate that all LEO's have to carry Star Trek phasers, set to stun, and wear red turtlenecks. And pass a law that says that all police cars have to have levitation and flying capability. While we're at it, we might as well create a new law enforcement agency called Blade Runners, who can hunt down the cyborgs that are going to be mandated for working in coal mines. Don't forget, we also need a law that says X-ray sunglasses can only be used for law enforcement purposes. Can't have people checking out ladies' knickers.

 

[rdhood]

This bill, the Crime Gun Identification Act of 2007, would,
commencing January 1, 2010, expand the definition of "unsafe handgun"
to include semiautomatic pistols that are not designed and equipped
with a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model,
and serial number of the pistol, etched in 2 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. Those provisions would be subject to specified
certification procedures by the Department of Justice regarding the
use of that technology.
By expanding the definition of "unsafe handgun," the manufacture,
sale, and other specified transfer of which is a crime, this bill
would expand the scope of an existing crime, and thereby impose a
state-mandated local program.
:
:
:


(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.

I am not completely against this, in that it does not necessarily infringe on the right of gun ownership. The technology, and implementation and enforcement of the law make or break this law.

If I was a bad guy, I'd file the microstamps and shoot reloads from someone else's gun.

 

[Lonestar49]

We already have the Chemo

Quote: He already banned 50s, i bet he signs it.

CA is like a cancer that needs chemo.
----------------
...

Indeed, just go lay out in the Sun, you'll get your daily dose of the Sun's chemo, along with, when you get too hot and go into our "polluted" beaches water, you'll pick up some kind of Virus that snubs it's nose at any of today's "many", and very few new, Antibiotics, that once again, mankind fails to take the complete dose, and spreads the mutant, new, mighty, virus's, just like the new, mighty, laws, mankind is pushing on us.

And mankind will continue not to take the complete dose, meaning, the bad guys will not care what a gun does, as their guns will not be registered in their names.


LS

 

[Correia]

I am not completely against this, in that it does not necessarily infringe on the right of gun ownership.

Uh... So if a state passes a law, mandating a technology that doesn't actually exist, thereby banning an entire class of firearms, how does that not infringe on gun ownership?

You Californians need to hammer the governor's office. And if this passes, then all of us in the country need to hammer the manufacturers to pull a Ronnie Barrett.

 

[GunTech]

Unless this is retroactive and applies to guns already owned, it will have zero impact in any case. It just means that new semis won't be salable in CA.

The salient facts is that if this flies, other jurisdictions will have an avenue for gun banning without being blatantly 'anti-gun'. They can claim that guns that meet the standard are perfectly legal, and thus it is not a gun ban. The fact that the technology isn't implementable is neither here nor there. It's a pretty clever move on the part of the Anti - and could be a future answer if Parker gets upheld.


It's worth noting that the 1934 NFA was a backghanded gun ban. In 1934, a $200 tax stamp effective kept anyone but the weathy from legaly owning NFA weapons.

I predict that in a few years, all guns will be outlawed in California. Prpbably through backdoor bans like this - all in the name of safety or fighting crime.

TG I live in Montana!

 

[TX1911fan]

The Whole Country Gets Screwed By This

I'll sure be a lot more careful with my brass if this passes. You can bet before I leave a range I will call a cease fire and make sure I have every single one of my cartridges. Then I'll have to make sure I have a way of melting down the brass myself, as I won't trust sending it to a recycler. Hell, how do I know that people aren't going to come to Texas and start collecting brass to sell to criminals in CA? This is the stupidist freaking law I've ever heard of, and I'm a lawyer, so I've heard of a bunch.

 

[50 Shooter]

Correia and all,
The last time this crap came up I sent letters to most of the major manufacturers asking them to not sell to any CA agency if this went through.

How many did I hear from? 0

I even posted here for people to do the same, how many did I hear from? 0

I will say that one person did come through even though it wouldn't affect his business but he did support the idea. Who? Mark Serbu of Serbu Firearms.

It's gonna take EVERYONE to contact the manufacturers and TELL them not to sell to CA if this passes. Ask them if they remember Zumbo.

 

[ArmedBear]

I'd sure be a lot more careful with my brass if this passes

That's my main concern.

I really don't give two $#!+s if my gun has the microstamp, except for the cost. But I wouldn't want to be fingered in a crime because someone picked up my brass.

For that reason, I would probably make it a point to wipe out the microstamp if I ever bought a pistol with it, even if I had to spend money to do it. A new firing pin, for example, would be my first purchase, before I put ammo through the gun.

The way this is written, though, it would actually just be a de facto ban on new pistol models in California. Existing models could continue to be sold without the stamp.

Is there a rimfire exemption in this, BTW? Seems like there isn't. That's a real problem, because I can shoot a brick of .22s in a range session. Hard to collect them all. Again, new firing pin would be the first thing I bought.

Stupid law, from a bunch of stupid Democrats. And yes, it's a party line vote. This state is gerrymandered to keep the Democrats in the majority.

For anyone who is naive enough to think that the Republicans are no different, or that your protest Libertarian vote that puts Democrats in office is a good thing, you're just dead wrong. Come here, look at the bills, look at the votes. See what today's Democrats do when they're not afraid for their seats. Ask yourself if you want that in your state.

 

[Correia]

50, if it passes, we might be able to start a ground swell movement of harrassing the manufacturers. It is really the only hope at that point. Then depending on Heller, it will take some Californians to bring suit.

 

[CountGlockula]

I just sent my thoughts to Senator Jack Scott - District SD21. Altadena, CA is only a few minutes away from where I live.

I'd suggest you do the same.

 

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I wonder where the legislation is requiring that all cars sold in CA have the front and rear external components covered in similar identifying stamps so that they leave an impression on people or vehicles that are struck, thus helping police locate hit-and-run offenders.

 

[CountGlockula]

The measure would require that, starting in 2010, every semiautomatic handgun sold in California would have to automatically "microstamp'' each bullet cartridge in two locations as it is fired.

So are Pre-2010 semiautomatics exempt?

 

[glockman19]

ArmedBear,

I really don't give two $#!+s if my gun has the microstamp

It's exactly this apathy that helps bills like this become law. Have you done anything to stop it? Have you called? e-mailed? written letters?

I will go on a gun buying spree and get as many as I can before the law takes effect if it is signed. The problem is with one gun a month I could at best only collect 27 more before Dec 31, 2009.

wait until someone picks up your spent brass and scatters it over a crime scene and you are detained and your firearms are confiscated until they prove it was not you. then actually try to get your firearms back. Good luck.

BIGGEST PEVE with the legislation? LEO are EXEMPT.

 

[glockman19]

So are Pre-2010 semiautomatics exempt?

YES So are all guns Currently on the DOJ APPROVED LIST. It will only apply to NEW guns after Dec. 31, 2009. Also, ONLY for pistols NOT Revolvers, Rifles, Shotguns

 

[Bubbles]

Just something to consider: handgun manufacturers are not going to make pistols that have microstamping specifically for California, then turn around and make those same firearms without microstamping for the rest of the world. It wouldn't be cost-effective for them. So, one of two things will happen:

- Handgun manufacturers won't microstamp anything, and they'll write off the California market, or
- Hangun manufacturers will spend the $$$ required to update their assembly lines to microstamp everything, and we'll all get stuck with them.

Something else to consider: the US military, CIA, etc. sometimes asks for runs of sterile guns (no serial numbers) for black ops. If a handgun manufacturer can't produce a series of sterile handguns, which would mean no microstamping, then they wouldn't be eligible for these contracts.

 

[glummer]

Igloo

"Great, it'll be a complete and absymal failure …

Depends who is defining “failure.”

… some antis don't care whether it works, just that it makes gun purchasing that much more difficult or inconvenient.

That is the antis definition of “it works.”

The bull impales the matador's cape and thinks the matador has failed.

The matador knows better.

 

[glummer]

rdhood

I am not completely against this, in that it does not necessarily infringe on the right of gun ownership. The technology, and implementation and enforcement of the law make or break this law.

So there is a new Federal law requiring every firearm in the country to possess the capability of discerning its users state of mind, in such a manner as to render the gun inactive if the user intends to commit a crime. All other guns are banned; existing non-compliant guns are confiscated.
Are you “not completely against this” also?

jlbraun

supporters say semiautomatics are the weapon used in a majority of homicides committed with firearms

Demonstrably false. Most gun crimes are committed with a .38 revolver.

Irrelevant, stupid gun-bigots’ argument anyway. It doesn’t matter in the least what type of weapons are used unless:
A) That type MUST be used (no suitable substitute available), and
B) The law can physically control criminal access to that weapon type.

Both premises are totally false – the argument is idiocy.

 

[romma]

I cannot believe the extremes of these Non-Americans!

 

[Master Blaster]

Here is a thought:

Why dont they pass a law requiring every convicted felon to have a sattelite trackable microchip. Then when a crime is committed they can tell exactly who was present at the scene.

Or they could establish a DNA registry for every California resident and the criminal would provide the DNA microstamping.

Oh wait that would be a burden on criminals so the Democrats wouldn't even consider it.

 

[makarova]

My 2 cents worth

I'm betting the start up costs for this technology will simply be too much for the manufacturers. So no new pistols sold in Cali. We will then be able to point to this law whenever anybody wants to emulate it somewhere else. If you live in Cali, I hope you and all your family members have what they need.

 

[HonorsDaddy]

At this point...

I have to wonder if it is possible for the rest of the nation to expel California from the union. The state consistently proves its unfitness to remain part of a free nation.

 

[ArmedBear]

It's exactly this apathy that helps bills like this become law.

Apathy was not my point. Did you read ANYTHING but that one line?

Arnold is our only hope for this one now.

The points that matter are that this is a law designed only to force money into the pockets of a particular company that contributed to a bunch of campaigns, and that a UCD study found it to be ineffective.

That said, if you REALLY want to fight this stuff, think about fighting for redistricting reform, and contribute to Republicans in California.

There is NO long-term hope for California's business climate, gun rights, or much else besides the weather, if we don't eliminate the Democrats' stranglehold on the Capitol. NONE. The fact that Arnold is better than they are is telling, BTW. His green-trendy crap of late is designed to deep-six our already declining economy, and the plans for "transportation" in the state will make the place unlivable within a decade or two (some places here already are unlivable, IMO).

Of course we need to do what we can about this right now. But the fact that it's even an issue shows that we've been losing the battle for California for a long, long time, and fighting a skirmish here and there makes very little difference in the long term.

This should be yet another wake-up call to try to win on a bigger scale. Will we just write letters about this bill, and think we've really won if it's vetoed?