SWMAN
Member
Another California first!!!
California Senate approves bill to 'microstamp' pistol cartridges
- Thread starter Skibane
- Start date
- Status
Don't flame me, but, other than the fact that this requirement, if it passes, will probably not be very effective in its stated goals, what's the big deal?
The technology to do what is required should not be that much of a burden for manufacturers, given the lead time available. Obviously there will be some tooling costs, but in the big picture of all the costs that go into the retail price of a gun, probably not significant.
K
The technology to do what is required should not be that much of a burden for manufacturers, given the lead time available. Obviously there will be some tooling costs, but in the big picture of all the costs that go into the retail price of a gun, probably not significant.
K
That was my original thought, but I got flamed like crazy!
Most oppose it on the grounds that it is an unattainable goal, and there to outlaws semiautos . Clearly, though, the technology exists imperfectly for new guns, but it exists. If we accept that it at least exists, then the argument becomes, "at what cost?". Additional costs would price some out of the market, which makes new handgun ownership available to the elite only.
Others oppose on the grounds that it is a do-nothing proposal because BG and good guys alike are going to file off the microstamps to avoid ever being entangled in a police investigation due to fired brass.
The nature of things slamming against other things is that... sooner or later... they wear out. Even the U.S. mint has to change dies now and again. Firing pins and ejectors microstamps WILL wear down. When it happens... what next?
I'll repeat with caveats: In a perfect world where all guns are retrofitted for free, where the technology is a no-cost addition, where microstamps never wear out, where parts are replaced indefinitely for free, where brass only holds the last stamp of the gun that fired it, etc. etc. etc, then I could not care less about this legislation.
But I do see the point that if guns without microstamping (i.e. all semis currently out there) were declared "unsafe guns", if bending a firing pin meant a $100 replacement for a microstamped version, if wearing out your microstamp meant a $100 replacement, if microstamping added $200 to the price of every semiauto, if people were caught up in litigation because some crook used their brass in reloads to commit crimes, etc, then this is very bad legislation.
Since I prescribe to the side that says "any bad unintended consequences of law will occur and will be used against the innocent and law-abiding", then I am against proposal as well.
acousticmood
Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2007
- Messages
- 37
"Don't flame me, but, other than the fact that this requirement, if it passes, will probably not be very effective in its stated goals, what's the big deal?"
There are plenty of technical and economic reasons why its a big deal but I have to say that if it will not be very effective, isn't that reason enough?
There are plenty of technical and economic reasons why its a big deal but I have to say that if it will not be very effective, isn't that reason enough?
Librarian
Member
Carl N. Brown
Member
This is what gun control advocates openly called "pricing strategy"
back in the 1980s: schemes to raise the price of guns, whether
benificial or not in the long run.
The Maryland Ballistic Fingerprint database, which has been criticised
by the Maryland State Police as a waste of resources, was praised
by gun control advocates because it reduced gun sales by adding
an impediment. They are not interested in crime control: it is about
pricing guns off the market by mandating uselessness.
back in the 1980s: schemes to raise the price of guns, whether
benificial or not in the long run.
The Maryland Ballistic Fingerprint database, which has been criticised
by the Maryland State Police as a waste of resources, was praised
by gun control advocates because it reduced gun sales by adding
an impediment. They are not interested in crime control: it is about
pricing guns off the market by mandating uselessness.
Librarian
Member
The California Assembly, as reasonably expected, voted to concur in the Senate amendments to 1471, and the bill now goes to the Governor. Vote was 43 'aye', needed 41.
eric.cartman
Member
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1451-1500/ab_1471_bill_20070223_introduced.html
Does that mean bye bye to Glocks in CA ?
Does that mean bye bye to Glocks in CA ?
Librarian
Member
No, that's old - changes proposed by the bill in question are only section (7) -
I don't know what California means by "positive manually operated safety device", but Glocks are certified for sale here, so evidently a Glock has one.
- Status
