CALNRA: AB 1471 (Microstamping) Before Committee Wednesday, 5/16

[MikeHaas]

NRA Members' Councils of California

CALNRA: AB 1471 (Microstamping) Before Committee Wednesday, 5/16
5:30 AM, 5/12/2007

AB 1471 will appear before the Assembly Appropriations Committee on Wednesday, May 16th. Please contact the committee members and urge a NO vote on AB 1471.

This bill 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 into 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.

Talking points, more information and ONE-CLICK service is available at:
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2007&summary=ab1471

Stay on top of other CA-related firearms issues at:
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml

Mike Haas

 

[Abndoc]

E-mail sent to all members.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

This bill 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 into 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.

WHAT!? wouldnt this ban every handgun in existence?

 

[Old Fuff]

No, not every handgun - just every semi-automatic pistol being currently manufactured.

Which of course is what they really want. :banghead:

Question: Did they remember to exempt law enforcement?

 

[bruss01]

LEO's in CA are exempt from the roster of handguns certified for sale. They can buy anything - oldies like the Ruger Security Six (not on the list since it's no longer in production and Ruger didn't pay the extortion fees to keep it listed) or newbies like the Stoeger Cougar (also not listed due to no mag disconnect and loaded chamber indicator).

Typically handguns already on the list can remain on the list as long as they continue to pay the renewal fees every year. No new models can be added, however, unless they meet the current effective guidelines. This would take effect in 2010.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

So this only affects new handguns being brought into the state?

 

[bruss01]

Right, only new ones being brought in.

You can buy older (unlisted) handguns from a private party, by both of you going to an FFL and doing a private party transfer. You can also bring handguns you bought while a RESIDENT of another state that are not listed. For instance, you live in Nevada, have a NV driver's license and are a resident of that state. You buy handguns that are not on the CA approved roster. Then you move to CA and become a resident, CA driver's license. Your unlisted handguns are perfectly legal for you to possess. You still have to register them, though. Oh, and any magazines of more than 10 rounds capacity, you have to leave behind in NV, posession of those is a felony in CA no matter where or how you got them. *unless you continuously owned them in CA prior to the 2000 hi-cap ban*. So if you had hi-caps in CA, moved to NV, then back to CA, sorry, no hi-caps for you.

If a FFL ends up with an older handgun (no longer on list)in his inventory he has to sell it out of state or to a LEO. This happens a lot with estate sales and such. This being the case, tons of great classic handguns are being exported from the state every year, never to return. Really puts a crimp in the collector's style.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

You can buy older (unlisted) handguns from a private party, by both of you going to an FFL and doing a private party transfer. You can also bring handguns you bought while a RESIDENT of another state that are not listed. For instance, you live in Nevada, have a NV driver's license and are a resident of that state. You buy handguns that are not on the CA approved roster. Then you move to CA and become a resident, CA driver's license. Your unlisted handguns are perfectly legal for you to possess. You still have to register them, though. Oh, and any magazines of more than 10 rounds capacity, you have to leave behind in NV, posession of those is a felony in CA no matter where or how you got them. *unless you continuously owned them in CA prior to the 2000 hi-cap ban*. So if you had hi-caps in CA, moved to NV, then back to CA, sorry, no hi-caps for you.

Ugh what a headache. I am glad I jumped ship from CA a few years ago, never looked back since.

Oh, and any magazines of more than 10 rounds capacity, you have to leave behind in NV, posession of those is a felony in CA no matter where or how you got them. *unless you continuously owned them in CA prior to the 2000 hi-cap ban*. So if you had hi-caps in CA, moved to NV, then back to CA, sorry, no hi-caps for you.

But how would they know? You couldnt just BS them and bring some in and say 'oh ive had these since 19XX'?

 

[crazed_ss]

WHAT!? wouldnt this ban every handgun in existence?

No, it would ban new models from coming into the state. I really dont care about microstamping. If it passes or not, it doesnt matter anymore. CA already mandates that new models introduced must have a Chamber-Loaded Indicator and Magazine Disconnect Safety. So that already rules out a lot of new guns.

Older models of guns that have already been certified for sale will continue to be legal as long as gun-makers pay the extortion fees to the state of California each year. If a maker fails to pay, the gun falls off the list and cant be re-added unless the manufacturer adds the new "features" and re-submits it.

Microstamping will eventually pass. I doubt any gun makers will go along with it. They'll be content to sell older models that are already certified. That's fine by me.

 

[Librarian]

Oh, and any magazines of more than 10 rounds capacity, you have to leave behind in NV, posession of those is a felony in CA no matter where or how you got them. *unless you continuously owned them in CA prior to the 2000 hi-cap ban*. So if you had hi-caps in CA, moved to NV, then back to CA, sorry, no hi-caps for you.

Actually, there's an exception in the law covering this:

PC 12070 (b) (23) The importation of a large-capacity magazine by a person who
lawfully possessed the large-capacity magazine in the state prior to
January 1, 2000, lawfully took it out of the state, and is returning
to the state with the large-capacity magazine previously lawfully
possessed in the state.

So long as you owned them in CA before Jan 1, 2000, bring them in and out as you please.

 

[bruss01]

But how would they know? You couldnt just BS them and bring some in and say 'oh ive had these since 19XX'?

If you own a gun that the magazines fit, which was in production at the time the ban took place, that is feasible if not totally legit. For instance, you could likely get away with it for a Glock, but not for a Springfield XD.

Actually, there's an exception in the law covering this:
Quote:
PC 12070 (b) (23) The importation of a large-capacity magazine by a person who
lawfully possessed the large-capacity magazine in the state prior to
January 1, 2000, lawfully took it out of the state, and is returning
to the state with the large-capacity magazine previously lawfully
possessed in the state.

So long as you owned them in CA before Jan 1, 2000, bring them in and out as you please.

Thanks for the head's up! I thought I knew the code pretty well but that exception had escaped my notice. Appreciate the tip.

 

[Librarian]

So long as you owned them in CA before Jan 1, 2000, bring them in and out as you please.

I wonder if I didn't overstate the case here - it might mean you can move back here with them rather than move out and then come back to visit. That meaning wouldn't make a lot of sense, but then most of California's gun laws don't.