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

Interesting info on CA microstamping.

Discussion in 'Legal' started by glennv, Apr 25, 2008.

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

    glennv Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    228
    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.
     
  2. kermit315

    kermit315 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    454
    Location:
    Pensacola, FL
    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.
     
  3. gbran

    gbran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,977
    Location:
    california
    Here in CA, our inspired leaders hear only what they want to hear.
     
  4. Flyboy

    Flyboy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,888
    Location:
    Oklahoma City, OK
    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.
     
  5. ghschirtz

    ghschirtz Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    Messages:
    71
    Glenn,

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

    TAB Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,475
    the bell letting know its time for the pigs to come to the troff.
     
  7. glennv

    glennv Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    228
    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.
     
  8. billwiese

    billwiese Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    405
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    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
     
  9. dogma512

    dogma512 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Messages:
    83
    Location:
    Honolulu, HI
    Can you provide a link to the text of that legislation?
     
  10. thorn726

    thorn726 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,388
    Location:
    berkeley, CA
    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!
     
  11. Librarian

    Librarian Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,475
    Location:
    Concord, CA
    PC 12126 (b)(7)
    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.)
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page