Ninth Circuit Upholds CA Microstamping Law… Microstamping Doesn’t exist

[Aim1]

Wow........from the article:


“The Ninth Circuit ruling came just over a month at the California Supreme Court ruled that an impossibility of compliance is not a sufficient reason for invalidating a law.”



https://www.breitbart.com/big-gover...ping-law-although-microstamping-doesnt-exist/

Ninth Circuit Upholds CA Microstamping Law…Although Microstamping Doesn’t exist

4 Aug 2018


On Friday a three-judge panel of the United States Appeals Court for the Ninth Circuit upheld California’s microstamping law – even though microstamping is theoretical at best.

 

[sequins]

just because the sky is blue that's no reason not to pass a law mandating that it turn a different color.

 

[Deus Machina]

an impossibility of compliance is not a sufficient reason for invalidating a law.

That seems like the perfect reason, to me.

 

[TTv2]

Because you want to exercise your right, that makes you a criminal.

Yeah, this would not hold up if SCOTUS took the case. Heller made a reasonable restrictions clause when it said that the 2nd Amendment did not allow the possession or carrying of any weapon for any purpose, but de facto banning guns because of a concept that isn't possible creates the restriction is the definition of unreasonable and violates the 2nd amendment.

I'm not sure SCOTUS would take up a microstamping case as microstamping is pretty much a firearm feature, or lack thereof in this case, and that would open up the possibility of invalidating AWB's, which SCOTUS views as reasonable restrictions. That makes for a very slippery slope because state legislatures and even US Congress could say that semi auto's are AWB's, then could say that lever actions and pump actions are AWB's. Next thing you know we're stuck with single shot break action and bolt actions.

IDK, for every step forward that appears to be taken, there's also a step back. As long as we win the big cases like Heller, we'll win the war, at least until an amendment is made that invalidates the 2nd Amendment, but were that to happen the constitution will effectively cease to exist and so too would America.

 

[Deanimator]

Just stop selling guns to CA, especially LEOs and agencies. Let them deal like everyone else.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

just because the sky is blue that's no reason not to pass a law mandating that it turn a different color.

Quit trying to shame the sky into being blue, you fascist colorphobe! It can identify as whatever color it wants to be that day!

 

[Hokie_PhD]

That seems like the perfect reason, to me.

It seems like whoever wrote this oppinion and agreed with it should immediately be removed from the bench.

How can someone follow a law that’s impossible to comply with? To me that seems like a simple common sense question.
Worse when it infringes on one of our most basic rights it shows those who wrote it don’t care about the law, or the Constitution.

 

[RecoilRob]

Remember when they tried to get EVERY bullet serialized? Boy....wouldn't that be great! Except it's impossible to actually do it, so that's not OUR problem...it's YOURS! Banning by implementing an impossible standard is still banning and should be considered as such, but the Left will seize on any pretext to rid the world of what they don't like....laws or Constitutions be damned.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

I would like to know how the court defines "Microstamping".
If it is required, detailed specifications and standards for compliance have to be available.

 

[Jim Watson]

I think it is like the East Coast Libs pet "smart gun."
One company claims to be able to microstamp and lobbied for a monopoly.

I think Armed Government Employees should not be exempted from common sense public safety measures. Let's see what the police unions and pols' bodyguards really think about microstamping, etc.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

It seems like whoever wrote this oppinion and agreed with it should immediately be removed from the bench.

How can someone follow a law that’s impossible to comply with? To me that seems like a simple common sense question.
Worse when it infringes on one of our most basic rights it shows those who wrote it don’t care about the law, or the Constitution.

That's what happens when liberal arts colleges hand out law degrees like participation trophies.

 

[pert near]

I hate to say it, I even hate to think it, but this is the future of gun control. It's coming & I hope later than sooner. We have a short lived administration that respects freedom & the constitution. But times & administrations change & we can see the future forming. The elites in power can make laws that are to a point that everything you do in regards to a firearm breaks a law. Then gun controls becomes "selective enforcement". For example, you go hunting & you are stopped & asked to prove where your gun was purchased, check for microprinting, show that your ammo was purchased via permit, did you file a report that your gun was leaving your premise, etc., etc., etc. Welcome to confiscation 101. Then you have the right to keep & bear arms, as long as they're hanging on your wall to look at like a painting. And oh yeah, you have a permit for that.

Sorry, rant over as I shed a tear.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

I hate to say it, I even hate to think it, but this is the future of gun control. It's coming & I hope later than sooner. We have a short lived administration that respects freedom & the constitution. But times & administrations change & we can see the future forming. The elites in power can make laws that are to a point that everything you do in regards to a firearm breaks a law. Then gun controls becomes "selective enforcement". For example, you go hunting & you are stopped & asked to prove where your gun was purchased, check for microprinting, show that your ammo was purchased via permit, did you file a report that your gun was leaving your premise, etc., etc., etc. Welcome to confiscation 101. Then you have the right to keep & bear arms, as long as they're hanging on your wall to look at like a painting. And oh yeah, you have a permit for that.

Sorry, rant over as I shed a tear.

Cheer up, none of these things are inevitable.

 

[EIB0879]

just because the sky is blue that's no reason not to pass a law mandating that it turn a different color.

The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry. Pass a law trying to change that and the Infantry declares war.

 

[old lady new shooter]

It seems like whoever wrote this oppinion and agreed with it should immediately be removed from the bench.

How can someone follow a law that’s impossible to comply with? To me that seems like a simple common sense question.
Worse when it infringes on one of our most basic rights it shows those who wrote it don’t care about the law, or the Constitution.

I think the way it's being implemented is that the firearms manufacturers are not submitting any new models to the CA list. Models that were already on the list can stay.

I am sooooooooooooo happy I got out of there. I don't understand how any sane people stay, they are like the frog in the pot who doesn't realize the temperature of the water keeps increasing.

 

[CapnMac]

How can someone follow a law that’s impossible to comply with?

You may be seeing the wrong this v. that equation--at least from the perspective of the court.
From the perspective of the court (potentially) they may (just may) be seeing it as:

• Take no action = Legal.
• Take compliant action = Legal.
• Take non-compliant action = Illegal.

Now, what might be more appropriate would be an injunction against enforcement, since the enforcement is functionally impossible.
Let's say the solons advance a bill making it illegal to use a time machine to bring goods back to before a date certain and "grandfather" them before the fact. This would be (middling) reasonable action to take viz-a-viz legislation controlled by date. However, until a time machine is invented, there's no way to enforce that law. So, a stay, on enforcement would be in keeping with the laws as we understand them.

Mind, there's a latent issue with microstamping that does not seem to be discussed with much concern--it only works with full registration, of both arms ands shooters. But, that's just my 2¢

 

[JohnKSa]

From the perspective of the court (potentially) they may (just may) be seeing it as:

• Take no action = Legal.
• Take compliant action = Legal.
• Take non-compliant action = Illegal.

The problem is that this is regulating an activity that is a right and essentially making compliance impossible.

It is roughly similar to a state imposing a speed limit of 0mph on all movement. It is not possible for people to comply while still exercising their right to move around in the course of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

This ruling is a good example of what happens when judges rule based on what they want the outcome to be and not based on the law or on common sense.

I imagine this is the kind of thing Scalia had in mind when he made the comment:

"What in the world is a moderate interpretation of a constitutional text? Halfway between what it says and what we'd like it to say?"​

 

[BSA1]

Who is to say it is impossible to never comply with this law?

It was agreed by most experts before 1903 that man would never build a machine that would fly.

Medical experts said that the human body could not withstand traveling at speeds in excess of 60 mph.

Look at how fast AI and Robotics is advancing. Is it possible that a AI robot could commit murder at it's own choice? What would be the penalty? Would it be wise to pass a law now saving that AI must be programmed to never harm humans?

Microstamping has nothing to do with reducing crime. It may serve as evidence in a criminal trial linking the gun to the crime scene. Will the Court even accept the shell casings as evidence? I could corrupt the crime scene or frame someone else for a crime by tossing a few shell cases I found on the shooting range onto the ground. The question is in how many cases this is useful in getting a conviction vs. keeping guns from being made because the technology does not exist?

 

[Tommygunn]

The problem complying with the law is twofold:

• The part of the gun that the stamp is applied to will wear over time.
• It may be very easy to thwart the stamp with a file or part change-out.

In addition, more extreme measures have been suggested. One idea is a criminal goes to a range, collects empty 9mm. brass that is the same as his gun, and commits a crime. He then polices up his brass and leaves the collected empties. This may not cause the incarceration of the innocent gun owner the brass traces back to, but could cause him problems. But it won't help locate the criminal who actually commited the crime. The police will still require traditional methods to track down the real culprit.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

Would it be wise to pass a law now saving that AI must be programmed to never harm humans?

There are already those in the AI community who are lobbying against trying to write Asimov's laws into their code, because restricting their ability to harm you removes their "free will" and is tantamount to slavery.

Of course these are the same nutbags who want to ban your guns, knives, and sharp sticks because you might choose to harm another human with them. Clearly, real people can't be trusted with free will.....

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Just stop selling guns to CA, especially LEOs and agencies. Let them deal like everyone else.

Yep. It'd be hilarious if every firearms manufacturer and ammunition manufacturer in the country went the way of Barrett.

Of course, that wouldn't stop California from obtaining foreign made firearms and ammunition, but still...

 

[JohnKSa]

Who is to say it is impossible to never comply with this law?

I don't believe anyone said it will "never" be possible to comply with the law. The argument is that it is not possible now.

It is totally unacceptable to prevent the exercise of a constitutional right by imposing a law that can not be complied with--even if it is likely that at some point in the future it might be possible to comply at that point.

 

[old lady new shooter]

There are already those in the AI community who are lobbying against trying to write Asimov's laws into their code, because restricting their ability to harm you removes their "free will" and is tantamount to slavery.

 

[old lady new shooter]

I don't believe anyone said it will "never" be possible to comply with the law. The argument is that it is not possible now.

It is totally unacceptable to prevent the exercise of a constitutional right by imposing a law that can not be complied with--even if it is likely that at some point in the future it might be possible to comply at that point.

Just because something is unacceptable doesn't mean CA doesn't do it.

 

[BSA1]

I don't believe anyone said it will "never" be possible to comply with the law. The argument is that it is not possible now.

It is totally unacceptable to prevent the exercise of a constitutional right by imposing a law that can not be complied with--even if it is likely that at some point in the future it might be possible to comply at that point.

Except that is already being done with requiring motor vehicles to reach certain standards in engine emissions by a future date written into the law even though current technology cannot meet those standards.

As I understand the microstamping law it applies to semi-auto firearms. Since microstamping does not affect revolvers and single shot firearms it is not preventing exercising constitutional rights, only the type of firearm that does not meet the standard. Semi-autos that do meet the requirement would seem to be legal although I do not claim to know the fine print in their laws. Justice Scalia left that possibility open in Heller which is one of the reasons Heller is not as big of a pro-gun victory as many claim.