+- 6.5 Grendel Forum (https://65grendel.com)
+-- Forum: 6.5 GRENDEL FORUM NEWS (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+--- Thread: California (sigh) (/showthread.php?tid=5728)
California (sigh) - Nukes - 06-10-2013
Microstamping Rule Freezes Number of Semiautomatic Pistols Available for
Sale in California
By Chuck Michel
Michel & Associates, P.C.
Cal Guns
June 9, 2013
http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=1ef541dad0e09e0f2235125c0&id=bc0c0306f5&e=a6b7618296
Despite the flaws in the technology, the obvious ways that criminals
will circumvent the technology, and the difficulties crime labs will
have in deciphering the marks, on May 17, 2013, California Attorney
General Kamala Harris certified that microstamping is available to
firearm manufacturers.
With this simple announcement, new and safer state-of-the-art pistol
models essential for home and family defense became impossible for
Californians to acquire, because to be sold in California all new
semi-automatic pistol models must now have microstamping incorporated
into their design in order to be approved for sale in California.
Given the manufacturing costs involved, it is highly unlikely that any
manufacturers will adopt the microstamping technology, particularly
considering their current pistol production can barely meet the demand
from other states. As a practical matter, this will limit the types of
new handguns available to the California market to those handguns ready
all approved for sale and listed on the roster of approved handguns as
of the date of the certification.
NRA and NSSF are exploring all legal avenues for challenging this action
in court, and a lawsuit is very likely.
Michel & Associates, P.C. has made a legal memorandum and a collection
of other materials on the topic available here.
California (sigh) - carbontetrachloride - 06-10-2013
Yep. That law was signed by RepubliCon Arnold Schwarzenegger.
California (sigh) - Keep The Change - 06-10-2013
Man, this is really going to put a hamper on the gang and criminal activities.
California (sigh) - Deer Hunter - 06-10-2013
Yeah that's right it'll stop the Gangs and criminals from errr ehhh NOTHING!
California (sigh) - LRRPF52 - 06-10-2013
"Yo G. Does yo gat have da new microstamp firing pin?"
"Nah dawg. Das da first thing I filed off suckah!"
California (sigh) - carbontetrachloride - 06-10-2013
LRRPF52 Wrote:"Yo G. Does yo gat have da new microstamp firing pin?"
"Nah dawg. Das da first thing I filed off suckah!"
Good one. This law has worked as intended, it was passed as a "back door" ban on self-loaders. The Bolshevik State AG decided now is the time to implement it. There were few CA gubmint approved pistols available after the "panic". Now there won't be any. Oh well, a wheelgun will buy one a little time to get to a rifle and doesn't leave brass lying around.
California (sigh) - LRRPF52 - 06-10-2013
Like I've said, the only solution to California's nightmarish nanny state antics is for most of the counties to fragment away and form their own Free States. Sacramento has zero business dictating anything to people who are only indirectly related to it in terms of commerce, economy, interaction, or demographics.
The gerrymandering of the State has eliminated the voices of tens of millions of conservatives who outnumber all the conservatives from the surrounding States combined.
It's time to start the Free State movement and break up the insanity known as the People's Republic of California.
California (sigh) - Nukes - 06-10-2013
In my experience gun banners do not flinch from banning any class of gun (or pressure cooker) and care nothing about how long the technology has been around.
The only times I have seen gun banners flinch is when the neurolinguistic tables are turned on them: "the anti-self-defense lobby," "the victim disarmament lobby," "lives saved, injuries prevented, property protected, medical costs averted by good people using guns," "junk science," "some guns are too big, some guns are too small—What guns are 'just right' for Goldilocks Gun Control?" etc.
California (sigh) - Nukes - 06-11-2013
AMENDED SAF SUIT CHALLENGES
CALIFORNIA GUN MICROSTAMPING LAW
BELLEVUE, WA – Attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation have filed an amended complaint in the on-going Pena case, challenging California’s handgun roster law to clarify that the challenge extends to the state’s newly-activated microstamping regulation.
The plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment will be argued by the court’s deadline in November.
The case was originally filed in 2009 as a challenge to California’s regulation that arbitrarily bans handguns based on a roster of “acceptable” handgun models approved by the state. The new motion addresses microstamping, which has made it even harder to legally purchase a handgun in that state.
“When the case was originally filed,” SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb recalled, “the state’s microstamping requirement was not active and was not part of the lawsuit. However, because of substantial delays involving the Ninth Circuit’s protracted Nordyke litigation, microstamping is now a significant issue. We've had to amend our complaint to address this new effort by California legislators to limit the types of handguns one can legally purchase.”
Gene Hoffman, chairman of the Calguns Foundation, added, “California's attempt to limit the availability of handguns to her citizens is so broad that it makes it impossible to purchase the revolver that the U.S. Supreme Court has specifically ruled had to be registered to Dick Heller, whose case struck down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual civil right.
“The state cannot dictate that some common arms can't be bought just as they can't dictate which versions of religious texts are acceptable,” Hoffman added. “Now that the state requires microstamping, it’s unlikely any new make or model of pistol will be added - making it even clearer that this is an incremental ban on firearms.”
“Amending our case to address the California legislature’s insidious erosion of firearms rights was a necessary step,” Gottlieb concluded. “It is clear the intent of anti-gun lawmakers is not to regulate firearms but to ban them via increasingly restrictive legislation. This scheme cannot go without challenge, and our existing case is the best and quickest way to accomplish that.”