Guns Must Microstamp in CA

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,475
347
near Seattle, Wa
The judges ruling seems totally out of line with all the recent SC cases. I am betting that it is overturned eventually, at the SC level or earlier.

Are you sure, Len?

The Supreme Court v. The Gun Lobby 2009-'14

By protesteasyguns

Jun 19, 2014

The greatest and most successful champion in government of gun safety in the past few years has been … The Supreme Court?

It may sound bizarre that the same court that ruled for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms for home protection unconnected with military service would then shy from opportunities to expand gun rights to absurd levels. Yet, ever since the 2008 ruling overturning the District of Columbia’s handgun ban – as well as a 2010 decision applying that standard to the states – the Supreme Court has bucked the gun lobby’s extremism and sided again and again with gun safety by strengthening existing law or refusing to overturn commonsense lower court rulings.

» In February 2009 , the court ruled that federal law prohibiting domestic abusers from having guns applies to any kind of domestic violence, even if a state does not have an applicable domestic violence law. (U.S. v. Hayes)

» In April 2009, the court ruled that a defendant who discharges a firearm even unintentionally while committing a violent or drug-related crime is subject to a 10-year sentence enhancement. (Dean v. U.S.)

» In October 2011, the court declined to hear an appeal upholding a Maryland law prohibiting carrying a weapon in public without a permit. (Williams v. Maryland)

»[SIZE=9.75pt] In April 2013, the court[/SIZE] declined to hear an appeal upholding a New York law prohibiting conceal-carry licensing without first demonstrating “proper cause.”[SIZE=9.75pt] The NRA and Academics for the Second Amendment filed briefs on behalf of the plaintiffs. ([/SIZE][SIZE=9.75pt]Kachalsky v. Cacace[/SIZE][SIZE=9.75pt])[/SIZE]

» On Feb. 24, 2014 the court declined to hear three appeals: (The NRA was the original plaintiff in the first two lawsuits)

--a case upholding a Texas law prohibiting 18- to 20-year-olds from carrying weapons in public; (NRA v. McCraw

--one upholding a federal law prohibiting 18- to 20-year-olds from buying handguns from licensed gun dealers; NRA v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

--and one failed attempt to challenge a federal law prohibiting interstate handgun purchases. Lane v. Holder

2014

» On March 12, 2014, Justice Anthony Kennedy declined to block enforcement of a California town’s ban on high-capacity magazines. (Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale)

» On March 26, 2014 the court ruled unanimously that federal law prohibiting domestic abusers from having guns applies to any person convicted of using “physical force” and not just “violent force.” A narrower interpretation would have meant the law wouldn’t apply in 10 states. The Gun Owners Foundation filed a brief on behalf of the defendant. (U.S. v. Castleman)

» On May 5, 2014 the court declined to hear an appeal upholding New Jersey’s law prohibiting conceal-carry without proving “justifiable need” for a license. The NRA and Gun Owners Foundation filed briefs on behalf of the plaintiff. (Drake v. Jerejian)

» Just Monday, the court ruled that a person who buys a gun on someone else’s behalf while falsely claiming that it is for himself on a background check form is illegal even if the buyer and transferee are legal gun possessors. The NRA filed a brief on behalf of the defendant. (Abramski v. United States)

The Supreme Court carved out broad exceptions to Second Amendment protections in its 2008 opinion, including:

--bans on concealed weapons,

-dangerous persons from having guns and owning unusually dangerous weapons.

The court concluded, “The right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

Pasted from <http://www.protesteasyguns.com/2014/06/19/the-people-vs-the-gun-lobby/>
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Happy Jack

Super Anarchist
21,666
0
Florida
Guns already do micro stamp ... it's called rifling. And it is easy to defeat firing pin stamps. Brass catchers will become common. Or use one with a built in brass catcher. ( It's called a revolver)

P90_Side_zps3b281e8f.jpg


 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
63,430
2,118
Punta Gorda FL
Thanks for the immature bullcrap, Dabnis.

Heller made it clear it protects a limited right, and does not protect a...

"...right to carry any weapon whatsoever in manner whatsoever, and for whatever purpose."
Hi Dabnis. Read it. ...
[email protected]

Reading it was something I would hope you would do, Mindless Grabber. I even left you a link for that purpose, which did not stop you from requesting a link for several days.

If you ever did read it, it was obviously without any retention of any part except that part of a sentence that you seem to love so much. :lol:

 

F_L

Anarchist
843
163
Canyon Lake, TX
Microstamping won't do a damn thing to make the world a safer place. Easily defeated with dremel tools, emery cloth, after market firing pins, brass catchers. I am convinced the purpose of the law is to increase the cost of gun ownership. Kinda like the "armor piercing" bullet ban.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Saorsa

Super Anarchist
36,810
423
Microstamping won't do a damn thing to make the world a safer place. Easily defeated with dremel tools, emery cloth, after market firing pins, brass catchers. I am convinced the purpose of the law is to increase the cost of gun ownership. Kinda like the "armor piercing" bullet ban.
The purpose of the law is to DO SOMETHING!!!!! even if it does nothing.

 
D

Dabnis

Guest
Microstamping won't do a damn thing to make the world a safer place. Easily defeated with dremel tools, emery cloth, after market firing pins, brass catchers. I am convinced the purpose of the law is to increase the cost of gun ownership. Kinda like the "armor piercing" bullet ban.
The purpose of the law is to DO SOMETHING!!!!! even if it does nothing.
In addition to making semi autos unavailable, with all other firearms to follow.

Back door arms manufacturers shut down.

Dabs.

 

frenchie

Super Anarchist
10,208
913
Brooklyn, NY
All the talk about defeating with a dremel and so on... I think some of you missed the point.

There isn't a single semi-auto handgun on the market that meets the requirement, and no gun manufacturer has plans to try to make one, either.

Dabnis gets it: Cali basically just banned new models of semi-autos.

Only models already on California's approved list will be available from now on.

The judge rules that was okay, because the list has about a thousand models of handguns (including revolvers) on it.

Revolvers are exempt from microstamping. Not sure why, but probably because "OMG, more than ten shots" doesn't apply?

I think it'd be hilarious if a manufacturer applied to get a modern version of :

22revolver_zpsfb82b13f.jpg


or

hdh%20alberto-04.jpg


or

Lefaucheux12Shot9mm2.jpg


onto Cali's approved list. Just to see the reaction...

 
D

Dabnis

Guest
Semi auto handguns now. Coming soon to your nearest theater:

1. All handguns

2. Anything that fires a projectile

Dabs

 

frenchie

Super Anarchist
10,208
913
Brooklyn, NY
If they tried that, Dabs, they certainly couldn't use the same legal argument. This only passed because it left a bunch of other handguns still available. It didn't even outlaw semi-autos - only new models, going forward. If a model is already on the list, you can still manufacture, import, sell it in Cali.

It's political theater, nothing else. Empty gestures.

Witness: one of the complainants in this case, IS allowed to buy the gun he wants; it's on the list. Only, not in the color he wants. Now, if that doesn't underline, to anyone with a brain, how ridiculously toothless Cali's law is... check it out:

legal in Cali:

XD9621HCSP06_1200x7821.png


Illegal in Cali:

XD9623HCSP06_1200x7821.png


Same gun, only difference is stainless or melonite finish on the slide.

 
D

Dabnis

Guest
If they tried that, Dabs, they certainly couldn't use the same legal argument. This only passed because it left a bunch of other handguns still available. It didn't even outlaw semi-autos - only new models, going forward. If a model is already on the list, you can still manufacture, import, sell it in Cali.

It's political theater, nothing else. Empty gestures.

Witness: one of the complainants in this case, IS allowed to buy the gun he wants; it's on the list. Only, not in the color he wants. Now, if that doesn't underline, to anyone with a brain, how ridiculously toothless Cali's law is... check it out:

legal in Cali:

XD9621HCSP06_1200x7821.png


Illegal in Cali:

XD9623HCSP06_1200x7821.png


Same gun, only difference is stainless or melonite finish on the slide.
Most definitely, the black one looks bad. I haven't done a lot of detailed research on the issue, wasn't aware of the "list"

My comments were related to the concept, more than anything else, & my examples may be a bit exaggerated, but everything,

like what happened to Australia, has a start.

The whole thing is just another touchy feely meaningless back door effort to restrict & make gun ownership more costly.

California, having a fruit loop Democrat Governor, with Democrat controlled Assembly & Senate will continue to try to

restrict, & eventually eliminate gun ownership, starting with handguns.

San Francisco tried, three times, unsuccessfully, to abolish handgun ownership. Never say never.

Dabs

 

frenchie

Super Anarchist
10,208
913
Brooklyn, NY
California, having a fruit loop Democrat Governor, with Democrat controlled Assembly & Senate will continue to try to

restrict, & eventually eliminate gun ownership, starting with handguns.
Okay, I can see you haven't looked into it much. FYI, the law we're discussing was signed by Governator Ahhnoll.

 
D

Dabnis

Guest
California, having a fruit loop Democrat Governor, with Democrat controlled Assembly & Senate will continue to try to

restrict, & eventually eliminate gun ownership, starting with handguns.
Okay, I can see you haven't looked into it much. FYI, the law we're discussing was signed by Governator Ahhnoll.
No, I haven't. Arnold was a RINO, but Moonbean will pick up where he left off. Former Gov Pete Wilson was almost a Republican.

Dabs

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,475
347
near Seattle, Wa
Thanks for the immature bullcrap, Dabnis.

Heller made it clear it protects a limited right, and does not protect a...

"...right to carry any weapon whatsoever in manner whatsoever, and for whatever purpose."
Hi Dabnis. Read it. ...
[email protected]

Reading it was something I would hope you would do, Mindless Grabber. I even left you a link for that purpose, which did not stop you from requesting a link for several days.

If you ever did read it, it was obviously without any retention of any part except that part of a sentence that you seem to love so much. :lol:
Tom, ahem, your history piece's author has yet no be named by yourself. Majority opinion on Heller, yes, but based upon whose version of history?

You will find it written post 1980, because all such opinions are.

Your link is a response to Breyer's historian, Saul Cornell, and denied none of Cornell's details. It's main emphasis was that guns were incapacitated, but were not "confiscated", in colonial times.

Your account confirms modest gun control applied to all urban areas.

It just refuted the application of those laws with supposition, and imagining.

You need to produce solid history, not flakey refutations.

I get the picture here that you have no "tyrant" and "self-defense" printed opinions to share from colonial times.

I am prepared to discuss this at length, by challenging your upstart historian (the Michael Moore bashed, David Hardy) against REAL historians. MEn not paid by the gun lobby, like Hardy (who runs an NRA-affiliateed quasi-think tank).

FYI, this is what a real historian wrote four days after Sandy Hook.

History of Second Amendment (Gun-Rights Advocates Should Fear It)

Saul Cornell 12.18.12

(Note: written four days after Sandy Hook)

Think it’s one short sentence that gives everyone the right to bear arms? Think again. Saul Cornell unravels the tangled history of one of our most misunderstood Amendments.

On Sunday, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer went on CBS’s Face The Nation and argued that people who support gun control “have to admit that there is a Second Amendment right to bear arms”.

Schumer’s effort to reach out to the gun-rights community may be well-intentioned, but it is also deeply ironic. If the nation truly embraced the Second Amendment as it was originally written and understood, it would be the NRA’s worst nightmare.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It’s time for a history lesson about one of America’s most popular and least understood rights. It’s also long past time to expose the hollow, ignorant fawning over the Second Amendment by gun-rights advocates for what it is.

In contrast to the libertarian fantasies that drive the contemporary debate about firearms in America, the Founders understood that liberty without regulation leads not to freedom, but anarchy. They understood that an armed body of citizens easily becomes a mob. In other words, a bunch of guys grabbing their guns and waving a flag emblazoned with a rattlesnake is not a militia.

A cursory look at the history of the Second Amendment shows that regulation was a central part of its rationaleputting “well regulated” at the very start of the amendment was no accident. For instance, starting in the colonial period, states enacted a variety of “safe-storage” measures to deal with the danger posed by stored gunpowder. A 1786 law went as far as prohibiting the storage of a loaded gun in any building in Boston.

But many people who defend gun rights today are more than happy to skim over the first part of the amendment in their zeal to embrace the second. (The NRA itself literally chopped off that pesky first half when it chiseled the words on the face of its old headquarters.) As a result, our modern gun-rights ideology is often unmoored from any sense of corresponding civic obligation.

This ideology claims to rely heavily on the Second Amendment, and yet it is rooted not in the Founders’ vision, but in the insurrectionary ideas of Daniel Shays and those who rose up against the government of Massachusetts in 1786 and 1787. Indeed, there are gun-rights advocates today who think the Second Amendment actually gives them the right to take up arms against the governmentbut if that were true the Second Amendment would have repealed the Constitution’s treason clause, which defines treason as taking up arms against the government!

This is all so deeply twisted: after all, the Founders framed the Constitution in part as a response to the danger posed by Shays’ Rebellion.

As a result, our modern debate over gun rights has virtually nothing to with the Founders’ Second Amendment; that debate actually started about 30 years after the Amendment was adopted. What emerged was the notion that reasonable regulation was not inconsistent with the right to bear arms. In fact it was the only option in a heavily armed society.

Up until the 1980s, there was no “individual-rights” theory of the Second Amendment. Many states had adopted provisions protecting an individual right to own guns, but this tradition was distinct from the Amendment. All that changed when right-wing think tanks undertook a conscious effort to fund new scholarship to rewrite the amendment’s history. At first that effort was not well received, even in conservative circles. As late as 1991, former Supreme Court chief justice Warren Burger famously called the idea of an individual right to bear arms “one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

It’s long past time to expose the hollow, ignorant praise of the Second Amendment by gun-rights advocates for what it is.

But the revisionism ultimately won over most of the legal establishment, reaching its zenith in 2008, when the Supreme Court broke with 70 years of established jurisprudence and affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have guns in the home for reasons of self-defense.

In order to do this, the majority followed the lead of gun-rights advocates and essentially excised the first clause of the amendmentthe “well-regulated militia” part—from the text.

(Let us pause briefly to note the irony that the opinion, District of Columbia v. Heller, was written by none other than Justice Antonin Scalia—America’s staunchest defender of originalism, or reading the Constitution according to its supposed original meaning.)

If the Heller court had simply said, “Look, most Americans think the Amendment is about an individual right, and no one really cares what James Madison or the average man on the street in 1791 thought”then the case would be pretty uncontroversial. Instead, Scalia produced a pompous, error-filled opinion that has done more to discredit his beloved originalism than a generation of liberal academics ever could.

Even leading conservative legal scholars have harshly criticized the ruling: federal judge Richard Posner said most professional historians reject Scalia’s historical analysis in the case, and described Scalia’s jurisprudence as “incoherent”. Perhaps even more damning, J. Harvie Wilkinson, a federal judge appointed by Ronald Reagan, compared Heller to Roe v. Wade.

Of course, the fact that the Second Amendment is now treated as an individual right has almost no bearing on gun regulation, because no right is absolute. You can’t shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, nor can you fire a gun in one.

And most Americans—including those who own guns—are open to reasonable gun regulation. The only people who oppose such policies are the NRA, extreme gun-rights advocates, and the craven politicians who do their bidding.

But what would such regulation look like?

For one thing, we could have a comprehensive system of firearm licensing and registration. At the moment we have none (even though it is hard to fathom how one might ever muster a militia without such a system). To avoid the irrational fears of gun confiscation, such a system ought to be instituted by the states, which maintained militias long before the Second Amendment existed. Could anyone with even a minimal understanding of the history of the Second Amendment seriously maintain that a state-based system violated the Amendment’s text or spirit?

The bottom line is that although we hear the Second Amendment invoked all the time, few of those who trumpet it the most vehemently realize that restoring the Founders’ vision of the Second Amendment would be a call for more gun regulation, not less.

Pasted from <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/18/gun-rights-advocates-should-fear-history-of-second-amendment.html>
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
63,430
2,118
Punta Gorda FL
Jocal, that guy can't be a real historian. He agrees with me that the gun laws you cited were about "safe storage" meaning controlling the danger from fire. No real historian from the gungrabby side thinks that way. Only crackpots and kooks.

No answer to my on-topic question? Has microstamping ever solved any crime?

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
63,430
2,118
Punta Gorda FL
All the talk about defeating with a dremel and so on... I think some of you missed the point.

There isn't a single semi-auto handgun on the market that meets the requirement, and no gun manufacturer has plans to try to make one, either.

Dabnis gets it: Cali basically just banned new models of semi-autos.

Only models already on California's approved list will be available from now on.

The judge rules that was okay, because the list has about a thousand models of handguns (including revolvers) on it.

Revolvers are exempt from microstamping. Not sure why, but probably because "OMG, more than ten shots" doesn't apply?

I think it'd be hilarious if a manufacturer applied to get a modern version of :

22revolver_zpsfb82b13f.jpg


or

hdh%20alberto-04.jpg


or

Lefaucheux12Shot9mm2.jpg


onto Cali's approved list. Just to see the reaction...
You're right that this is a (successful) effort to ban all new semi-autos from the California market.

On revolvers: Dick Heller's constitutionally protected handgun is a 9-round revolver. An assault weapon according to the NY legislature, because it holds more than 7 rounds. But there's no slippery slope. Nope, none at all.

 
Top