California Enacts New Handgun Ban, Christie Set To Sign Gun Bills

California Enacts New Handgun Ban, Christie Set To Sign Gun Bills

personalliberty.com

With the stroke of a pen, new semi-automatic handguns have been banned from sale in California.

How, you ask? This bulletin, signed by the State’s Bureau of Firearms Chief, Stephen J. Lindley, for Attorney General Kamala Harris, requires all semi-auto pistols to be equipped with microstamping technology.

The technology, while available, is expensive and impractical and is not being employed by major manufacturers. Firearms manufacturers will most likely walk away from California rather than gear up to make the handguns for one State, a State that already has onerous gun laws. Califor

(visit the link for the full news article)

I used the search feature but did not see this posted anywhere.

This is crazy! Did this really pass?

I would go into detail about how this new law will not help law enforcement in any way but you guys already know that.

Do you see other states going this route?

Do you think this decision will be overturned by the Supreme Court?

I don't think companies will make firearms especially for states with this requirement. Or if they did I could see extreme price increases occuring.

What does ATS think?


personalliberty.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I wonder what's going to happen when some police agency goes and needs to buy new guns for their officers and can't find any gun-makers who make guns that meet this bill.

Maybe they'll have to go back to the good old days of carrying revolvers; the same limitation they are effectively putting on the civilians.

What's good for the goose...

Micro-stamping is a liberal wet dream gone into nightmarish reality. It's impractical, worthless when it DOES work at all and so unbelievably expensive to make something which won't do anything more than block guns from markets that require it as to be a ban by another name, outright.

What this does, by reading here to confirm which pipe dream they signed, is make a micro stamp out of the head of a firing pin to imprint the soft metal of a primer upon firing.

Well... (glances at my little drawer of spare firing pins) lots a luck on that one....and the whole scheme is 100% worthless if the bad guy just picks up his fired brass. They ought to be doing that ANYWAY since more idiots have gone to prison over fingerprints found on expended casings than prints on a gun itself, I'll bet. The firing process actually imprints the finger grease on the fingerprint by high heat. So, people can wipe the outside of a gun so clean it's fit to eat with ....but how many think to load the magazine with gloves? lol....

This is a waste of money for anything but a clever backdoor ban though. Apparently, they'll have done that. Way to go California! Always looking for new ways to be "The People's Republic of California". Well, they hit a home run this time.

Originally posted by TorqueyThePig
Do you think this decision will be overturned by the Supreme Court?

nope..States rights. totally within their jurisdiction.

reply to FortAnthem

they'll just exempt the LEO's and they'll go to Nevada an buy whatever they want.

California, leading the way towards totalitarianism! No wonder the state is on the verge of bankruptcy despite having some of the richest people in the country.

Well the Supreme Court cannot overturn it since regulations of firearms has already been determined to be constitutional. The only thing a State cannot do is outright ban them.

So we see California taking the route that some states such as Mississippi did with abortion. They are making it so difficult or expensive that people will go elsewhere. It appears that since California cannot stop the manufacture of handguns that they will simply try and drive them out of the State.

reply to post by howmuch4another


Hey, I can dream, can't I?


I think the Feds should pass a law that says that law enforcement and domestic military cannot use any weapons on civilians inside the US that the civilians cannot legally obtain within their jurisdiction (city or state, etc...).

That way, the cops in these gun grabbing states (and cities) wouldn't have access to any weapons the people they lord it over don't have access to just to keep everyone on a level playing field.

Originally posted by howmuch4another

Originally posted by TorqueyThePig
Do you think this decision will be overturned by the Supreme Court?

nope..States rights. totally within their jurisdiction.

reply to FortAnthem

they'll just exempt the LEO's and they'll go to Nevada an buy whatever they want.

States rights CANNOT overturn the U.S. Constitution. And this action clearly is in violation of the 2nd Amendment by "infringing" on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Make no mistake, it is an infringement, and encroachment upon that constitutional right.

Definition of INFRINGEMENT 1 : the act of infringing : violation 2 : an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege

Definition of Infringment

Originally posted by Krakatoa

Originally posted by howmuch4another

Originally posted by TorqueyThePig
Do you think this decision will be overturned by the Supreme Court?

nope..States rights. totally within their jurisdiction.

reply to FortAnthem

they'll just exempt the LEO's and they'll go to Nevada an buy whatever they want.

States rights CANNOT overturn the U.S. Constitution. And this action clearly is in violation of the 2nd Amendment by "infringing" on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Make no mistake, it is an infringement, and encroachment upon that constitutional right.

Definition of INFRINGEMENT 1 : the act of infringing : violation 2 : an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege

Definition of Infringment

You would lose that argument.

You can still bear arms...nothing is infringed upon. The Supreme Court has said, multiple times, that firearms can be regulated...nothing in the second amendment says they cannot. The only stipulation is that you cannot ban them all.

reply to post by Krakatoa


actually a microstamp is not an infringement of the 2nd. nobody is saying you cannot have a gun or buy a gun in Cali. This is for the manufacturer and you are not entitled to force a manufacturer to comply. They can just leave the State.


eta..what Hope said.

faster than me.

Originally posted by howmuch4another
reply to post by Krakatoa

 

actually a microstamp is not an infringement of the 2nd. nobody is saying you cannot have a gun or buy a gun in Cali. This is for the manufacturer and you are not entitled to force a manufacturer to comply. They can just leave the State.


eta..what Hope said.

faster than me.

edit on 5/22/2013 by howmuch4another because: (no reason given)

It is an infringement. Infringing is not just "banning something" its an encroachment, or trespass upon the right. Making something so out-of-reach is an encroachment.....period. It is an effective ban on the item...by making it so impossible to comply as to result in a ban.

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by Krakatoa

Originally posted by howmuch4another

Originally posted by TorqueyThePig
Do you think this decision will be overturned by the Supreme Court?

nope..States rights. totally within their jurisdiction.

reply to FortAnthem

they'll just exempt the LEO's and they'll go to Nevada an buy whatever they want.

States rights CANNOT overturn the U.S. Constitution. And this action clearly is in violation of the 2nd Amendment by "infringing" on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Make no mistake, it is an infringement, and encroachment upon that constitutional right.

Definition of INFRINGEMENT 1 : the act of infringing : violation 2 : an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege

Definition of Infringment

You would lose that argument.

You can still bear arms...nothing is infringed upon. The Supreme Court has said, multiple times, that firearms can be regulated...nothing in the second amendment says they cannot. The only stipulation is that you cannot ban them all.

Then why not make a law requiring a radioactive tracer be embedded within the piece? But then, the access to the required radioactive tracers is blocked by further regulation. This is why the founders used the word "infringed" and not "banned". Infringed is a softer and more widely defined term, that gos into effect BEFORE a ban.

How will this possibly be enforced?

Would a criminal really buy a handgun with micro printing technology? Even if such a mythical thing existed? Or would they simply purchase a weapon in an adjacent state? Or are they going to ban spare parts, such as firing pins?

And since I'm on a roll with questions, does anyone still not believe some politicians are simply trying to "ban them completely, turn them all in Mr. and Mrs. America"?

Leave it to the Commies in Kalifornia to INFRINGE on a Constitutional right. We should just give it back to Mexico... the place is worthless! One requirement: Mexico is required to accept all of the anti-freedom liberal moonbats with it!

I find it interesting that the OP's "article" does not mention this bit of information:

Though signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2007, the law couldn't take effect as it was supposed to in 2010 because of patents on the technology,

Source

It doesn't effectively ban guns, it requires guns to be equipped with micro stamping, which as already mentioned by others, makes the sale of new semi-autos unlikely because of manufacturing.

Now, if this catches on with other states, it might make the manufacture of these stamped weapons more widespread, in which case these weapons will be available in states that have enacted these laws. That said, I don't really see a problem with time stamping. Law abiding people will not be affected, because criminals will break laws regardless, and this will just help tie criminals to crime. It seems to simply be an easier way to connect casings to guns.

HOWEVER, this can also lead to people, whose guns are stolen (and not reported) getting in some serious trouble not by failing to report as stolen but by being connected to a crime in which they have no involvement.

That said, the argument "well, innocent people shouldn't this," or "this is taking away the rights of law abiding citizens," really has no relevance.

The sale of new semi-automatics are not banned per se, but new ones are simply required to have these stamping tech. All the manufacturer has to do is make available the weapons with the new tech.

Wow, never thought I would be on this side of the debate.

reply to post by Hopechest


Perhaps you need a better primer on "Infringing". "Infringing" is to trespass or obstruct the free exercise thereof. Do you know why the "Poll Tax" was ruled Unconstitutional? Because it INFIRNGED upon people's rights to vote. The act of requiring one to pay for a right that is mandated under the Constitution was ruled a direct infringement upon that right. Placing an onerous cost upon citizens in order to exercise their freedom to bear arms WILL MOST CERTAINLY be ruled an infringement. Bank on it!

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


first rule of firearms is keep them clean, ammo should not be handled with bare hands for many reasons such
as lead exposure, dirt, oil and other residue from your fingers. as far as imprints on the firing pin goes " firearms
leave distinct firing pin, loading, ejection and expansion marks on spent casings. if my firing pins on my firearms
have to be imprinted i want smiley faces on them. now go have a nice day.

reply to post by TorqueyThePig


Surely, this will be a major blow to LA gang members who, after all, are used to getting their handguns from gun stores, after signing paperwork and doing the background check, and doing the waiting period, right?

Again, just pointless legislation that does NOTHING to actually combat handgun crime.

Just want to clarify a couple of points before everyone panics like I did when first reading this on Friday of last week. I have since chatted with several gun shop owners, a CCW trainer and a lawyer knowledgeable in this area. Here's the deal:

1. Yes, this is law, effective immediately. Although the law was actually passed several years ago, it has been stalled while waiting for legal and technical issues with the micro-stamping to be resolved. According to our AG, they have been resolved and now the law is applicable.

2. You can say that this is a ban on semi-auto handguns in California, but that sounds worse than it is. Not that this isn't bad. California has a long-standing list of "approved" handguns that can be sold here. Weapons are listed by manufacturer, model and caliber. All guns that were on this approved list last week are still on the approved list this week. That will not change - this list just became the "grandfather" list. As long as the manufacturer keeps a particular model on the approved list, it will never have to have the micro-stamping firing pin. Any and all guns already owned, or stilling in your local gun shop, remain legal to own and transfer.

3. Related to point two then, this is a ban on any NEW technology, new manufacturers or new models from existing manufacturers that do not incorporate the micro-stamping and are not yet on the approved list. Sneaky way to do it, since it isn't a direct ban on the weapons, just a new limitation on what is required to get on the California approved list. Want that new Glock? Want a gun that uses the soon to market RFID based trigger safety? Tough luck.

As a poster above pointed out, this is sneaky but legal. It is not a direct ban and the responsibility for compliance is not on the individual gun owners. It is instead an onerous new requirement on the manufacturers that want to sell new weapons in this state. The likelihood of any of them making the significant investment required in new machines and tooling to comply is next to nil. Time will tell though - California is a big market and some may bow down to get their fancy new weapon into the shops. More so if other states pass something similar - then the gun manufacturers will go the route of the auto manufacturers that had to comply with stricter emissions standards to sell cars in California.

Although I'm not at all in support of this law, I am comforted to know that my current collection, and those that I have on my wish list, will remain legal and available for the foreseeable future. Except a Glock Gen 4. But that's another story (not on the approved list, no mag disconnect or chamber indicator, Glock doesn't want to go through California's approval process). And why did this apply to semi-autos only? Why not wheel guns? In my hands at least, both styles are equally effective at poking holes in whatever target I choose to engage.

Just remember this when the next election cycle rolls around and be sure to remind the supporters of this anti-gun nonsense who they work for. Keep calm and carry on!