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

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by neo96

 

It would have to start with the firing pin doing the imprinting. Then, I am sure that the law would migrate to something even more intrusive, like the bottom of the case or the case itself.
The inside of the barrel, just past the throat would have the micro stamping and the act of firing the round, where the shell will expand slightly, would imprint the stamp.

So, now we have receivers as a controlled BATF item, this will include firing pins in that arena as well. Then barrels.

But, what stops the criminal from replacing the stock CA mandated pin with one that is not micro-stamped? Or doing the same with a barrel.

All this is, is a form of Govt control, pushing moronic legislation to send the Progressive base into a self-satisfied frenzy with good intentions warming the blood.

This will do nothing but create an environment of more people leaving the dump of a state, businesses to continue to flee and others not wanting to visit for tourism.

CA is on the path to become the next Detroit.

do you read statistical financial data for California?....are you a low-information person, because nothing you say makes any sense...are you from another country?
as far as the OP's original topic is concerned, I hope the handgun law is overturned by the courts, it's going to increase the smuggling in of weapons, criminals will find a way to circumvent it, and it will cost more to implement and control. the effects of this law have not been realistically thought out.

Originally posted by jimmyx


do you read statistical financial data for California?....are you a low-information person, because nothing you say makes any sense

Yeah, because what I stated was gibberish. Seems that everyone else was able to comprehend it except you.
Thinking the issue is not with me.

Originally posted by jimmyx
...are you from another country?

Yes, the Planet of Liberty and Intelligence.

Originally posted by jimmyx
as far as the OP's original topic is concerned, I hope the handgun law is overturned by the courts, it's going to increase the smuggling in of weapons, criminals will find a way to circumvent it, and it will cost more to implement and control. the effects of this law have not been realistically thought out.

edit on 22-5-2013 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)

Well, at least you got something right in this thread.

reply to post by jimmyx


fair enough.....

revenue AND cuts...better?

doesn't change my post really...but whatever.

You know one of the gimmicks in the revenue savings is the selling of state property that was previously blocked. So instead of a servicing debt you have an asset sale. Here are some additional cuts from your link;

Major spending reductions include $1.7 billion to Medi-Cal, $1.5 billion to California’s welfare-to-work program (CalWORKs), $750 million to the Department of Developmental Services, $500 million to the University of California, $500 million to California State University, and $308 million for a 10 percent reduction in take-home pay for state employees not currently covered under collective bargaining agreements. Brown also plans to trim state government operations by $200 million through a variety of actions, including reorganizations, consolidations and other efficiencies.

Originally posted by FortAnthem


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.
..

That would be wonderful. They could to back to using "night sticks", and no one would be shot by nervous cop anymore.

Thinking logically, I don't see how this law would help anything really.

Why is it that lawmakers lack basic thinking processes?

Originally posted by Hopechest

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.

You are completely wrong, and so is the "Supreme Court"...

The second amendment CLEARLY says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed... it doesn't say BAN, it says INFRINGED, and putting regulations, increasing fees which would restrict many Americans from buying firearms, not to mention that it makes it a PRIVILEDGE and not a RIGHT by IMPOSING high fees, are INFRINGEMENTS upon this RIGHT...

You are making the same type of arguments that leftwingers make about Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution, which states CLEARLY that the only type of government that shall be guaranteed to the states in this union is a REPUBLICAN form of government.

Now leftwingers in power, and others CLAIM that "nobody knows what the founding fathers meant by "REPUBLICAN form of government", when it should be clear...

BTW, most of those "Republicans" in power these days do not really represent what being a Republican means. They have been bribed and corrupted by the elites, so that the party of the people, the Republican party, would lose the backing of many Americans, and more so the poor and even many among the middle class.

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.

Actually, no. The BOR is incorporated. A state cannot violate the second just as they cannot make a state religion or forbidding African-Americans from voting.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Hopechest

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.

You are completely wrong, and so is the "Supreme Court"...

The second amendment CLEARLY says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed... it doesn't say BAN, it says INFRINGED, and putting regulations, increasing fees which would restrict many Americans from buying firearms, not to mention that it makes it a PRIVILEDGE and not a RIGHT by IMPOSING high fees, are INFRINGEMENTS upon this RIGHT...

You are making the same type of arguments that leftwingers make about Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution, which states CLEARLY that the only type of government that shall be guaranteed to the states in this union is a REPUBLICAN form of government.

Now leftwingers in power, and others CLAIM that "nobody knows what the founding fathers meant by "REPUBLICAN form of government", when it should be clear...

BTW, most of those "Republicans" in power these days do not really represent what being a Republican means. They have been bribed and corrupted by the elites, so that the party of the people, the Republican party, would lose the backing of many Americans, and more so the poor and even many among the middle class.

edit on 22-5-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

You are quite correct. By the same false logic, the government could restrict typewriters, computers, and twitter feeds since you can still exercise your free speech with ink pens and shouting in the town square.

Originally posted by howmuch4another

Originally posted by Krakatoa

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.

It is not impossible to comply that is your take on it.
There are many less fortunate that cannot afford a gun..should they just demand a gun shop give them a gun for free because that pesky price tag is an infringement?

So if the state does not supply you with a radio station, is your right to free speech being infringed upon? Methinks you confuse the concept of rights with an entitlement mentality.

If this nonsense of microstamping ever comes to be I'm going to make a business of selling "blank pin placeholders" strictly for testing and maintenance purposes of course.

Idiot politicians and their ignorant crap ruining the lives of everyone.

reply to post by TorqueyThePig


californians will do one of two things.
1. leave the state never to return
2. go to neighboring state and purchase
firearm and bring back to Ca.

reply to post by howmuch4another


If you hold California ID you cannot purchase a weapon that is banned in California, anywhere in Nevada. LEO or not.


Legally

Recently just started getting into politics, law, and all that stuff and the more I learn about my home state (CA) the more I hate it. Loved the state before I knew anything, now I'm going to start looking into getting out of this hell hole. Doesn't feel very "American"...

Another state I will not even visit because I will die in the streets just like many resident Californians will!

reply to post by TorqueyThePig


I'm expecting to see a spent round that can be scanned for
the purchasers name, address, phone no. credit card no.
place of birth and a full on description in 3 2 1.

Of course the round will be more expensive.

There are so many illegal weapons in Cali...this wont make a lick of difference..except to directly affect the legit gun buyer...
But that is fine I dont need a semi auto 45 when have my 44 MAG that can still take your head off...

reply to post by TorqueyThePig


Did you even read the bill? It requires Semiauto Hand Guns to have microstamping technology: Following the issuance of the Department of Justice's certification, the provisions of Penal Code
section 31910, subdivision (b )(7)(A) are in immediate effect. Therefore, to be listed on the
Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale in California, a semiautomatic pistol must be equipped
with microstamping technology.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by TorqueyThePig


I was incorrect. It applies to handguns.

But, I am sure it will bleed over to all firearms there.

Nothing like infringement to make a Progressive smile.

reply to post by howmuch4another

nope..States rights. totally within their jurisdiction.

Yeah, if they don't belong to the union.

yet another attempt at? i have given up trying to figure out why our world is so screwed, but it is fun watching all the idiot's here and in the world, running around like chickens whom have lost their heads.

more laws when the crime rate is down, teen pregnancy down, lots of things "we the citizens" handle are doing better yet we have "officials" clamoring to make more laws to fail yet again to bring down something we the people already are doing without them.

they seek control that's all, nothing else matters but control to control freaks, not life, not god, not the magic eight ball, just control of other human beings lives.

the way our governments world wide are acting, i and you have nothing to worry about because they are self destructing before our eyes, they will have nothing left soon, they will then be at the bottom of the barrel where they belong.

this forum has become so boring, the topics never change, just the words or the date and that's because our society is collapsing, running like a kindergarten class and will continue the coarse physics dictates, down. i'm enjoying the hell out of my life and so should you all, don't spend any time worrying about the control freaks because they are self destructive and will not last much longer, when they have begun feeding on themselves.

i hope you all can have a smile whilst laughing at these fools like i have.