Tuesday, October 16, 2007

California. Again.

Today we learn that the Republican-In-Name-Only Governor of California has gone and signed off on yet another reason that my shadow will never darken the shores of that State.

Thanks to Governor Schwarzenegger, any handgun sold in the State of California starting in the year 2010 must stamp a number capable of identifying the make, model and serial number of the firearm in two places upon the cartridge cases each time the firearm is discharged -- a technology called 'micro-stamping'.

It should comes as no surprise that the Governor and California Legislature ignored a State-funded study of the technology which found micro-stamping to be seriously flawed -- indeed, their own researchers recommended against implementing this technology.

*sigh*

So ... will handgun manufacturers make one micro-stamping model for California and a different, non-stamping model for everyone else?

I doubt it.

Given that most crimes are committed with pistols that have been previously stolen; and given that folks that steal guns don't notify the authorities with their names and addresses once they steal the guns -- finding a micro-stamped case at the scene tells the police ... what? That the victim was killed with a stolen gun?

Bloody lot of help that is.

Given that in a blind test, only 20% of the micro-stamped numbers were correctly identified -- out of five micro-stamped numbers, only one was correctly read -- with "subjective interpretation of the examiner" seriously impacting the total results ... what damned good is this going to do in a trial?

Since four out of five numbers were wrongly read, seems like a better than average chance that law-abiding California citizens will be wrongly implicated by this technology, thus having to spend a great deal of their money to prove their innocence.

If I were a resident of California, I'd demand to know what funds were being set aside to compensate those wrongly accused by deficient technology.

By Odin's one eye -- when the hell are we going to get some real, live, actual conservative politicians, instead of these gods-be-damned fakes?

LawDog

41 comments:

David said...

I hope that gun manufacturers will simply refuse to sell in California.

Gerry N said...

http://www.softgreenglow.com/wp/?p=4635

This might make you feel a bit better.

Justin Buist said...

Well, it won't be every handgun sold come 2010, just those that aren't yet on the approved list. So long as a firearm is there on Dec 31, 2009 and it never drops off the list it can still be sold.

If the manufacturer fails to pay the relisting fee in time, it has to be recertified, at which time it'll be required to microstamp the casing.

Further, the DOJ has the right to force a pistol to be recertified if changes are made in the manufacturing process. One new part going to MIM or even changing of the finish and it'll have to go through recertification.

Still, that doesn't make the new law any easier to swallow.

Annie said...

So if the firing pin is doing the "stamp" job, what sort of hassles are there to look forward to replacing your broken one??

Gus said...

99.99% of politicians should be covered in honey and staked out over an anthill

The others should just be shot.

There is something to be said for the common man entering into politics for a short duration and then departing. Unfortunately, it has become profitable to politic.

BryanP said...

As many others have pointed out on other web sites, this is not about reducing crime. The objective is to make guns that much more expensive and harder to acquire by the average law abiding folk.

Assuming the gun manufacturers give in and start making them I suspect instructions on how to obliterate the stampers will become quite common.

I'm just curious where the second mark comes from? The firing pin is the most commonly mentioned marker. What is the other one?

Anonymous said...

Oh, gus, be sure you shoot them with a genyoowine, approved, certified microstamped pistol-thus making it more legal?
LawMom

C. S. P. Schofield said...

I think it would be interesting to challenge this idiocy on Second Amendment grounds, arguing that "shall not be infringed" should cover a hell of a lot more ground than simply "Shall not be abolished entirely". Like "Shall not be taxed, registered, obstructed, or otherwise interfered with".

It would take Non-Profit Think Tank type money, but it would be worth it to see the likes of Shrillary and Kennedy shitting pickles if it went very far.

LawDog said...

I'm just curious where the second mark comes from? The firing pin is the most commonly mentioned marker. What is the other one?

I'm guessing -- and this is only a guess -- that numbers are either etched into the chamber walls, or are raised from the surface of the chamber wall in some fashion.

When the powder ignites, it would force the malleable brass cartridge against these numbers, causing the brass to flow into the etched numbers, or causing raised numbers to stamp into the brass.

Just a guess on my part, though.

Desertrat said...

For all practical purposes, guns don't wear out. For handguns, then, the street price for an "old gun" might well increase.

Some goblins might well be more likely than before to take a hacksaw to a rifle or a shotgun...

Hey, investment opportunity: Buy stock in Dremel.

As usual, all this idiocy does is make life more difficult for honest people. But that's what so many of today's politicos are all about...

Art

Old NFO said...

Peoples Republic of Kalifornia strikes again...
This is just one more in the tide of CA laws designed to make it impossible to legally own or shoot a gun in CA. In LA they tried to pass a law making it illegal to buy ammunition!!!
Yet when I talk to friends out there that are LEO's, not a single %^&* thing is being done to increase their ability to actually deter crime or arrest perps. If they DO make a collar, over 90% of their time is tied up with paperwork and FOIA down to their notepads.

John Stephens said...

So what happens when people reload brass?

Oana said...

Just curious...I wonder if, come 2015 or so, some bright legislator will think of regulating brass catchers if used anywhere other than a shooting range? Hmmm...

Oana on THR

Kaerius said...

I'm just curious where the second mark comes from? The firing pin is the most commonly mentioned marker. What is the other one?

My guess would be the ejection pin, though obviously not present in revolvers...

Chuck@PodunkOutpost said...

Oana said...

Just curious...I wonder if, come 2015 or so, some bright legislator will think of regulating brass catchers if used anywhere other than a shooting range? Hmmm...


I too was wondering how they thought this would work with revolvers.

Think of the potential market for fired brass from a range. All of those random weapon stamps would make great "clutter" for a crime scene.

Even with the stamp, is there a means to match a bullet with the case it came from? If not, at best you only really know that a late model pistol MAY have been fired in a particular locale.

Reasonable doubt, anyone???

Anonymous said...

Effects:
1. Drive up sales of handguns before 2010.
2. Drive emigration of productive citizens out of California.
3. Drive up the price of defensive weapons to law-abiding citizens sharply, without cutting the supply to criminals.

Brilliant.

#3 is the really important one. As we saw in Britain and Australia, if you can get gun ownership low enough in the general population you can effectively ban it without a public outcry. This is a step in the same direction in this country.

KD5NRH said...

AFAICT, it doesn't apply to revolvers, and note the other bit in here:
Commencing January 1, 2010, for all semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 12131, it is not designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol,
etched or otherwise imprinted in two or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired, provided that the Department of Justice certifies that the
technology used to create the imprint is available to more than one
manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions.


AIUI, the micrstamping patent won't run out until sometime after 2030. If that's the case, I suspect Schwarzenegger saw an opportunity to sign a bill that will almost certainly be changed or eliminated long before it can actually go into effect.

BryanP said...

I suspect Schwarzenegger saw an opportunity to sign a bill that will almost certainly be changed or eliminated long before it can actually go into effect.

Riiiiight. And GWB signed campaign finance "knowing it would be overturned by the Supreme Court."

Anonymous said...

Is there an exemption for guns purchased by law enforcement? Because we all know they never get their guns stolen by crooks, right? Or go postal themselves with a department issued AR-15? (sarcasm off)

markm

Anonymous said...

Another blogger already posted the information that the company owning the patent rights to the marking technology has stated that it will licence the technology at no cost to any gun manyufacturer who wants it.

Captain Ahab said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Captain Ahab said...

a technology made obsolete by this simple device!
http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/
showproduct?saleitemid=112864

They stated cartridge not projectile right.....stupid. Wow that's going to work real well with revolvers! what's the most popular cartridge with criminals....last time i checked it was .38 special out of a 2-4" barrel revolver.


I couldn't paste my link so uhh it's broken up over 2 lines...

Anonymous said...

Another law that politicians can use to say, "See, we care, we're doing something..." even if the net effect is making it harder for the working poor, who tend to live in higher crime areas to defend themselves. The rich can afford the more expensive micro guns, and non-lead ammunition, and political contributions to favorable sherrifs who can grant them permits and...the list goes on.
Doug in Colorado

Captain Ahab said...

also on the grounds of the second amendment. That only applies to the FEDERAL government. If the fed tried to pass these laws it would apply. The states on the other hand are free to attempt to restrict any of your rights.

Anonymous said...

Best pick up ALL your brass from the range, otherwise the nice policeman might just come knocking on your door wondering why your numbered brass was found at a crime scene. Better have a good alibi!

Wonder if the microstamping of the chamber might cause rough extraction and need to be 'polished' out.

Can't imagine that the local PD's will be required to follow these new regs-seems that police don't like being experimented on for some reason.

Kristopher said...

Just another excuse to screw with gun owners. It doesn't have to have any effect but the desired one:

Making handguns more expensive for us mere peasants.

Kristopher said...

Oh, and the owner of the patent has offered royalty free use of it for CA bound handguns ... so the law can take effect immediately.

phyphor[thr] said...

Yes, Arnold is a complete fucking dolt. It's just a 'feel-good' law passed to make folks believe the California government is 'doing something' about crime around here.

phyphor[thr] said...

I'm guessing -- and this is only a guess -- that numbers are either etched into the chamber walls, or are raised from the surface of the chamber wall in some fashion.

I recall a news report last night that claimed either the extractor or ejector would make the mark, but then again, it's local TV news.

Peter said...

Ahab: we have the little cited 14th Amendment on our side. All the federal level limits on power are binding on the states.

Also, there's only one company that has the patent, and that's until 2023, so that would seem to invalidate the whole mess on its' face.

Nevertheless, all Kalifornistanian gun owners should vote the Governator back into Bad Movie Actor status at the next opportunity.

Rick R. said...

Yeah, It doesn't seem to matter that the company has offered to license the patent, royalty free to any company desiring to make California compliant guns.

The LAW says "the technology used to create the imprint is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions.

(Emphasis mine.)

So long as that patent is ENFORCEABLE, then the patent is NOT "unencumbered by any patent restrictions". A requirement to get a free license is still an "encumbrance".

Of course, if the company holding the patent wishes to VOID their own patent, that would be different.

Betcha they helped write the law in order to make money -- but didn't forsee THIS little stumbling block.

Yeah, they offered to give free licenses to manufacturers for CALIFORNIA-bound guns. . . and if it takes off in CA, they could expect MA, NJ, NY, WA, IL, MD, etc. to jump on the bandwagon. And those "free" licenses don't cover production for THOSE states. . .

But I'm a cynic -- just like Bill Ruger thought he could cut down on competition from Glock (on hadguns) and Colt (on rifles) when he worded the first draft of the Assaulkt Weapons Ban so HIS products were exempt.

JohnS said...

Is there an exemption for guns purchased by law enforcement? Because we all know they never get their guns stolen by crooks, right? Or go postal themselves with a department issued AR-15?

Yes, but because LEO are not restricted to buying guns on the Roster; this bill creates another hoop to jum through before a gun can be 'certified' 'not unsafe'.

Bob said...

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."

article 2 Constitution of the United States

My guess would be that the framers of the Constitution figured we could grow 'em sleazy enough that we didn't have to import 'em

To think that some were calling for an amendment of the second article so that Arnold could run for president!

Cybrludite said...

Captain Ahab,

I'd point out that the Second, unlike the First, says nothing about Congress and/or FedGov. It simply says, "shall not be infringed"

Rico said...

And I'd guess that criminals will now start a blackmarket for 'old' guns, pre-this nonsense, that won't stamp anything on anything. I guess the morons in Sacramento are hoping that this will kill off the gun trade entirely... Knives, anyone?

Simeron said...

I took a little time and did some research on the web and found some interesting data on gun control in history and the little project in Aussie territory. Posted in on the blog.

You would think with this kind of data gun control would be a dead issue in the US but, it ain't by a long shot....sigh.

Sarah said...

Kalifornia is slowly sliding into the ocean anyway. Maybe God will hurry up and finish it off soon. Then I'll finally be able to say that something good happened in that state.

Anonymous said...

They can't convict without a jury.

It's spelled nullification, folks.

Will *you* join the party?

Sendarius said...

AFAIK, the law says (and I paraphrase) "... the spent cartridge case must be stamped in two places with a number that can be used to identify the make, model, and serial number of the firearm ...".

Doesn't that make it completely within the letter of the law for a manufacturer to stamp the cases from each gun they make with a number that only THEY can match to the required information?

And, I can't find anything that says that the manufacturer cannot then charge LE for each translation.

Anybody know different?

Lady Jane said...

Very informative.. That puffed up, steroid abusing f***er is a right pain in the arse.. course, that could be said of all Californian's.

lilbiter-rants said...

They should really consider changing it to include one that imprints during the loading process.
If the round is marked during the process of chambering it, it should make for a cleaner mark.
Personally, I think that if there where something in the barrel of my gun changing the way it shot that I would end up filing it off.