# California Microstamping **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 14, 2007, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695 "2007-10-14T17:37:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/101 "2014-01-26T07:20:40Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > And so we come full circle, because neither does the NRA, who you explicitly accused of wanting convicted felons and insane people to have firearms. Weird that you have the same viewpoint as an organization you revile. Where have I reviled the NRA in this thread? You are making that up. Admit it. I believe every owner of a firearm in this country should have each firearm in a written registry that the government has access to. I also believe that the government should provide free health care to all people in its borders. It would then have access to information on who is insane enough to be a danger to themselves or others. Also, presumably, the government has a list of felons. The only way to effectively apply the policy of not letting the insane or felons have guns is to compare lists of the insane and felons to the list of gun owners. And then go take the guns away from those people. The NRA makes a huge stink every time someone mentions gun registration because, their mouthpieces assume, it means that gun opponents will use that list to seize all guns, and therefore registration must not be required. But as a practical matter, until all guns are required to be registered, we will not be able to take them away from the people becoming insane or demented because we won’t know who has them until they shoot up a theater for texting or other insane activity. I criticize the NRA for being against registration of all firearms. I also support a “right” to drive a vehicle, rather than a “privilege” and that the government should take it away when dementia or other condition sets in. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/102 "2014-01-26T07:39:09Z")
My apology. I had you confused with **Measure for Measure**. But I strongly disagree with you about registration lists. First off, if it’s legal it’s not the government’s business. Second, it assumes that you are going to commit a crime, because why else would they care? Of course, that ship has already sailed. The police, in spite of any prohibitions on registries, know what you have. It’s true here in Pennsylvania, anyway. Imagine my surprise when a State Police trooper read off my entire inventory, something he should not have been able to do. But that’s neither here nor there. Well into its 6th year this thread has not yet turned into gun-control thread #8675309. Let’s keep it on point. I admit I’m partially to blame for this current tangent, but I think we ought to kill it here. What say you? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/103 "2014-01-26T08:22:20Z")
I’m not pleased with the government being up in our every little piece of business, be it microstamping or the NSA. But they are. Microstamping might actually solve crimes, so on balance, it might have some use, whereas the NSA stuff didn’t stop the Boston Marathon bombing or help solve it. Police have to do a lot of written reports and explaining every time they discharge a firearm other than at the range (or even when they draw one). Microstamping might have to require people be accountable for what is in their gun safe in much the same way that red light cameras get licenses for cars. I really do want to take away guns from every person who is criminal or insane or becomes insane. We are going to have to tackle the problem or put up with all the shootings, which have gone on since repeating firearms got popular. Taggants in explosives and tasers etc are proposed as a solution to a real problem. Every solution to a problem is an infringement on another interest. I shoot my DNA into a nice lady and it has my name on it (assuming I’m in a database) and then I’m responsible for a child. Kinda the same for a gun. I shoot it, and it’s got my gun’s name on it. Yep, it is easier to ask me to be responsible for the consequences and explain why I shot my gun or I didn’t report it stolen. I’d rather that the the NSA keeping track of every person I’ve ever called without any suspicion. My calls are always legal business or personal business and never terrorism. Shooting my gun (I don’t have one) in public, I figure it is okay for me to be required to explain. ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/104 "2014-01-26T14:42:12Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > I believe every owner of a firearm in this country should have each firearm in a written registry that the government has access to. So let’s say I am at a shooting range, and an LEO approaches me. How is the LEO going to know if my firearm is registered in a written registry that the government has access to? ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/105 "2014-01-26T17:16:39Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > LOL: yeah, you keep believing that, you loon. I’m guessing the number of NRA rubes who support civil rights _in practice_ via for example the ACLU is minimal. The NRA is an industry lobby that poses as a human rights organization for the benefit of the loons, rubes, gulls and swallows that make up its proud and posturing membership. These crazies think the best way to treat mental health conditions is to pack the afflicted’s pockets with pistols: we know this because the NRA props the gun show loophole. They need help, no I mean _treatment_. > > Who defended Oliver North? Who is on the NSA’s case? Who opposes torture? Not the NRA. The argument above is delusional: it raises the nutbar to impressive heights. What the hell kind of bullshit is this? What does this have to do with me calling foul on someone who celebrates end runs around the constitute? The NRA has nothing do with what I said! Straight up WTF here. 😕 > [@](#): > > I’ll make a prediction. Which we can compare with, you know,\* reality\*. The law passed by courageous members of the California legislature will help put hardened criminals behind bars. How is this at all close to comparable to reality? There’s zero reason to believe that microstamping, which is essentially vaporware, will help solve diddly shit. Let alone help put hardened criminals behind bars, since hardened criminals are the ones most likely to be aware of the absurdly simple ways to defeat the supposed crime-solving function of this law. > [@](#): > > Wild-eyed NRA fanatics insist that this won’t happen because they say its easy to mod a firearm to defeat the microstamp. Fine, bub. Make a prediction then. Because, you know, what works in practice, _works_. Everything else is hot air and hallucination. My prediction is that the [NSSF/SAAMI lawsuit](http://www.nssf.org/newsroom/releases/show.cfm?PR=010914-california-microstamping-lawsuit.cfm&path=2014) is going to be victorious and get the law shot down in court. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/106 "2014-01-26T18:57:30Z")
How is CA microstamping related at all to the NRA, background checks for private party sales, the EFF or ACLU, licensing and registration, assault weapon bans, or any of the other obvious efforts at distraction from the point of this thread. Seriously, not every topic that concerns firearms is an invitation to rehash every topic under the sun. It should be stipulated that microstamping technology does not exist in practice. It would be similar if there was a law that said you could only register to vote if you did so in your flying car. I live in CA. CA is great for a number of reasons, and it sucks for a number of reasons. Microstamping requirements and the roster itself are in the column of the stupid for CA. > [@Monster104](#): > > My prediction is that the [NSSF/SAAMI lawsuit](http://www.nssf.org/newsroom/releases/show.cfm?PR=010914-california-microstamping-lawsuit.cfm&path=2014) is going to be victorious and get the law shot down in court. While I hope this lawsuit succeeds, we would be much better off if[Pena v. Lindley (pdf)](http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/pena/Pena-v-Cid-complaint.pdf) (formerly Pena v. Cid) was successful. It is also challenging the microstamping requirement, but primarily seeks to eliminate entire safe handguns roster. This is being argued by the Calguns Foundation, the SAF (who won Heller and McDonald) and is being argued by Alan Gura. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/107 "2014-01-26T20:18:49Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > So let’s say I am at a shooting range, and an LEO approaches me. How is the LEO going to know if my firearm is registered in a written registry that the government has access to? That is an excellent question! Suppose they are investigating a case of _murder._ Your spouse has been _murdered._ (I hope not, it’s just a hypothetical.) As the spouse of the _murdered_ you are the number one suspect as most murders are done by spouses and lovers. Let’s presume that they already have visited the scene of the crime and identified the body. You have not been told yet. They have heard from the _butler_ that you are at the gun range. On their way to the gun range they have looked up your name in the database (as well as the _butler_ because she probably did it as the secret lover of your spouse) and have a list of your various firearms. They approach you, ask that you put the gun down (and shoot you if you don’t) and give you the bad news. You are devastated. Then they ask you if the weapon you are firing is registered. You decline to answer based on your 5th Amendment rights cause you’re kind of a dick. Based on probable cause that it may be the murder weapon (as the calibre is not yet determined by the coroner), they seize the gun as evidence. It is either on your extensive list of registered weapons, or it is not. If not, you get charged with not registering a weapon and sent to prison just for that. It does turn out to be the weapon that murdered your spouse. But you are not arrested. It turns out that your hidden camera security system has video recorded the _butler_ shooting your spouse and replacing the weapon in your vehicle knowing you were going shooting, trying to frame you. So the short answer to the question is kinda like how they know your car is registered. You either do it correctly or not. Like most laws, compliance before there is a reason for a criminal investigation is a matter of you being a law abiding citizen complying with annoying requirements. As for being at the shooting range without any suspicion or probable cause, LEO can approach you, but you don’t have to cooperate, you can go about your business. Ever try to go through a sobriety check point completely sober and refusing to say whether you have been drinking? I have. They let you through. Assuming you don’t reek of booze. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/108 "2014-01-26T20:34:25Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > How is CA microstamping related at all to the NRA, background checks for private party sales, the EFF or ACLU, licensing and registration, assault weapon bans, or any of the other obvious efforts at distraction from the point of this thread. Seriously, not every topic that concerns firearms is an invitation to rehash every topic under the sun. No relation, basically. It’s a page 2 hijack of an 8 month old thread. > [@ExTank](#): > > [You have a strange definition of compromise.](http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-compromise-illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/) Sure you can take a no-compromise stance. But when you oppose background checks for gun sales between private parties who are not related to one another, you open yourself up to ridicule and derision. That’s how it works. If you want to be taken seriously, remove the red rubber nose and take off the clown suit. > [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > I didn’t ask for you to show your ass, I asked for cites. Not rhetoric. I thought that was a reasonable response to my rhetoric, actually. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I think we’ve been over this before but the NRA is not an industry shill. They have led boycotts against companies like smith & wesson because the NRA felt those companies were betraying the second amendment. Intra-coalition problems: so what? > [@](#): > > I think we’ve shown the NRA tax returns several times. The facts did not support the notion that the industry was financing the NRA. This honestly puzzles me. Their 501 c(3) is presumably a small part of their operations. Do 501 c(4)s even release tax returns? Do 990s report the identity of donors? 😕 > [@](#): > > \*I am an NRA member but I’m not four square with their politics but in the realm of gun rights, they are the lesser of many evils (go check out the gun owners of america or almost any other gun rights group, the NRA is just about the mildest group out there and I’m certainly not going to support a groups that want to turn our second amendment into something like what Mexico has). You need to man up and find a group that doesn’t cater to crackpots. > [@](#): > > I think the objection to the Manchin Toomey bill was more of a “fuck you” to the gun grabbers than anything else. The gun grabbers had wasted all their political capital on an AWB and didn’t have enough dry powder to get a gun show loophole so the NRA said “fuck you” and blocked that too. I think if folks on the gun control side had led off with the Manchin Toomey bill, the NRA would have felt they were getting off easy and supported the deal, heck I think the gun grabbers could have gotten quite a bit before they made the AWB blunder. Thats just my opinion, YMMV. I thought that pursuing Manchin Toomey was a waste of time and that no gun control provisions would leave the US congress. I expressed those sentiments in approximately Jan 2013 at TPM, after one of the shootings. Most commentors their were understandably appalled, but I believe my prediction was borne out. I think an organization of gun owners should draft gun control bills. And if their logic and evidence doesn’t survive scrutiny then they should be criticized. If their positions are nutty (like the NRA’s) they should be laughed at. **ExTank** (and many others) might respond that you need to counter emotional-laden appeals with hysteria - fight fallacy with fallacy. To which I say: fine. But then those with ridiculous positions should bear the costs of ridicule and derision. Freedom, you know. > [@](#): > > Why would you expect a gun rights organization to fight for those things? Where was NARAL when it came to Oliver North? I don’t. But NARAL doesn’t pretend to be upholding freedom for ALL. I used to subscribe to Lynn’s Stamp News. They never argued that their hobby was the key to upholding western civilization. In other words, they were not completely unhinged. > [@](#): > > I predict that the law fails judicial review and if it doesn’t fail,I predict that the “hardened criminals” don’t go out to get their guns fitted with microstamping technology. So all the guns in the possession of hardened criminals will continue to not have microstamping technology. If the hardened criminals have to buy a new gun, I predict that they will buy a gun in Nevada or something, they simply won’t buy a gun with microstamping technology. > > I don’t really object to microstamping technology (if you could prove to me that it would do any good and wouldn’t make guns significantly more expensive) so much as I object to the fact that this is being used by California to ban guns the same way that some states are requiring abortion clinics to have admission privileges at nearby hospitals to simply get rid of abortion clinics. > [@Monster104](#): > > My prediction is that the [NSSF/SAAMI lawsuit](http://www.nssf.org/newsroom/releases/show.cfm?PR=010914-california-microstamping-lawsuit.cfm&path=2014) is going to be victorious and get the law shot down in court. Thanks for stepping up and making some predictions. Frankly, I don’t see why people are bothered by so-called end runs around the 2nd amendment, given the completely porous borders between the California and Nevada. And I’m highly dubious about hysteric gun-nut claims. For example a look at wikipedia reveals that the law doesn’t cover law enforcement. * * * **Rhetoric: ON** Is there any evidence that microstamping could do some good? Of course there is: take the case of Patricia Acioli, a judge whose passion was taking down organized crime and corrupt cops. She was shot and killed in 2009. Like most gunnuts, the perps thought they were invincible, so they didn’t bother to cover their trail. [But their bullets were marked](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/16/patricia-acioli-brazil-assassination_n_967021.html), leading to [arrest warrants being issued](http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2011/09/201192874510825918.html) for 8 killers. Auxiliary Cite: _Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis_, Chapter 17. So yeah, I think microprinting will catch criminals, because criminals tend to lack proper planning capacity and lunatics with popguns think they’re invincible. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/109 "2014-01-26T21:37:59Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Frankly, I don’t see why people are bothered by so-called end runs around the 2nd amendment, given the completely porous borders between the California and Nevada. And I’m highly dubious about hysteric gun-nut claims. For example a look at wikipedia reveals that the law doesn’t cover law enforcement. I’m not sure how familiar you are with the Roster, or if you’re from CA. Firearms law in CA is very convoluted and many law enforcement agencies have difficulty interpreting the complex set of rules in the state. People are bothered by this even given the fact that NV and CA have porous borders because to acquire weapons in NV and then bring them back into CA in the manner you are describing is illegal. This law affects law abiding citizens. It does not affect people willing to break the law. The claims by people who are opposed to this law are not dubious, nor are they made entirely by hysteric gun rights advocates. The microstamping law prohibits the sale of any gun that does not have non-existent technology. Ignore the fact whether the tech would in fact be good or bad. It doesn’t exist. The law requires something that doesn’t exist, meaning that no new semi automatics can be sold in CA. That’s not a dubious claim. Like I said, it’s like forcing people to register to vote only from their flying cars. Or presenting ID in the form of holographic retina display emanating from their ass. The tech doesn’t exist. There is no way for the tech to demonstrate any efficacy because it’s not based in reality. When the tech changes and it does exist, then we can argue about the merits or demerits of it, but right now, you may as well be arguing that transporters from Star Trek would be totally rad. And the fact that Police are exempted from this law is also bad. Why are police exempted from the Roster at all? The idea of the Roster is that the state of CA is supposed to determine what pistols are “not unsafe”. That is what the roster is. Why are police permitted to purchase weapons that don’t meet this criteria? Never mind the fact that there is an equal protection argument against exempting police from this law. Even more egregious is that police can then sell the off roster handgun to anyone they want. ---
**Author:** ![Capt\_Kirk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@Capt\_Kirk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt_Kirk)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/110 "2014-01-26T23:54:53Z")
I started reading this thread today and was prodded to ask myself the question… “Does Microstamping actually work?” For starters, I grew up working in a machine shop and have stamped part/serial numbers on many different materials with regular dies. IME different materials take stamps very differently and often require different amounts of force. Primers and “Brass” are made with a wide variety of materials of different thickness and hardnesses. For instance in .40 cal alone, I have “Brass” in aluminum/aluminimum, steel and brass. How much variation in microstamps would there be? WAG quite a bit but my opinion is not enough, so I looked for studies. This one from UC Davis [http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news\_detail.lasso?id=8643](http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=8643) And this one from the National Academies [http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12162](http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12162) There are a couple of problems here 1. Both are old 2. They both recommend more study 3. The UC Davis one was not allowed to use the equipment to read the microstamps from the Patent holder and had to rely on observation alone. 4. This does not seem to be a mature technology and the Company/Guy who holds the patent does not even have a web presence, that I could find YMMV. I am aware of the patent extension move by CalGuns. [https://www.google.com/search?q=ID+Dynamics+Londonderry+NH&oq=ID+Dynamics+Londonderry+NH&aqs=chrome…69i57.11459j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es\_sm=93&ie=UTF-8](https://www.google.com/search?q=ID+Dynamics+Londonderry+NH&oq=ID+Dynamics+Londonderry+NH&aqs=chrome..69i57.11459j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8) While I can see a long term benefit and am not knee jerk opposed to the idea, I have to say that this does appear to be an attempt to outlaw a particular type of firearm without doing it directly. I also suspect that the cost estimates, for implementation, were pulled out of someones posterior orifice. The fact that LEO’s are exempt makes me highly suspect of the whole thing. **Capt** ---
**Author:** ![Reyemile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@Reyemile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reyemile)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/111 "2014-01-27T01:11:48Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > This law affects law abiding citizens. It does not affect people willing to break the law. This is a stupid argument. It applies to any law, ever. > [@](#): > > The claims by people who are opposed to this law are not dubious, nor are they made entirely by hysteric gun rights advocates. The microstamping law prohibits the sale of any gun that does not have non-existent technology. Ignore the fact whether the tech would in fact be good or bad. It doesn’t exist. The law requires something that doesn’t exist, meaning that no new semi automatics can be sold in CA. That’s not a dubious claim. Like I said, it’s like forcing people to register to vote only from their flying cars. Or presenting ID in the form of holographic retina display emanating from their ass. The tech doesn’t exist. There is no way for the tech to demonstrate any efficacy because it’s not based in reality. This is not a stupid argument. It is, however, based on false premises. The technology was invented in 1990 by an NRA member. [See the end of this article.](http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Gun-control-Cartridge-ID-law-to-take-effect-4527165.php) > [@](#): > > And the fact that Police are exempted from this law is also bad. Why are police exempted from the Roster at all? The idea of the Roster is that the state of CA is supposed to determine what pistols are “not unsafe”. That is what the roster is. Why are police permitted to purchase weapons that don’t meet this criteria? Never mind the fact that there is an equal protection argument against exempting police from this law. Even more egregious is that police can then sell the off roster handgun to anyone they want. This is not a stupid argument. It is also based on actual facts. However, it suggests that the law should be _strengthened_–not ignored. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/112 "2014-01-27T01:55:16Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > But that’s neither here nor there. Well into its 6th year this thread has not yet turned into gun-control thread #8675309. Let’s keep it on point. I admit I’m partially to blame for this current tangent, but I think we ought to kill it here. What say you? I had a wall of text ready to post in response to several of the posts upthread until i read this. You’re right, there are enough gun threadsfloating around in the pit that we don’t really need another one. > [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Microstamping might actually solve crimes, so on balance, it might have some use, …Shooting my gun (I don’t have one) in public, I figure it is okay for me to be required to explain. OK, just so long as you realize that you are really just targetting gunfire by previously law abiding citizens (which might be a laudable goal). How much does it cost to make a gun microstamp compliant? The reason I ask is because it seems like microstamping is being used to circumvent the constitution to ban guns as M2M implies upthread. > [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > So let’s say I am at a shooting range, and an LEO approaches me. How is the LEO going to know if my firearm is registered in a written registry that the government has access to? They will have an app for that. In practice, noone is going to spot check your guns for registration at the gun range. They are going to check any guns you might have on you if you get detained. If you get arrested or they get a search warrant, then they will run checks on any guns they find. etc. > [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > So the short answer to the question is kinda like how they know your car is registered. You either do it correctly or not. Like most laws, compliance before there is a reason for a criminal investigation is a matter of you being a law abiding citizen complying with annoying requirements. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Intra-coalition problems: so what? It wasn’t internecine squabbling between NRA spoonsors, it was the NRA enforcing discipline on manufacturers. If you insist that the NRA only does what it does because it is because it is in thrall to gu manufacturers, then the only people who are going to take you seriously are people who are already deep in gun grabber territory. You basically sound like the folks who say that NARAL is in thrall to the financial influence of the abortion providers. They simply cannot comprehend that there are a lot of people who genuinely care about abortion rights just like you can’t seem to comprehend that there are a lot of people who genuinely care about gun rights. > [@](#): > > This honestly puzzles me. Their 501 c(3) is presumably a small part of their operations. Do 501 c(4)s even release tax returns? Do 990s report the identity of donors? 😕 If you google NRA 990, the form that pops up is most likely to be the 501(c)(4) form. The 501(c)(4) entity is largely funded by membership dues. Donations were about 25% of NRA revenue. A large part of those donations are from the membership and from the estates of members. > [@](#): > > You need to man up and find a group that doesn’t cater to crackpots. Every special interest group caters to crackpots. Find me a gun rights organization that has any influence at all that doesn’t cater to what you consider crackpots. I’ve looked but maybe your google fu is better than mine. I would love to support a gun rights organization that isn’t so obviously in bed with the Republican party. Find me one and I’ll, join. I the meanwhile, folks like you are attacking the second amendment and the NRA seems to be pretty effective at stopping you. [quoteI thought that pursuing Manchin Toomey was a waste of time and that no gun control provisions would leave the US congress. I expressed those sentiments in approximately Jan 2013 at TPM, after one of the shootings. Most commentors their were understandably appalled, but I believe my prediction was borne out.[/quote] I disagree. I think you could have gotten the Manchin Toomey bill back in January of 2013. > [@](#): > > I think an organization of gun owners should draft gun control bills. And if their logic and evidence doesn’t survive scrutiny then they should be criticized. If their positions are nutty (like the NRA’s) they should be laughed at. **ExTank** (and many others) might respond that you need to counter emotional-laden appeals with hysteria - fight fallacy with fallacy. To which I say: fine. But then those with ridiculous positions should bear the costs of ridicule and derision. Freedom, you know. You say that like there is no gun regulation in existence today. We already have a fairly developed set of gun regulations. Sure its not perfect but I can’t help but feel that the drive from the anti-gun folks to eliminate gun rights entirely makes gun owners reluctant to accede to any more regulation than what we already have. I personally don’t think you shoot down a good idea because it might be followed by a bad idea. If you could have shot down the good idea then you will be able to shoot down the bad idea as well. > [@](#): > > I don’t. But NARAL doesn’t pretend to be upholding freedom for ALL. Where does the NRA do that? > [@](#): > > Frankly, I don’t see why people are bothered by so-called end runs around the 2nd amendment, given the completely porous borders between the California and Nevada. I believe that going to Nevada to get your guns and bringing them back into California would make you a criminal. > [@](#): > > For example a look at wikipedia reveals that the law doesn’t cover law enforcement. Who claimed that it did? > [@](#): > > Is there any evidence that microstamping could do some good? Of course there is: take the case of Patricia Acioli, a judge whose passion was taking down organized crime and corrupt cops. She was shot and killed in 2009. Like most gunnuts, the perps thought they were invincible, so they didn’t bother to cover their trail. [But their bullets were marked](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/16/patricia-acioli-brazil-assassination_n_967021.html), leading to [arrest warrants being issued](http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2011/09/201192874510825918.html) for 8 killers. Auxiliary Cite: _Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis_, Chapter 17. > > So yeah, I think microprinting will catch criminals, because criminals tend to lack proper planning capacity and lunatics with popguns think they’re invincible. You realize that is not microstamping right? Every bullet casing I have seen has some identifying marks that might include lot number. They identified the bullets in this case as coming from a lot that was issued to the police. The article does not say that this lot information was useful in identifying the shooters since it was issued to several police departments. > [@Bone](#): > > And the fact that Police are exempted from this law is also bad. Why are police exempted from the Roster at all? The idea of the Roster is that the state of CA is supposed to determine what pistols are “not unsafe”. That is what the roster is. Why are police permitted to purchase weapons that don’t meet this criteria? Never mind the fact that there is an equal protection argument against exempting police from this law. Even more egregious is that police can then sell the off roster handgun to anyone they want. What do you do when the gang wears blue? :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/113 "2014-01-27T02:30:40Z")
> [@Reyemile](#): > > This is a stupid argument. It applies to any law, ever. I think this was in response to the statement that this would stop murders by hardened criminals. It might help identify crimes of passion by previously law abiding citizens so maybe its worth a look. But right now it looks like its being used to ban guns altogether. > [@](#): > > This is not a stupid argument. It is, however, based on false premises. The technology was invented in 1990 by an NRA member. [See the end of this article.](http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Gun-control-Cartridge-ID-law-to-take-effect-4527165.php) From what I can gather, this microstamping technology requires replacing the firing pin with a microstamped firing pin (easy enough, I’ve done it plenty of times). It also requires the breech to have a microengraving that will impress a microstamp on the casing when the round is fired (when rounds are fired, the casing expands to fit the chamber and then contract just enough to allow the casing to be ejected). I don’t know if this technology would work with steel casing but lets just assume it does. It does not appear to have any negative effect on firearm reliability or efficacy. I don’t know how much this would cost to implement but the inventor seems to think it would cost a large manufacturer less than a dollar per firearm which eliminates the cost objections to the technology (at least for new firearms). So long as this is not being used to effectively ban guns, I don’t know that I oppose the law all that much. > [@](#): > > This is not a stupid argument. It is also based on actual facts. However, it suggests that the law should be _strengthened_–not ignored. It suggests that the law is not really meant to help identify murderers, it was meant to restrict private ownership of guns. Its an elephant in the room and until we can address this concern, you are going to have a lot of people who can’t get past this issue. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/114 "2014-01-27T03:29:56Z")
[hijack] > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > If you google NRA 990, the form that pops up is most likely to be the 501(c)(4) form. The 501(c)(4) entity is largely funded by membership dues. Donations were about 25% of NRA revenue. A large part of those donations are from the membership and from the estates of members. 42% of the budget is membership dues, with an unknown amount connected with corporate membership. In-kind contributions are made, which are off-budget. Advertising is about $20 million. The membership is captive however: those donating the big bucks will invariably call the tunes as their monetary ebb and flow is large enough for organization to take notice. Majority ownership, as it were, by no means implies majority control, as knowledgeable shareholders owning companies in countries not grounded in common law will tell you (eg continental Europe). > [@](#): > > Every special interest group caters to crackpots. I’m saying that LaPierre, the NRA President, is a crackpot. > [@](#): > > I disagree. I think you could have gotten the Manchin Toomey bill back in January of 2013. Very few bills pass within one month’s time. It was obvious to me back then that gun lovers only needed to delay the proceedings for a few news cycles, then drive the stake into the bill. > [@](#): > > You say that like there is no gun regulation in existence today. Do I need to make my aquatic waterfowl comparison again? [74% of NRA members support mandatory background checks](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/nra-gun-control-firearms-industry-ties_n_2434142.html). The NRA’s refusal to _meaningfully_ curb gun sales to risky populations is the foundation for my mockery of the organization, evidence that they’ve left the building long ago. > [@](#): > > Where does the NRA do that? I was alluding to comments I’ve heard from gun proponents like Monster upthread. [/hijack] Back to the topic: > [@](#): > > Who claimed that it did? Poster upthread. Also Chuck Michel, an NRA hack. (LA Times article linked below.) > [@](#): > > You realize that is not microstamping right? Every bullet casing I have seen has some identifying marks that might include lot number. They identified the bullets in this case as coming from a lot that was issued to the police. The book I’ve read indicated that the bullets were specially marked, that they were connected with a national database and that the idea could be extended to a civilian context. Recall the argument: bad guys will defeat marked bullets. Well here’s an example where such steps could have been taken by assassins and were not. I agree that the lawsuit shouldn’t be thrown out of court. I’m skeptical about industry claims that the technology doesn’t exist though. My predictions remain, qualified by assumption that the law is upheld (which, as you correctly point out, it may not be). Props to Captain Kirk and others digging up the details of this law. With that in mind, I’ll note that the law only applies to “…newly designed semiautomatic handguns and older models that have been updated or modified by gun makers”, according to the [LA Times](http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-california-microstamping-gun-fight-20140124,0,1148569.story#ixzz2rZ86NcwL). So I’m not sure what all the hoopla is about. You can still sell a newly manufactured pistol: it just has to be based on an old design. Or you can change the design and include microprinting. So why all the hysteria? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/115 "2014-01-27T05:16:31Z")
> [@Reyemile](#): > > This is a stupid argument. It applies to any law, ever. This is in response to Measure for Measure’s suggestion that the law is not that big a deal because it can be circumvented by going to Nevada. Reading the entire paragraph that sentence is from puts the comment in context. Going to NV to purchase firearms as a CA resident is illegal. > [@](#): > > This is not a stupid argument. It is, however, based on false premises. The technology was invented in 1990 by an NRA member. [See the end of this article.](http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Gun-control-Cartridge-ID-law-to-take-effect-4527165.php) The patent was taken in 1990 but it has not come to fruition. There are many patents taken that do not pan out for a variety of reasons. Rather than thinking a patent equals an actual real life technology, you could rebut my assertion that the tech doesn’t exist by showing a single major manufacture of firearms that has implemented this tech. The problem is that no firearms are being made that have microstamping. > [@](#): > > This is not a stupid argument. It is also based on actual facts. However, it suggests that the law should be _strengthened_–not ignored. What is actually suggests, along with many other firearm laws in CA where police are exempted, is that the purported goal of the law is not to actually reduce gun violence but to ban guns. I have suggested that police should not be exempted from the Roster. At least that would moot the equal protection argument. If that were to happen however, the law would likely be repealed since police wouldn’t be able to purchase any new model semi auto pistols. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I’m skeptical about industry claims that the technology doesn’t exist though. Can you offer any manufacturer that has a model of firearm that has microstamping? ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/116 "2014-01-27T07:56:10Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > …Do I need to make my aquatic waterfowl comparison again? [74% of NRA members support mandatory background checks](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/nra-gun-control-firearms-industry-ties_n_2434142.html). [Not quite.](http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/3/dont-believe-everything-you-read.aspx) Looks like [92% of members oppose mandatory checks based upon question #15.](http://www.nraila.org/media/10850041/113topline.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/117 "2014-01-27T18:55:39Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > And so we come full circle, because neither does the NRA, who you explicitly accused of wanting convicted felons and insane people to have firearms. Weird that you have the same viewpoint as an organization you revile. Seems that pro-gun groups [have been actively fighting for the restoration of gun rights to convicted felons](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/felons-finding-it-easy-to-regain-gun-rights.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) who have served their time. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/118 "2014-01-28T05:40:40Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > [Not quite.](http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/3/dont-believe-everything-you-read.aspx) Looks like [92% of members oppose mandatory checks based upon question #15.](http://www.nraila.org/media/10850041/113topline.pdf) Ok let’s look at Q15: “…tell me whether you favor or oppose the proposal: A new federal law banning the sale of firearms between private citizens.” Ok, so 92% of all NRA members oppose that. So what? It doesn’t mention background checks. Heck, _I_ oppose it as written insofar as there should be a regulated and permisable used market it guns which the question sounds like they are banning. There’s no conflict with my 75% figure and you are not increasing my respect for gunnut thinking. > [@Bone](#): > > This is in response to Measure for Measure’s suggestion that the law is not that big a deal because it can be circumvented by going to Nevada. Reading the entire paragraph that sentence is from puts the comment in context. Going to NV to purchase firearms as a CA resident is illegal. Subpoint conceded, btw. > [@](#): > > Can you offer any manufacturer that has a model of firearm that has microstamping? Technological forcing is nothing new: the EPA does it all the time. I’m not convinced that California is demanding the impossible, nor am I surprised that the industry and gunnuts are whelping about this. That’s what they do. Gun making is a mature industry. If a California resident wants a new revolver, they can get one. They just can’t get the latest and greatest version of that revolver unless it uses microstamping technology. ## I predict that microstamping technology with be resisted by the gun industry, but that we’ll have a working model out within the next 10 years. Capt Kirk’s points are well taken though: whether microstamping mechanisms will be error free is a separate matter. RTFirefly’s report is wholly unsurprising, given that the NRA is an industry lobby that poses as a human rights organization and mutual support organization for loons. Membership dues make up less than half of their total revenues and we’ve seen the chasm between NRA actions and their membership’s opinions: _as well as highly gullible denials of the same_. How can anybody take a gun survey seriously that doesn’t mention background checks? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/119 "2014-01-28T14:11:03Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Technological forcing is nothing new: the EPA does it all the time. I’m not convinced that California is demanding the impossible, nor am I surprised that the industry and gunnuts are whelping about this. That’s what they do. And I take it that you also concede that there are no firearms currently manufactured that contain the microstamping technology that the CA law requires? And, yes the EPA forces technology by mandating things like emissions or gas mileage. Can you identify any technology forcing that involves a fundamental, enumerated constitutional right? A pretty significant difference. Like I said earlier, it’s like forcing people to register to vote only after proving their identity with their magical retinal projection device. > [@](#): > > Gun making is a mature industry. If a California resident wants a new revolver, they can get one. They just can’t get the latest and greatest version of that revolver unless it uses microstamping technology. Gun making is a mature industry, but microstamping is not. And I’m sure you’re using the term revolver interchanably with firearm, but this law actually doesn’t apply to revolvers. Nor does it apply to police purchased weapons. > [@](#): > > I predict that microstamping technology with be resisted by the gun industry, but that we’ll have a working model out within the next 10 years. Current evidence suggests that conforming to the requirement of a single state is not worth the hassle. Ruger and Smith and Wesson are pulling out of the CA market all together - determining that it’s more cost effective to stop selling to the most populous state in the country. All of the new Glock models, and the Glock Gen 4s are not available in CA due to not conforming with the Roster and they’ve announced that even their newer production models like the Glock 42 (a nice .380 that seems ideal for smaller folks) will not be available for sale in CA due to microstamping. I grant that someone could make a prototype like with 3D printed weapons, but I would bet against a major gun manufacturer making a model with microstamping technology. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/120 "2014-01-28T15:21:15Z")
The big issue I have with the microstamping is that plenty of people reload ammunition, both at home and commercially. Assuming that the technical kinks get worked out of the microstamping, what’s to prevent someone from having a cartridge case with several different weapons’ microstamps on it because it’s been reloaded several times? Do they go round up everyone they find on there? What about people who move to CA from out of state? Do they have to cough up their legal everywhere but CA non-microstamping guns at the border? If not, what about crimes committed by those guns? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695.md?page=7)