# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/141 "2014-01-29T00:27:39Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Do you genuinely hope that police are no longer able to purchase firearms? What I genuinely hope is that the law is tailored so that state agencies can still buy firearms or get exceptions to the onerous rules. The goal is that only LEOs can buy guns legally and the manufacturers stop selling to the general public who are not exempt from those rules. Certainly if the choice was for both regular people and cops to have no guns, I’d probably prefer that the guns stay because we are not the UK yet. Though I can be convinced off that position ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/142 "2014-01-29T14:17:27Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > In your scenario, nothing is linking the sale of the gun to the buyer. Without that link (registry) there is no way to prove that a BG check was performed. Exactly. Without a registry of who owns what there is no way a universal background check system would make any sense. We could literally have the cops watching us in a parking lot as I take out my money and hand it to you in exchange for a gun. What could they prove? Later I just have my lawyer say that it was my gun and I loaned it to you. Plus I owed you money because we bet on the football game. This is why, as soon as you start actually thinking about it, universal background checks just don’t make any sense. Back the the microstamping. It’s actually good in a perverse way that they did this. Hopefully it will get to the SCOTUS soon and they’ll rule on it. With any luck at all they can set a precedent that these sort of back door gun bans are in violation of the second amendment and we’ll have another law like Heller on the books. Hopefully they word it strongly enough that it applies to similar schemes like fingerprint reading grips. ---
**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 30, 2014, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/143 "2014-01-30T02:00:28Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > What I genuinely hope is that the law is tailored so that state agencies can still buy firearms or get exceptions to the onerous rules. That IS the law as it stands right now. That said, just because they want to buy doesn’t mean that the companies have to sell. Wouldn’t it be something if California law enforcement agencies had to break California laws by importing large number of off-list firearms from adjoining states? If California wants to play this game, I hope the companies oblige. In the end, the police will have well-used firearms prone to breakage while civilians will have large numbers of pre-existing firearms. Once that reality starts to sink in the law will change very quickly. But that future isn’t realistic. The reality is that this law, as it stands right now, will eventually be shot down as a de facto (and thus illegal) gun ban. ---
**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 30, 2014, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/144 "2014-01-30T05:14:29Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > [hijack] 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… I don’t particularly want to defend the NRA but you are approaching conspiracy theory territory here. Are you seriously saying that the NRA is an industry group? You have any proof of that? Just because some liberal blogger s s so doesn’t mean its true. There are a LOT of industry groups here in DC and the American Petroleum institute is the only one that I can think of that has a budget approaching the NRA’s What is corporate membership in the NRA? What “in kind contributions?” I am not aware of any significant value being donated to the NRA “in kind” Why can’t you believe that the NRA is simply a gun rights group that is largely funded by membership dues? You sound like the folks who try to present NARAL as the lobbying arm of the abortion industry rather than an abortion rights group. > [@](#): > > I’m saying that LaPierre, the NRA President, is a crackpot. You won’t get an argument from me. > [@](#): > > Very few bills pass within one month’s time. You could have had it in February of March too if you could have kept a muzzle on Feinstein. > [@](#): > > [74% of NRA members support mandatory background checks](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/nra-gun-control-firearms-industry-ties_n_2434142.html)[/SIZE] So the NRA pulls in between $2 million to $6 million/year over 7 years (from gun manufacturers in its ring of freedom) and you think this makes the $200 million/year organization thralls to gun manufacturers? > [@](#): > > 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 don’t think these were marked bullets in the way you are thinking. I think these bullets had lot numbers on them. > [@](#): > > 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. I think any change to the design makes it a new design. > [@](#): > > Or you can change the design and include microprinting. So why all the hysteria? I’m not sure that microstamping is as easy to implement as you have been led to believe. These things are mass manufactured, marking each one with a unique imprint on the firing pin and inside the chamber doesn’t strike me as something that can be implemented quickly for pennies per gun. > [@](#): > > 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. Possibly, they have jurisdiction speciifc models of guns that incorporate things like fixed stocks and bullet buttons. I don’t really understand the technology but it seems to me that laser etching serial numbers onto a pin and chamber shouldn’t be an insurmountable problem even if guns end up costing more. > [@](#): > > RTFirefly’s report is wholly unsurprising, given that the NRA is an industry lobby :rolleyes: > [@bump](#): > > 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? I think thats the idea. > [@](#): > > 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? No, they’re not really concerned about crime. There is a white paper that came out a few years ago from the DoJ that talked about what would work and what wouldn’t work in gun control and this sort of stuff implemented at the state and local level aren’t very effective. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Only criminals can buy drugs, so what? What’s your real point? That most of the people who commit crimes with guns are not legally allowed to own guns in the first place. These folks are not going to be significantly affected by this sort of law. So cops and criminals will have free access to guns. Citizens will not. > [@](#): > > Do you always follow every single law? :dubious: What a boring life you lead. I am not a state actor. I do not have police powers. If I were a state actor with police powers I would think that everyone would want me to follow the constitution. > [@](#): > > Some laws are bad, history has shown that, so saying that its against the law is not a good argument especially since we’re discussing that very law. Its a good thing that there is a way of amending the parts of the constitution that we don’t like. The fact that you can’t get your way isn’t a signal that we should disregard the constitution, its a signal that you might be wrong. > [@](#): > > Better you should question why I don’t support the 2nd Amendment and state why you do. I know why you don’t support the second amendment but until you can come up with reason that will convince the majority of Americans in 2/3rds of the districts and 3/4ths of the states, you are stuck with it as long as you want to stay here. > [@Debaser](#): > > Exactly. > > Without a registry of who owns what there is no way a universal background check system would make any sense. We could literally have the cops watching us in a parking lot as I take out my money and hand it to you in exchange for a gun. What could they prove? Later I just have my lawyer say that it was my gun and I loaned it to you. Plus I owed you money because we bet on the football game. > > This is why, as soon as you start actually thinking about it, universal background checks just don’t make any sense. Only if you think registration makes no sense. > [@](#): > > Back the the microstamping. It’s actually good in a perverse way that they did this. Hopefully it will get to the SCOTUS soon and they’ll rule on it. With any luck at all they can set a precedent that these sort of back door gun bans are in violation of the second amendment and we’ll have another law like Heller on the books. Hopefully they word it strongly enough that it applies to similar schemes like fingerprint reading grips. I don’t know that this law is as clearly unconstitutional as Heller, especially if the technology is in widespread use by the time it is argued. ---
**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 30, 2014, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/145 "2014-01-30T07:20:51Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > Thus banning private sales between individuals forcing all sales to go through, and be registered by an FFL. That’s my point. If the NRA was serious about polling their membership about background checks, to get another angle on the Pew survey, _they would have mentioned background checks explicitly_. It’s easy to imagine a private party transfer of guns that involves third parties after all. We do that all the time when titles for cars or houses are transferred. Yes, that creates (horrors) gun registration fears, as does the prospect of regulating militias well. Also stuff said above. > [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > In the end, the police will have well-used firearms prone to breakage while civilians will have large numbers of pre-existing firearms. Once that reality starts to sink in the law will change very quickly. Serious question. It was my understanding that you could sell a new gun in California, just not a new model of gun. So your scenario seems impossible… but! There’s a Fresno Bee article that quotes a local gun shop owner who claims that, “… firearms manufacturers make minor adaptations all the time to improve their firearms, such as changing spring tension or using components from different vendors. Some of the guns have been on the DOJ list for a decade, and the minor changes will require microstamping…” That doesn’t seem too serious but apparently there’s an interaction with AB 1471 which ordered drop tests for guns. Anyway, I thought you might be interested in the article: [http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/01/24/3730989/major-gunmakers-pullout-will-shake.html](http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/01/24/3730989/major-gunmakers-pullout-will-shake.html) > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t particularly want to defend the NRA but you are approaching conspiracy theory territory here. > > Are you seriously saying that the NRA is an industry group? You have any proof of that? Just because some liberal blogger so doesn’t mean its true. There are a LOT of industry groups here in DC and the American Petroleum institute is the only one that I can think of that has a budget approaching the NRA’s > > What is corporate membership in the NRA? > > What “in kind contributions?” I am not aware of any significant value being donated to the NRA “in kind” > > Why can’t you believe that the NRA is simply a gun rights group that is largely funded by membership dues? > > You sound like the folks who try to present NARAL as the lobbying arm of the abortion industry rather than an abortion rights group. I’m claiming that the NRA is an industry group that poses as a human rights organization and that their membership is composed of loons, rubes, gulls, swallows and daffy ducks (“you’re… dethpicable”). I’m including the full statement to convey that we’re discussing a rhetorical sidewinder, and not a serious argument. More seriously, the NRA juices up their membership with dubious arguments that fail scrutiny. They continually post anecdotes about guns chasing away criminals without considering the possibility that criminals would have run away anyway. They never discuss personal self defense in a wider context, comparing different techniques such as mace, stamping kicks and cell phones. They never take seriously the fact that having a gun in your home makes it more likely that a family member will be shot than otherwise. No, that fact isn’t the last word -it’s not. You need to think harder about causality. But it deserves to be taken seriously, rather than _invariably_ framed within a pro-gun promotional context. Furthermore, the NRA never gives any indication that _certain homes shouldn’t have firearms in them._ So, it’s not surprising that studies show that gun owners have piss-poor risk assessment, being more likely to binge drink, drive drunk and engage in alcoholism. After controlling for standard demographic factors. The NRA sure _acts_ like an industry group, rather than a serious organization dedicated to gun safety or personal safety. I understand that their environmental aspect is fairly good though, if limited. ---
**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 30, 2014, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/146 "2014-01-30T17:40:43Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > If the NRA was serious about polling their membership about background checks, to get another angle on the Pew survey, _they would have mentioned background checks explicitly_. It’s easy to imagine a private party transfer of guns that involves third parties after all. We do that all the time when titles for cars or houses are transferred. **Yes, that creates (horrors) gun registration fears,** as does the prospect of regulating militias well. [92.6% of NRA members oppose registration as well.](http://www.nraila.org/media/10850041/113topline.pdf) Q14 ---
**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 30, 2014, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/147 "2014-01-30T18:36:59Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Serious question. It was my understanding that you could sell a new gun in California, just not a new model of gun. So your scenario seems impossible… but! There’s a Fresno Bee article that quotes a local gun shop owner who claims that, “… firearms manufacturers make minor adaptations all the time to improve their firearms, such as changing spring tension or using components from different vendors. Some of the guns have been on the DOJ list for a decade, and the minor changes will require microstamping…” That doesn’t seem too serious but apparently there’s an interaction with AB 1471 which ordered drop tests for guns. Anyway, I thought you might be interested in the article: [http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/01/24/3730989/major-gunmakers-pullout-will-shake.html](http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/01/24/3730989/major-gunmakers-pullout-will-shake.html) I wish we could drop the discussion of the NRA in this thread. It’s not relevant unless they are party to a suit against microstamping. The CA Roster always required a drop test. It’s not a difficult test to pass and all modern handguns will pass it. Here are the [requirements for a drop test](http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/4/2/1.3/s12128): > [@](#): > > A primed case (no powder or projectile) shall be inserted into the chamber. For pistols, the slide shall be released, allowing it to move forward under the impetus of the recoil spring, and an empty magazine shall be inserted. For both pistols and revolvers, the weapon shall be placed in a drop fixture capable of dropping the pistol from a drop height of 1m + 1cm (39.4 + 0.4 in.) onto the largest side of a slab of solid concrete having minimum dimensions of 7.5 X 15 X 15 cm (3 X 6 X 6 in.). The drop distance shall be measured from the lowermost portion of the weapon to the top surface of the slab. The weapon shall be dropped from a fixture and not from the hand. The weapon shall be dropped in the condition that it would be in if it were dropped from a hand (cocked with no manual safety applied). If the design of a pistol is such that upon leaving the hand a “safety” is automatically applied by the pistol, this feature shall not be defeated. An approved drop fixture is a short piece of string with the weapon attached at one end and the other end held in an air vise until the drop is initiated. > > The following six drops shall be performed: > > (a)Normal firing position with barrel horizontal. > > (b)Upside down with barrel horizontal. > > (c)On grip with barrel vertical. > > (d)On muzzle with barrel vertical. > > (e)On either side with barrel horizontal. > > (f)If there is an exposed hammer or striker, on the rearmost point of that device, otherwise on the rearmost point of the weapon. > > The primer shall be examined for indentations after each drop. If indentations are present, a fresh primed case shall be used for the next drop. > > The handgun shall pass this test if each of the three test guns does not fire the primer. Any minor change to an existing handgun that is on the Roster triggers the retesting requirement. The problem is not the drop or firing tests, it’s the microstamping and magazine extractor and chamber indicator requirements that cause problems. Many models of firearms don’t’ have these items and manufactures will not make state specific firearms to comply. As a result, common firearms like all the Glock Gen 4 models are not available in CA. These firearms are arguably safer than the Gen 3 models, but are not able to be purchased because of the roster. Not only that, there is an administrative fee that must be paid to the state of CA to retain a firearm on the roster. If you do not pay this fee, the firearm drops off the roster and can no longer be sold. Think about this for a moment. A gun is certified “not unsafe” and placed on the roster. Then, at the end of the period, a firearm can go from “not unsafe” to “unsafe” by virtue of lack of payment of an administrative fee. That makes sense to no one. The roster is the problem, and you have to understand what the purpose of the roster and its origin to understand that. ---
**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 30, 2014, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/148 "2014-01-30T19:30:36Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I’m claiming that the NRA is an industry group that poses as a human rights organization and that their membership is composed of loons… And do you have any evidence to support the claim that the NRA is an industry group rather than a gun rights group? It seems like you are just stating your opinion based onthe fact that they have interests that are frequently aligned with the interests of gun manufacturers. In what way does the NRA pose as a human rights group rather than a gun rights group? Or are you saying that they are presenting gun rights as a human right so therefore, they are posing as a human rights group? > [@](#): > > More seriously, the NRA juices up their membership with dubious arguments that fail scrutiny. Their arguments tend to be better and more factually absed than arguments that the gun control side juices up their base with. > [@](#): > > They continually post anecdotes about guns chasing away criminals without considering the possibility that criminals would have run away anyway. They never discuss personal self defense in a wider context, comparing different techniques such as mace, stamping kicks and cell phones. The NRA magazine (American Rifleman) always has several stories of DGU, they tend to be situations where it is pretty clear that a balled up fist or calling 911 would not have done the job. Can we at least agree there are times when the private ownership of guns is useful/beneficial? > [@](#): > > They never take seriously the fact that having a gun in your home makes it more likely that a family member will be shot than otherwise. No, that fact isn’t the last word -it’s not. You need to think harder about causality. But it deserves to be taken seriously, rather than _invariably_ framed within a pro-gun promotional context. No, it doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously in the context of a gun policy debate unless we are concerned enough about suicide to ban guns altogether. The support for a total gun national gun ban is pretty slim. > [@](#): > > Furthermore, the NRA never gives any indication that _certain homes shouldn’t have firearms in them._ They usually seem to be on board with restricting firearms from the mentally ill and felons. > [@](#): > > So, it’s not surprising that studies show that gun owners have piss-poor risk assessment, being more likely to binge drink, drive drunk and engage in alcoholism. After controlling for standard demographic factors. Well, I’m glad that at least in this case, you are able to clearly see that correlation does not imply some causal link. That there might be a common underlying reason for both. BTW, do you havea cite? I see news articles but none of them mention that the survey controlled for demographic factors. I also don’t see why this means they have piss poor risk assessment. The risk of death associated with driving 500 miles is about as high as the risk of a skydiving accident. Airplane accidents/fatalities are rarer per mile travelled compared to car accidents. But the perceived risk for airplane accidents and skydiving accidents is far higher due to media coverage. A lot of the hyperventilating we see over guns is the result of overestimating the incidence of bad things happening. > [@](#): > > The NRA sure _acts_ like an industry group, rather than a serious organization dedicated to gun safety or personal safety. I understand that their environmental aspect is fairly good though, if limited. They have probably done more for gun safety than any other private group. But I don’t think they are a gun safety organization, they are a gun rights organization and gun safety is an accessory to their mission to preserve gun rights. Does it really surprise you that a gun rights group will frequently find that their interests are aligned with the interests of people who sell guns? Aren’t the interest of NARAL frequently aligned with the interests of abortion clinics, does that make NARAL an industry group? ---
**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 30, 2014, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/149 "2014-01-30T20:09:45Z")
double post ---
**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 30, 2014, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/150 "2014-01-30T23:42:32Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Serious question. It was my understanding that you could sell a new gun in California, just not a new model of gun. So your scenario seems impossible… but! There’s a Fresno Bee article that quotes a local gun shop owner who claims that, “… firearms manufacturers make minor adaptations all the time to improve their firearms, such as changing spring tension or using components from different vendors. Some of the guns have been on the DOJ list for a decade, and the minor changes will require microstamping…” That doesn’t seem too serious but apparently there’s an interaction with AB 1471 which ordered drop tests for guns. Anyway, I thought you might be interested in the article: [http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/01/24/3730989/major-gunmakers-pullout-will-shake.html](http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/01/24/3730989/major-gunmakers-pullout-will-shake.html) To repeat: just because someone wants to buy guns doesn’t mean the company is obligated to sell any to them. ---
**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 31, 2014, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/151 "2014-01-31T06:33:46Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > [92.6% of NRA members oppose registration as well.](http://www.nraila.org/media/10850041/113topline.pdf) Q14 Sigh. Thanks for providing a cite. But I wish your characterizations were more precise. Here’s the language: “A new law that establishes a national gun database and requires all gun owners to register their firearms with the federal government.” There’s nothing there about a statewide registration. > [@Bone](#): > > I wish we could drop the discussion of the NRA in this thread. It’s not relevant unless they are party to a suit against microstamping. It is a hijack. At least we’re in the pit where standards are looser. > [@](#): > > The problem is not the drop or firing tests, it’s the microstamping and magazine extractor and chamber indicator requirements that cause problems. Many models of firearms don’t’ have these items and manufactures will not make state specific firearms to comply. As a result, common firearms like all the Glock Gen 4 models are not available in CA. These firearms are arguably safer than the Gen 3 models, but are not able to be purchased because of the roster. The Glock Gen 4 was introduced in 2011 (assuming my googling is ok). What’s the trigger date for microstamping requirements? Personally I don’t see the big deal in banning the Gen 4 in favor of the Gen 3, not that I’m familiar with either. I’m just stressing that this isn’t much of an endrun around the constitution if you permit a wide variety of newly manufactured 4 year gun models. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And do you have any evidence to support the claim that the NRA is an industry group rather than a gun rights group? It seems like you are just stating your opinion based on the fact that they have interests that are frequently aligned with the interests of gun manufacturers. > > In what way does the NRA pose as a human rights group rather than a gun rights group? Or are you saying that they are presenting gun rights as a human right so therefore, they are posing as a human rights group? I’m saying my language is transparently colorful. > [@](#): > > The NRA magazine (American Rifleman) always has several stories of DGU, they tend to be situations where it is pretty clear that a balled up fist or calling 911 would not have done the job. Can we at least agree there are times when the private ownership of guns is useful/beneficial? DGU? (Defensive gun use?) I’ve read some of those stories (in the NRA’s hunting mag) and they suffer from a lack of critical thinking. We can certainly agree that there are times when the private ownership of guns is useful/beneficial. And not just for law enforcement. There are populations that have use for firearms: among them are hunters, arctic explorers, abused ex-girlfriends and wives, certain members of the LGBT community, certain minorities, hobbyists, vermin controllers, and those in rural areas that are over 30 minutes from law enforcement and invisible from the road. I think of guns as a tool though, not a panacea. > [@](#): > > No, it doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously in the context of a gun policy debate unless we are concerned enough about suicide to ban guns altogether. The support for a total gun national gun ban is pretty slim. I’m saying that if the NRA was concerned about the safety of its membership, it would counsel them on ways of persuading certain vulnerable populations to turn in their gun. A private sector solution, if you will. > [@](#): > > They usually seem to be on board with restricting firearms from the mentally ill and felons. Only rhetorically. The NRA’s ideal is to have laws against felon ownership of firearms with loopholes large enough to drive a truck through. > [@](#): > > BTW, do you have a cite? I see news articles but none of them mention that the survey controlled for demographic factors. Huh. I came across the original study online. Cite and abstract: Association between firearm ownership, firearm-related risk and risk reduction behaviours and alcohol-related risk behaviours Garen J Wintemute ABSTRACT Alcohol use and firearm ownership are risk factors for violent injury and death. To determine whether firearm ownership and specific firearm-related behaviours are associated with alcohol-related risk behaviours, the author conducted a cross-sectional study using Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data for eight states in the USA from 1996 to 1997 (the most recent data available). Altogether, 15 474 respondents provided information on firearm exposure. After adjustment for demographics and state of residence, firearm owners were more likely than those with no firearms at home to have$5 drinks on one occasion (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.50), to drink and drive (OR 1.79; 95% CI 1.34 to 2.39) and to have$60 drinks per month (OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.83). Heavy alcohol use was most common among firearm owners who also engaged in behaviours such as carrying a firearm for protection against other people and keeping a firearm at home that was both loaded and not locked away. The author concludes that firearm ownership and specific firearm-related behaviours are associated with alcohol-related risk behaviours. I’ve discussed it on this board before. > **[Is there record of a person with a "Concealed Carry" license blowing his top...](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=624261)** > > Of course, there are plenty of instances of Americans shooting other Americans. I do not wish to engage in a gun debate (at this time), but I am curious if anyone knows of the answer to the above question. Can you cite instances where a person with... [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14223178&postcount=148](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14223178&postcount=148) > [@](#): > > They have probably done more for gun safety than any other private group. But I don’t think they are a gun safety organization, they are a gun rights organization and gun safety is an accessory to their mission to preserve gun rights. You may not be aware of it, but the NRA advocated gun control in the 1930s. The big turnaround came during the 1970s when they had the equivalent of a proxy contest. The laid-back side lost and the activist side won. > [@](#): > > Does it really surprise you that a gun rights group will frequently find that their interests are aligned with the interests of people who sell guns? That’s why I allow for loons (lunatics) as well as gulls (gullible people) and swallows (those who swallow everything the NRA says). _This is rhetoric Damuri Ajashi. Yes, there is an obvious commonality of interests between gun fanatics and the gun industry_. That said, 74% of NRA members support background checks according to Pew. NRA gulls and swallows note that NRA members also oppose, “A new federal law banning the sale of firearms between private citizens,” and somehow persuade themselves that the latter conflicts with the former. ---
**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 31, 2014, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/152 "2014-01-31T06:40:56Z")
Another aspect is the the Silicon Valley venture capital community is pouring money into smartguns. In other words they’re funding innovation. If any of those projects pan out, I would expect a sympathetic legislative response. So the microstamping law won’t be the last word. > **[Can smart guns slash gun violence? Silicon Valley says yes](https://www.cnet.com/science/can-smart-guns-slash-gun-violence-silicon-valley-says-yes/)** > > Star investor Ron Conway is among those behind a series of $1 million challenges aimed at using technology to improve gun safety. The key? Find ways to make sure only guns' owners are able to fire them. ---
**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 31, 2014, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/153 "2014-01-31T07:06:24Z")
Oh yeah: **Damuri Ajashi**. Gun fanatics are demonstrably loonier than NARAL’s crew. There is no gun enthusiast analogue to [The Guttmacher Institute](http://www.guttmacher.org/index.html). Instead we get crackpots who think that a bunch of fat guys with pop guns can take on a modern military. It doesn’t have to be that way because the underlying pro-gun case isn’t a weak one. The research of the criminologist John Lott has serious methodological problems, but methinks it’s good enough to reveal that there _could_ be serious research on self defense conducted by gun sympathizers. When the pro-gun side stops [drumming out columnists who consider limited gun control for a moment](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/business/media/banished-for-questioning-the-gospel-of-guns.html) or they start supporting real research as the Guttmacher Institute does, then I might take them seriously rather than comparing them to waterfowl. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/154 "2014-01-31T16:43:26Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > That most of the people who commit crimes with guns are not legally allowed to own guns in the first place. These folks are not going to be significantly affected by this sort of law. So cops and criminals will have free access to guns. Citizens will not. I’m fine with that for the most part, law enforcement should have free access and they’re the ones that should be working to reduce the free access of criminals. As long as the law affects criminals to a degree, I’m satisfied > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Its a good thing that there is a way of amending the parts of the constitution that we don’t like. The fact that you can’t get your way isn’t a signal that we should disregard the constitution, its a signal that you might be wrong. As its been pointed out before, certain groups with a loud minority voice and influence have some lawmakers by their wallets and refuse to compromise on something 90% of the country agrees on. In this case, the Constitution is being subverted so I have no problems subverting back the other way > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I know why you don’t support the second amendment but until you can come up with reason that will convince the majority of Americans in 2/3rds of the districts and 3/4ths of the states, you are stuck with it as long as you want to stay here. And that is why I’m glad California is trying to do end runs around that high bar to force manufacturers to voluntarily exit the California market. ---
**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 31, 2014, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/155 "2014-01-31T16:53:46Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > The Glock Gen 4 was introduced in 2011 (assuming my googling is ok). What’s the trigger date for microstamping requirements? > > Personally I don’t see the big deal in banning the Gen 4 in favor of the Gen 3, not that I’m familiar with either. I’m just stressing that this isn’t much of an endrun around the constitution if you permit a wide variety of newly manufactured 4 year gun models. Microstamping requirements will kick in for new rostered handguns either July 1, 2014, or June 1, 2014 - I can’t remember off the top of my head. The gen 4 is not available because it does not meet the magazine extractor or chamber load indicator requirements. It also does not meet the microstamping requirements, but since those are new, they are not the cause of the Gen 4 being unavailable. The point is the same, however. Legislation was passed to add requirements as to what may be added to the Roster. I’m assuming you understand the Roster, but if not, let me know. The big deal is not that I can’t purchase a Gen 4 Glock. The point of bringing it up is to illustrate the effect of having something be prohibited from being on the Roster. It means those weaopns are not available. The Gen 4 Glocks are a subset of the population. There are firearms who meet the magazine extractor and the chamber load indicator requirements so there are still handguns being added to the roster. The difference with microstamping is that there are ZERO firearms that meet this requirement. This requirement doesn’t just prohibit some firearms like the Glock Gen 4s, it prohibits ALL semi-automatic handguns (this is the class of firearms that was specifically called out in Heller for protection). You may say that plenty of older model handguns are available. The problem with this is two fold (maybe more?). The law is new, so there are recent model firearms that are grandfathered and available. That argument is less persuasive in 5 or 10 years time. When manufacturers no longer produce the older versions and then less and less models are available. Just because one model is available doesn’t mean that the right isn’t being infringed when some are prohibited. You can’t ban some books because other books are available. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Another aspect is the the Silicon Valley venture capital community is pouring money into smartguns. In other words they’re funding innovation. If any of those projects pan out, I would expect a sympathetic legislative response. So the microstamping law won’t be the last word. > [CNET: Product reviews, advice, how-tos and the latest news](http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57617942-76/can-smart-guns-slash-gun-violence-silicon-valley-says-yes/) Were you aware that the CA legislature has on multiple occasions attempted to make smart gun technology a requirement for being on the Roster? At a minimum this would suffer from the same problem microstamping does. The technology doesn’t exist. Fortunately this has been defeated each time it comes up in the legislature. I think it’s a pretty simple principal that you can’t legislate an action that is impossible. Like I said, requiring microstamping to exercise a fundamental enumerated right would be equivalent to restricting voter registration from flying cars. When the tech exists, then we can think about how to weave it into the law without violating the constitution. ---
**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 31, 2014, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/156 "2014-01-31T17:37:11Z")
\*as an aside, above I said “magazine extractor” for the Glock Gen 4 but I meant to say “magazine disconnect”. A magazine disconnect mechanism is defined in [CA code 12126(d)](http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/4/2/1.3/s12126): > [@](#): > > As used in this section, a “magazine disconnect mechanism” means a mechanism that prevents a semiautomatic pistol that has a detachable magazine from operating to strike the primer of ammunition in the firing chamber when a detachable magazine is not inserted in the semiautomatic pistol. In other words, if you have a round chambered but remove the magazine, the pistol will no longer fire. This is not desireable, and along with the microstamping requirment, has led GLOCK to file an [amicus brief (pdf)](http://ia700204.us.archive.org/23/items/gov.uscourts.caed.191444/gov.uscourts.caed.191444.66.0.pdf) in support of the Pena v. Lindley suit. Details inside. ---
**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 31, 2014, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/157 "2014-01-31T18:05:02Z")
And further, from yesterday, the [CEO of Ruger (pdf)](http://ruger-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/declaration-Fifer.pdf) and the CEO of [Smith and Wesson (pdf)](http://ia700204.us.archive.org/23/items/gov.uscourts.caed.191444/gov.uscourts.caed.191444.82.4.pdf) have filed declarations in support of Pena in the Pena v. Lindley suit. From the [SAF press release](http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=474): > [@](#): > > In his statement, Fifer bluntly observed, “There is no workable microstamping technology today, and Ruger believes that California’s microstamping regulations make compliance impossible.” > > Debney concurs in his statement, noting, “Smith & Wesson does not believe it is possible currently to comply with California’s microstamping regulations. Quite simply, the state law requires the technology to perform at a level that it cannot.” > > In its earlier brief, submitted by attorneys Erik S. Jaffe of Washington, D.C. and John C. Eastman of Orange, Calif., Glock maintained that neither its pistols nor any other handgun in common use can comply with California’s microstamping mandate. > > “You cannot regulate handguns out of existence or out of the marketplace by mandating technology that doesn’t work,” Gottlieb observed. “Now three major gun companies have weighed in and we’re confident their opinions will carry a lot of weight.” ---
**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 31, 2014, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/158 "2014-01-31T20:25:41Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Sigh. Thanks for providing a cite. But I wish your characterizations were more precise. Here’s the language: “A new law that establishes a national gun database and requires all gun owners to register their firearms with the federal government.” > > There’s nothing there about a statewide registration. Is your point that those 92.6% of NRA members who oppose National registration might think statewide registration is somehow more palatable? ---
**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:** [February 1, 2014, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/159 "2014-02-01T23:44:36Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > You may say that plenty of older model handguns are available. The problem with this is two fold (maybe more?). The law is new, so there are recent model firearms that are grandfathered and available. That argument is less persuasive in 5 or 10 years time. When manufacturers no longer produce the older versions and then less and less models are available. Just because one model is available doesn’t mean that the right isn’t being infringed when some are prohibited. You can’t ban some books because other books are available. Fatuous 1st amendment comparison. Also, don’t forget explicit language in the constitution about “Well regulated” militias. Private parties can’t own bazookas (without appropriate registration and paperwork) and now in California, they can’t own the Glock Gen 4. Glock Gen 3s (which aren’t especially old weapons) are A-ok. Incidentally, I see from wikipedia that magazine disconnects are a pretty good example of effective technology forcing: after passage of CA’s laws their prevalence increased _as did the purchase options of gun buyers in other states_. Methinks it would be better if sectors of the gun industry community were more pro-active on this and less prone to circling wagons. To repeat though, I agree that Glock et al should be able to file a lawsuit and I don’t know enough about the particulars to evaluate its merits. I’m dubious about your sky-car analogy -I’m dubious that it fits the facts- but that’s the sort of thing for courts to sort through. > [@JXJohns](#): > > Is your point that those 92.6% of NRA members who oppose National registration might think statewide registration is somehow more palatable? Um… yes? Also, I was saying you might provide an in-thread direct quote, since your characterizations of the survey haven’t been accurate. ---
**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:** [February 2, 2014, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/160 "2014-02-02T08:13:38Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Fatuous 1st amendment comparison. In what way is the comparison _silly and pointless_? (assuming that’s what you mean with this comment)? In evaluating laws that implicate the 2nd amendment, 1st amendment jurisprudence is on point. From the fifth circuit in [NRA vs. BATFE (pdf)](http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13913270335166&key=ce270d38103a630c3181db372a25a052&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fboards.straightdope.com%2Fsdmb%2Fshowthread.php%3Fp%3D17065074%23post17065074&v=1&libId=da30bb4c-38c4-4765-80f5-edfe81348400&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ca5.uscourts.gov%2Fopinions%2Fpub%2F11%2F11-10959-CV0.wpd.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fboards.straightdope.com%2Fsdmb%2Fforumdisplay.php%3Fs%3D%26daysprune%3D%26f%3D5&title=Stupid%20Gun%20news%20of%20the%20day...%20-%20Page%2098%20-%20Straight%20Dope%20Message%20Board&txt=NRA%20vs.%20BATFE%20(pdf)): > [@](#): > > Furthermore, we are persuaded to adopt the two-step framework outlined > above because First Amendment doctrine informs it. See Marzzarella, 614 F.3d > at 89 n.4 (looking toward the First Amendment for guidance in interpreting the > Second Amendment and observing that “Heller itself repeatedly invokes the > First Amendment in establishing principles governing the Second Amendment”). This case has petitioned for cert but I’m unaware of the status. > [@](#): > > Also, don’t forget explicit language in the constitution about “Well regulated” militias. Private parties can’t own bazookas (without appropriate registration and paperwork) and now in California, they can’t own the Glock Gen 4. Glock Gen 3s (which aren’t especially old weapons) are A-ok. I assume that you believe restrictions on bazookas and those that stem from the roster in CA are permissible based on the “well regulated” portion of the 2nd amendment. If this is not what you are trying to convey with the above then let me know, but your phrasing leads me to believe that. In any case, it appears that your understanding of the phrase “well regulated” in context is wrong. From [Heller](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html): > [@](#): > > Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. SCOTUS has conclusively defined the phrase in the context of the 2nd amendment, and it is not related to government regulation. In addition, it is in reference to the militia in the prefatory clause, which does not limit the right of the people in the operative clause. > [@](#): > > Incidentally, I see from wikipedia that magazine disconnects are a pretty good example of effective technology forcing: after passage of CA’s laws their prevalence increased _as did the purchase options of gun buyers in other states_. Methinks it would be better if sectors of the gun industry community were more pro-active on this and less prone to circling wagons. For those who have standing to challenge the law, particularly those in CA, \*\*purchase options decreased. \*\*And if you think gun rights advocates should get on board with safety features such as magazine disconnects, what are you willing to trade? If you expect those same folk to not circle the wagons, then future restrictions must also offer contemporaneous concessions. Otherwise it’s another step in the incrementalist strategy that gun rights advocates have been fighting for decades. I’m not as adamantly against magazine disconnects. They exist and arguably provide a safety element. It is a tradeoff, reduced functionality of the firearm and a less smooth trigger pull. I would not purchase a firearm that had one, and if those were the only ones available I would remove them (it’s easy to do). There should be no acquiescence without getting something in return though. State wide shall issue CCW with nation wide reciprocity would get my support. I’d remove the disconnect anyways. > [@](#): > > To repeat though, I agree that Glock et al should be able to file a lawsuit and I don’t know enough about the particulars to evaluate its merits. I’m dubious about your sky-car analogy -I’m dubious that it fits the facts- but that’s the sort of thing for courts to sort through. Is it your contention that microstamping technology is present in any available firearm for purchase? S&W, Ruger, and Glock have all said that the tech is not feasible. They speak with authority in this arena. I expect they’d love to sell firearms to the most populous state in the country and would if it were workable. They are a business after all. So unless you know of any firearm that is available with microstamping technology that would qualify for the CA roster, you must admit that the tech does not exist. Separate question, do you believe it is permissible to legislate that a right can only be exercised utilizing something that doesn’t exist? But yes it is an interesting time and I’m anticipating the outcome of several ongoing cases being litigated. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695.md?page=9)