# 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:** 9
**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 2, 2014, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/161 "2014-02-02T21:40:33Z")
I’m going to address what I interpret as the 2 main points in Bone’s post. 1. “Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.” That’s from _Heller_ which I haven’t read through. If that position is upheld in future rulings, I’ll observe that I can’t see anything that would justify curbs on private ownership of weapons of mass destruction. I guess maybe the constitution _is_ a suicide pact. The point being that in practice the courts will have to locate _another_ principle to butt up against it. Nicely argued and instructive, btw. 1. > [@](#): > > 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? I want to see testimony to that fact by Ruger et al, not press releases. Like I said, we have some experience with technological forcing: _demonstrably_ it can work. Whether these requirements over-reach in this particular instance is something I would want to see examined in a court of law. Or barring that a debate among engineers. I mean there’s an actual patent on microstamping which implies a plausibility that the flying car lacks. So the latter is hyperbole, not that there’s anything wrong with that. I’ll add though that some venture capitalists are pouring real money into the theory that the gun industry is too technologically staid in its ways. Objectively, there’s good reason to bet on the the incumbents: they have experience after all. I’m just not willing to interpret the press releases of a few oligopolists as a final authority. **And a final point, repeated for emphasis** Criticisms of microstamping note that such devices can be easily circumvented. Now set aside the possibility of using ceramics and the like. The fact is that many criminals are not especially mechanically saavy. Most crimes have an element of passion after all. My example of marked bullets leading to capture of the killers of a Brazilian judge shows this. The assassins _could_ have bought some unmarked bullets off the shelf to do their dirty work. They _could_ have grabbed a handful of cartridges from the nearest rifle range and sprinkled them at the scene of the crime. But they did not. Microstamping won’t be a panacea. But to say that it’s _necessarily_ pointless is at variance with the facts and frankly shows a naivete about human experience. ---
**Author:** ![nevadaexile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/eb8c5e/32.png) [@nevadaexile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nevadaexile)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2014, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/162 "2014-02-02T21:56:01Z")
Buy the weapon out of state and then move to California. Or buy the weapon out of state and “forget” to register it when you get home. Or don’t use a microstamped weapon for “questionable shootings.” Or use a shotgun or a rifle Or use a pre-microstamp weapon purchased in California… Or…. Unfortunately, like the overwhelming majority of gun control laws this one is poorly though out and will only affect legal gun owners. ---
**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, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/163 "2014-02-02T22:35:32Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > 1. “Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.” That’s from _Heller_ which I haven’t read through. If that position is upheld in future rulings, I’ll observe that I can’t see anything that would justify curbs on private ownership of weapons of mass destruction. It has been upheld in future rulings (to the extent it wasn’t reversed. The only other SCOTUS case that has dealt with the 2nd substantively is McDonald, and nothing in McDonald casts doubt on this understanding). In fact, this definition is consistent with the historical context and has been the argument of gun rights advocates for many many years. I suggest you read through Heller. It is written clearly and is interesting no matter what your position on the matter. Even the dissents, which I don’t agree with, are an interesting read if nothing more than to gain understanding into the opposition. Curbs on private ownership of WMD would not be based on restrictions established in Heller, though it does discuss it: > [@](#): > > … the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. , but instead Miller of the 30s that says those arms that fall under the 2nd amendment are those that would be used within a militia (or military). Heller goes on to say (again with reference to the 1st amendment): > [@](#): > > ``` > There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. > > ``` There are limits, and BATF I believe enforces violations of the NFA which would include destructive devices like bazookas or grenade launchers. No legal definition of arms includes WMD. > [@](#): > > 1. I want to see testimony to that fact by Ruger et al, not press releases. The SAF issued a press release. They are parties to the lawsuit. Ruger and S&W made declarations to the court. This is effectively testimony and they would testify to the statements during the trial if necessary. Not only that, their actions in pulling out of the CA market speak plainly to their beliefs that the tech is not available or economically feasible. > [@](#): > > Criticisms of microstamping note that such devices can be easily circumvented. Microstamping can be circumvented easily - this is not my argument. I think the tech first has to be present to determine how it should be woven into the legal framework of requirements for firearms. I’m sure if it existed then there would be a non-zero amount of crimes that are aided by the tech. That’s the potential benefits. Once the tech exists, we could argue the potential costs. But at this point it’s arguing over vapor ware. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2014, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/164 "2014-02-02T22:42:20Z")
> [@nevadaexile](#): > > Buy the weapon out of state and then move to California. > Or buy the weapon out of state and “forget” to register it when you get home. > Or don’t use a microstamped weapon for “questionable shootings.” > Or use a shotgun or a rifle > Or use a pre-microstamp weapon purchased in California… > Or…. > > Unfortunately, like the overwhelming majority of gun control laws this one is poorly though out and will only affect legal gun owners. You do know that fingerprints can be circumvented by wearing gloves, right? Why do criminals still leave them? Seriously, this argument is about the stupidest one on the pro-gun side. Most criminals aren’t clever. And impulse control issues turn “legal gun owners” into criminals. Yeah, ninja-superspies aren’t likely to use a microstamped weapon that will get them in trouble. But that isn’t who commits most of the crimes. ---
**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 3, 2014, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/165 "2014-02-03T04:47:09Z")
Bone. Thanks for the discussion of Heller. I’m not going to dig deeper into those weeds for the time being. > [@Bone](#): > > The SAF issued a press release. They are parties to the lawsuit. Ruger and S&W made declarations to the court. This is effectively testimony and they would testify to the statements during the trial if necessary. Not only that, their actions in pulling out of the CA market speak plainly to their beliefs that the tech is not available or economically feasible. Just to clarify - I want to see the cross-examination on that. I can imagine a court reasonably declaring that, given its finding of fact (which would involve evaluating evidence that the gun manufacturers actually had seriously looked into the issue), the state must at least produce a working prototype if it’s to enforce such requirements. I can also imagine a situation where the gun industry has only made _pro forma_ efforts to develop the relevant technology, in consideration for possible laws passed in other states. These are controversies that courts can handle, in my view. ---
**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:** [February 3, 2014, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/166 "2014-02-03T18:32:27Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > 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. I’m not sure that Glock is manufacturing any more gen 3 guns. I don’t know what the life expectancy is for a gun on the California roster but my impression is that the roster sees a lot of turnover. > [@](#): > > I think of guns as a tool though, not a panacea. Who do you think considers guns a panacea? > [@](#): > > 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. What vulnerable population do you think the NRA should counsel to turn in their guns? The suicidal? I think you could get the NRA to agree that suicidal people should have their friends hold their guns while they work out their issues. > [@](#): > > Only rhetorically. The NRA’s ideal is to have laws against felon ownership of firearms with loopholes large enough to drive a truck through. AFAICT, the NRA wants to rehabilitate some felons so that a felony convictions does not turn into a lifetime ban on gun ownership. Right now I think one of the only ways to rehabilitate a felon (in terms of gun ownership) is to pardon them. > [@](#): > > Huh. I came across the original study online. Cite and abstract: Let me rephrase, the study does not take into account other factors that could explain much of the between rate of death in gun owning households and non-gun owning households. A lot of it is not demographic. > [@](#): > > 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. I’m aware. > [@](#): > > 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. I suspect that while 74% of NRA members may support expanded background checks, they aren’t very passionate about the issue. They are more passionate about stopping folks that consider expanded background checks “a good start” (heck there are people who think that banning guns entirely is a good start). Noone trusts that the gun control folks will be satisfied with expanded background checks at gun shows. I support universal licensing and registration and it did not bother me in the least that the Manchin Toomey bill was defeated. It was a fig leaf for the gun control folks. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > 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. I agree, the gun rights side could benefit from the equivalent of the Guttmacher Institute but the lack of such an institute doesn’t seem like evidence of looniness. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > 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 Are you at all concerned about how it might negatively affect regular citizens? Law enforcement don’t carry guns to protect you. They carry guns to protect themselves. > [@](#): > > 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 On what issue does 90% of the country disagree with the constitution? Or are you saying that you think that there is a constitutional prohibition against background checks at gun shows? Or are you saying that its ok to ignore the parts of the constitution we don’t like because sometimes the constitution is wrong and the amendment process isn’t sufficient tofix these profoundly deep errors? BTW, how much money do you think the gun lobby donates to political campaigns? > [@](#): > > In this case, the Constitution is being subverted so I have no problems subverting back the other way What subversion do you see? You seem upset about the manchin/toomey bill being defeated and you see that as the subversion of the constitution. We do not run our country with a series of single issue referenda. I support universal background checks (every gun owner I know supports it) but that support drops significantly if presented in the wake of a push for an AWB. I don’t know about you but the gun control folks I know aren’t upset about the defeat of the Manchin/Toomey bill because they thought the Manchin Toomey bill was going to make any sort of difference. They are upset because the defeat of the Manchin Toomey bill made it so abundantly clear that gun control has no political traction and they have made themselves irrelevant in the public square. They insist that this is a sibversion of democracy because they think that anything that pooled that well MUST passin a functioning democracy regardless of anything else. They refuse to recognize taht their push for an AWB had set the table for the failure of anything else happening in gun control. > [@](#): > > 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. Its the bar the Constitution sets, its the bar we have lived with for almost 250 years and now you want to change the rules because you can’t get what you want? You sure you want to defang the constitution like that? Because its exactly the same thing that some states are using to effectively make abortions unavailable within their borders. Do you think it is permissible for states to do an end run around Roe v Wade to force abortion providers to leave their state? You are either for rule of law or you aren’t because. If you aren’t for the rule of law because the law happens to conflict with your personal preferences, then you are no better than the folks who want to ignore the constitution to ban abortions/gay marriage/etc. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/167 "2014-02-04T21:37:31Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Are you at all concerned about how it might negatively affect regular citizens? My concern is all about them. They don’t seem to know that its more dangerous to have a gun in the household than not. They don’t seem to understand that less guns overall would mean less violence on them overall. Don’t confuse my lack of concern about guns as lack of concern about the people being affected by them > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > On what issue does 90% of the country disagree with the constitution? That’s just it, the public doesn’t necessarily disagree with the Constitution. Most people would agree that the Constitution, while allowing firearm ownership, also allows regulations on them. The 90% figure is from expanded background checks and/or restrictions on ownership of people with mental illnesses. This isn’t a Constitutional issue, at least not to me, its a political will issue > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > BTW, how much money do you think the gun lobby donates to political campaigns? Too much > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > What subversion do you see? You seem upset about the manchin/toomey bill being defeated and you see that as the subversion of the constitution. We do not run our country with a series of single issue referenda. I support universal background checks (every gun owner I know supports it) but that support drops significantly if presented in the wake of a push for an AWB. The subversion comes from powerful political foes against any kind of expanded check or restrictions when all indications point to the public at large agreeing with the logic of such expansions, included a high percentage of actual NRA members. I’m fine with subverting the people’s will and the Constitution for a cause I support but not for a cause I don’t > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t know about you but the gun control folks I know aren’t upset about the defeat of the Manchin/Toomey bill because they thought the Manchin Toomey bill was going to make any sort of difference. They are upset because the defeat of the Manchin Toomey bill made it so abundantly clear that gun control has no political traction and they have made themselves irrelevant in the public square. The only reason I’m upset is that more people will be shot, that’s the main concern. Everything else is secondary > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Its the bar the Constitution sets, its the bar we have lived with for almost 250 years and now you want to change the rules because you can’t get what you want? Your assessment of the situation is wrong. I want to test the bar that has been set to see if it may be moved. You might not agree with my eventual goal but you cannot disagree on my willingness to test the current goal. That’s how progress is made. A bar is set, then either moved forward or back. To hold this bar and no others up as sacred and untouchable is something that’s just logically indefensible. Maybe someday, the bar will be where I would like it. And when people want to change that, then they would have to be accused of trying to destroy the Constitution and hundreds of years of history. Make no mistake, if we win, then that is the new bar and that’s what history is going to be based on. There is no agreed-upon line where we can take gun control this far but no further. What I believe should happen with this law is, to me, completely defensible and compatible with the Constitution. You don’t, that’s fine, but don’t tell me yours is the only way I can look at it. ---
**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:** [February 5, 2014, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/168 "2014-02-05T18:06:23Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > My concern is all about them. They don’t seem to know that its more dangerous to have a gun in the household than not. They don’t seem to understand that less guns overall would mean less violence on them overall. Don’t confuse my lack of concern about guns as lack of concern about the people being affected by them You keep making this bad assumption that the gun ownership causes the increased risk of murder rather than the other way around. Isn’t is possible that the increased risk of murder is what causes people to own guns? Couldn’t I just as easily conduct a study of people who were murdered and see if they had a higher incidence of gun ownership? > [@](#): > > That’s just it, the public doesn’t necessarily disagree with the Constitution. Most people would agree that the Constitution, while allowing firearm ownership, also allows regulations on them. The 90% figure is from expanded background checks and/or restrictions on ownership of people with mental illnesses. This isn’t a Constitutional issue, at least not to me, its a political will issue Oh, I thought you were talking about Manchin Toomey. What bill are you talking about? In what way is the ownership of guns by the menatlly ill not regulated enough? > [@](#): > > Too much They rank 257 in terms of contributions to candidates, PAC, parties and 527s with ~$1.5 million of direct campaign contributions. They rank 174 in lobbying expenditures with ~$3 million spent in lobbying. They rank 11 in outside expenditures with ~$20 million spent on sending glossy fliers to their membership reminding people which candidates are pro-gun and which ones aren’t. > [@](#): > > The subversion comes from powerful political foes against any kind of expanded check or restrictions when all indications point to the public at large agreeing with the logic of such expansions, included a high percentage of actual NRA members. I’m fine with subverting the people’s will and the Constitution for a cause I support but not for a cause I don’t And that’s what I have a problem with. I have been pretty partisan since we invaded iraq but I am very bipartisan when it comes to condemnation of flouting the constitution. > [@](#): > > The only reason I’m upset is that more people will be shot, that’s the main concern. Everything else is secondary The Manchin/Toomey bill would have had no effect on gun violence, ZERO, NADA ZILCH. It was the equivalent of extending the maginot line through Luxembourg. It was not directed at reducing purchases of guns by law abiding citizens and did nothing to reduce the pruchase of guns by criminals. All it did was provide a little bit of face saving for the gun control activists so they wouldn’t be too embarassed by their epic failure after newtown. > [@](#): > > Your assessment of the situation is wrong. I want to test the bar that has been set to see if it may be moved. You might not agree with my eventual goal but you cannot disagree on my willingness to test the current goal. That’s how progress is made. A bar is set, then either moved forward or back. To hold this bar and no others up as sacred and untouchable is something that’s just logically indefensible. Maybe someday, the bar will be where I would like it. And when people want to change that, then they would have to be accused of trying to destroy the Constitution and hundreds of years of history. Wait. Hold on a second. The bar I’m talking about is the constitutional process for constitutional amendments. Are you saying that you aren’t trying to flout the constitution, you are merely supporting a test case so that where the courts will have another opportunity to clarify the meaning of the second amendment? Because that is not the meaning that you are conveying with the words you are writing? OK, then you need a constitutional argument for why a de facto ban on guns is constitutional. > [@](#): > > Make no mistake, if we win, then that is the new bar and that’s what history is going to be based on. There is no agreed-upon line where we can take gun control this far but no further. What I believe should happen with this law is, to me, completely defensible and compatible with the Constitution. You don’t, that’s fine, but don’t tell me yours is the only way I can look at it. Why do you think its compatible with the constitution, how do you look at it? You realize that litigation hazards usually go both ways, right? If you lose on this and the court strikes down your de facto ban the line shifts in the other direction. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/169 "2014-02-07T17:29:58Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Isn’t is possible that the increased risk of murder is what causes people to own guns? If that is your claim, make it and don’t dance around the subject. The fact that statistically, you’re much more likely to get hurt if you have a gun than not is established. No amount of NRA propaganda will change that. So it is a lie to claim that my concern doesn’t lie with people. In fact, the MAIN reason why I want less guns is so that people will be hurt less. That won’t change with more relaxed restrictions or the crying of the NRA. If you think you have a better plan to reduce firearm harm, then suggest it > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Oh, I thought you were talking about Manchin Toomey. What bill are you talking about? In what way is the ownership of guns by the menatlly ill not regulated enough? There were several points I was making. One was speaking broadly about gun restrictions and how they don’t, in my view, oppose the Constitution. Another thing I asserted was that 90% of the public wanted a stricter gun control bill to be passed, but unfortunately those 90% didn’t seem to have representation in Congress for some reason. I don’t know all the laws for all 50 states, but ideally, I would regulate guns with respect to the mentally ill thusly (not a comprehensive list): -No guns for those diagnosed with certain mental illnesses -National shared database on all mental illnesses -Must wait a certain time after removal from the list to own firearms -All gun purchases must go through certain channels that matches people to this list -No non-regulated sales of firearms, ever > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > They rank 257 in terms of contributions to candidates, PAC, parties and 527s with ~$1.5 million of direct campaign contributions. > > … Again, too much. Whatever their number, it should be lower. Not to bring in another topic, so I’ll just say quickly that I’m not a fan of Citizens United and these secretive Super PACs. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And that’s what I have a problem with. I have been pretty partisan since we invaded iraq but I am very bipartisan when it comes to condemnation of flouting the constitution. That’s fine, I don’t expect you to agree with me > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The Manchin/Toomey bill would have had no effect on gun violence, ZERO, NADA ZILCH. It was the equivalent of extending the maginot line through Luxembourg. It was not directed at reducing purchases of guns by law abiding citizens and did nothing to reduce the pruchase of guns by criminals. All it did was provide a little bit of face saving for the gun control activists so they wouldn’t be too embarassed by their epic failure after newtown. And again, I don’t expect us to agree on this ever. You will not convince me and I will not convince you. Many pro-gun people think that each new law is like a lock on a cage: if it doesn’t work right or perfectly, then its totally useless and one can simply bust out at any given moment. But I see each law as one more brick in a dam, by themselves, they might not be super effective, but eventually, along with other bricks, they will build an impenetrable wall in which to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Therefore I will support pretty much every gun law, no matter how flawed, because a half a brick still is better than no brick. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The bar I’m talking about is the constitutional process for constitutional amendments. > > Are you saying that you aren’t trying to flout the constitution, you are merely supporting a test case so that where the courts will have another opportunity to clarify the meaning of the second amendment? Because that is not the meaning that you are conveying with the words you are writing? I think? I’m a little confused by what you said. Please clarify. For the record, I believe I do agree with your paraphrasing, if I’m reading that correctly, that I am not trying to flout the Constitution in this case, I am merely supporting test cases so that the court can re-evaluate their previous rulings. Maybe this will be clearer: I support every single lawsuit that has a chance to reach the SCOTUS with the hope that they might someday redefine the 2nd Amendment in a way that I support, and I oppose every lawsuit that seeks to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment to make it easier to get guns. The goal is to get an interpretation I want, then fight back all others. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > OK, then you need a constitutional argument for why a de facto ban on guns is constitutional. > > Why do you think its compatible with the constitution, how do you look at it? You realize that litigation hazards usually go both ways, right? If you lose on this and the court strikes down your de facto ban the line shifts in the other direction. Personally, I don’t consider the microstamping issue, defined as a requirement of guns that will make it unattractive for manufacturers to voluntarily pull out of a market, to be unconstitutional. What bugs me is that ANY requirement on gun manufacturing is deemed a de facto ban because the gun lobby moves as one whole entity and can pretend that any regulation is wholly unconstitutional. I like regulation, I believe in regulation, and I think all guns need microstamping, fingerprint readers, safety devices, locks, restrictions on magazine size, barrel size, shape, etc. I don’t believe any of those things together or separately means that guns would be de facto bans because I think all of those things are reasonable regulations that can be put into all guns with relatively little hardship to the manufacturer. Thus, if a manufacturer refuses to sell guns because of a law in a region, then that’s their own damn fault and the 2nd Amendment isn’t even part of the conversation ---
**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:** [February 7, 2014, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/170 "2014-02-07T22:05:37Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > If that is your claim, make it and don’t dance around the subject. The fact that statistically, you’re much more likely to get hurt if you have a gun than not is established. No amount of NRA propaganda will change that. So it is a lie to claim that my concern doesn’t lie with people. In fact, the MAIN reason why I want less guns is so that people will be hurt less. That won’t change with more relaxed restrictions or the crying of the NRA. If you think you have a better plan to reduce firearm harm, then suggest it Yes, that is my claim. The correlation between gun ownership and gun murders could just as easily be viewed from the other end of the telescope. I thought I had suggested my plan at least half a dozen times on just about every gun thread we have had since Newtown. But here it is again: Federal licensing and registration. You have to get a license to possess a firearm, licensing is based on a background check, a written and/or practical safety test, you have to show the license any time you want to buy or rent a gun and it gives you the right to own and carry a gun (concealed or open) anywhere other than specific places like courthouses, federal buildings, prisons, etc. You must also register every firearm (although Bryan Ekers has almost convinced me that registration might not be necessary for long guns, particularly since this would make the registration much more palatable to the gun rights folks and therefore more politically feasible without surrendering very much in the way of additional gun violence). This federal gun licensing scheme would supercede all state and local gun laws. I would eliminate the NFA registration requirement on SBRs, SBSs and suppressors and just make them subject to the regular registration requirements (I might require that suppressors do not suppress the report significantly below the level where hearing damage can occur). > [@](#): > > There were several points I was making. One was speaking broadly about gun restrictions and how they don’t, in my view, oppose the Constitution. Another thing I asserted was that 90% of the public wanted a stricter gun control bill to be passed, but unfortunately those 90% didn’t seem to have representation in Congress for some reason. First, it depends on what gun restriction you are talking about. Some of it is constitutional, some of it isn’t. So what particular bill were you talking about? Like I said, I thought it was Manchin/Toomey but you seem to think that it was something else. > [@](#): > > I don’t know all the laws for all 50 states, but ideally, I would regulate guns with respect to the mentally ill thusly (not a comprehensive list): > > -No guns for those diagnosed with certain mental illnesses > -National shared database on all mental illnesses > -Must wait a certain time after removal from the list to own firearms > -All gun purchases must go through certain channels that matches people to this list > -No non-regulated sales of firearms, ever Aside from the last point I think you have more resistance from ACLU type groups than the NRA. Which point other than the last one do you think the NRA has been resisting? I’m not trying to defend the NRA but I don’t think they object to restricting the mentally ill from owning firearms. > [@](#): > > Again, too much. Whatever their number, it should be lower. Not to bring in another topic, so I’ll just say quickly that I’m not a fan of Citizens United and these secretive Super PACs. So you have no idea how much money they are spending and you don’t really care, you just think its too much? :dubious: It doesn’t even phase you that there are 257 lobby groups that make more political contributions than the NRA and you still think the NRA owns the politicians by their wallets? > [@](#): > > That’s fine, I don’t expect you to agree with me Good because I think that anyone that would flout the constitution cannot use it as a shield when they think they need it. So you like abortion rights? Or voting rights? Or gay rights? Well you can’t call on the constitution to defend those rights (despite majority support for voter ID laws; popular opposition to gay marriage; and popular support for banning abortion past 20 weeks). > [@](#): > > And again, I don’t expect us to agree on this ever. You will not convince me and I will not convince you. Many pro-gun people think that each new law is like a lock on a cage: if it doesn’t work right or perfectly, then its totally useless and one can simply bust out at any given moment. But I see each law as one more brick in a dam, by themselves, they might not be super effective, but eventually, along with other bricks, they will build an impenetrable wall in which to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Therefore I will support pretty much every gun law, no matter how flawed, because a half a brick still is better than no brick. Well, fortunately we have a process to resolve our differences. We have a political process to make laws and we have a legal process to uphold or strike down those laws. I’m pretty happy with the situation we have right now. No laws will be passed at the federal level no matter how much you complain and the more restrictive state and local laws are being struck down as unconstitutional. So how’s your strategy working out for you? > [@](#): > > For the record, I believe I do agree with your paraphrasing, if I’m reading that correctly, that I am not trying to flout the Constitution in this case, I am merely supporting test cases so that the court can re-evaluate their previous rulings. > > Maybe this will be clearer: I support every single lawsuit that has a chance to reach the SCOTUS with the hope that they might someday redefine the 2nd Amendment in a way that I support, and I oppose every lawsuit that seeks to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment to make it easier to get guns. The goal is to get an interpretation I want, then fight back all others. Every lawsuit is a double edged blade. Just about every lawsuit will have a chance of changing the landscape either way. There are very few second amendment lawsuit that is head we win and tails you lose (or break even). For a long time the NRA was deathly afraid of the courts and preferred doing everything through the legislative process. They did not support the Heller case and Alan Gura had hard feelings towards the NRA for several years following Heller. Now, the NRA is actively supporting litigation. SO it looks like you and the NRA have the same attitude towards litigation, you are just rooting for different sides. > [@](#): > > Personally, I don’t consider the microstamping …to be unconstitutional. And thats fine. The courts will tell us if you are right or wrong. Personally I don’t have a problem with microstamping either but for the fact that it is a de facto ban on guns. If you can overcome that problem, I don’t think there is a constitutional issue either. But a de facto ban on guns is unconstitutional. ---
**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 8, 2014, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/171 "2014-02-08T01:21:48Z")
**Yogsosoth** - I think it’s fair to say that you would approve and support banning guns - any and all if possible. Microstamping is just a means to an end in that regard. I understand your position - though it makes discussion of any particular facet of the law fruitless since you are willing to circumvent the law if the ends you approve of are met. Discussion is not possible with a person in that context. ---
**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:** [March 11, 2015, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/172 "2015-03-11T07:29:40Z")
**One year later…** California judge prudently [upholds microstamp law](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-27/california-gun-microstamping-law-is-upheld-by-federal-judge) as patriots cheer. As for fears that gun manufacturers are being driven out of business or that [the handgun market would be eliminated](http://www.christiantimes.com/article/gun.laws.2015.news.pro.gun.groups.slam.californias.pistol.microstamping.law.await.court.decision/51064.htm) the court laughed, noting that [over 1 million gun transactions (closer to 1.5 actually) have occurred in the state since the passage of the law in 2009](http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/03/02/judge-oks-calif-unsafe-handgun-act.htm). Furthermore, [California handgun sales](http://www.krcrtv.com/north-coast-news/news/handgun-sales-in-california-reach-record-high-in-2014/31662816) hit new records in 2014. Criminal expert and Los Angeles City Attorney [Mike Feuer](http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_27616476/federal-court-rejects-challenge-california-gun-safety-law) states that this legal development, “means that more gun crimes will be solved, more lives will be saved and California communities will be safer.” Woo-hoo! Sitings of unicorns and a working commercial version of a microstamp handgun are as yet undetected. ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2015, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/173 "2015-03-11T09:01:42Z")
Darkly humorous that the state pointed to increased handgun sales as proof it’s not an issue… when those sales are grandfathered non-stamping versions or revolvers. :smack: ---
**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:** [March 11, 2015, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/174 "2015-03-11T15:43:48Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > **One year later…** > > California judge prudently [upholds microstamp law](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-27/california-gun-microstamping-law-is-upheld-by-federal-judge) as patriots cheer. As for fears that gun manufacturers are being driven out of business or that [the handgun market would be eliminated](http://www.christiantimes.com/article/gun.laws.2015.news.pro.gun.groups.slam.californias.pistol.microstamping.law.await.court.decision/51064.htm) the court laughed, noting that [over 1 million gun transactions (closer to 1.5 actually) have occurred in the state since the passage of the law in 2009](http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/03/02/judge-oks-calif-unsafe-handgun-act.htm). Furthermore, [California handgun sales](http://www.krcrtv.com/north-coast-news/news/handgun-sales-in-california-reach-record-high-in-2014/31662816) hit new records in 2014. > > Criminal expert and Los Angeles City Attorney [Mike Feuer](http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_27616476/federal-court-rejects-challenge-california-gun-safety-law) states that this legal development, “means that more gun crimes will be solved, more lives will be saved and California communities will be safer.” > > Woo-hoo! > > Sitings of unicorns and a working commercial version of a microstamp handgun are as yet undetected. I posted about this [in GD here.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18166182&postcount=75) This case wasn’t about microstamping specifically, but about the CA Roster of not unsafe firearms. Yes many firearms continue to be sold in CA. How many of those meet the microstamping requirement? Zero. The disconnect would be funny if it didn’t infringe on fundamental rights, IMO. From the other thread: > [@](#): > > The court engaged in a two step analysis, first is the 2nd amendment implicated, and if it is, what level of scrutiny should be applied. The court concluded that imposing a ban on 100% of all newly manufactured handguns does not burden the 2nd amendment because different handguns remain available for purchase. As a result, they did not engage in a scrutiny analysis. > > In addition, the court also found it acceptable that police are exempted from this requirement. How the court can conclude that a ban on 100% of newly manufactured firearms does not implicate the 2nd amendment is absurd. The ruling has already been appealed. It was always expected to make a run at SCOTUS so we’ll have to see how it plays out. The original lawsuit started in 2009. It only took nearly 6 years to get a district court decision. That in itself is a perversion of justice. ---
**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:** [March 11, 2015, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/175 "2015-03-11T19:10:49Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > How the court can conclude that a ban on 100% of newly manufactured firearms does not implicate the 2nd amendment is absurd. Misleading presentation. 100% of new models are banned. But you can produce all the old models you want and sell then in CA, provided they are on the roster. There’s a generous grandfather clause, covering 700+ models. Or do I misunderstand? At any rate, handgun sales last year hit a record high in California, so to say that there’s any sort of 2nd Amendment infringement is laughable. ---
**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:** [March 11, 2015, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/176 "2015-03-11T19:28:06Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Misleading presentation. 100% of new models are banned. But you can produce all the old models you want and sell then in CA, provided they are on the roster. There’s a generous grandfather clause, covering 700+ models. > > Or do I misunderstand? At any rate, handgun sales last year hit a record high in California, so to say that there’s any sort of 2nd Amendment infringement is laughable. I should have said new models not already on the roster. Also prohibited would be any existing models that are updated by the manufacturer for safety or other features. You can print any existing book you want, but printing of any newly written book is banned. Would you be okay with that? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2015, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/177 "2015-03-11T19:36:51Z")
So…Gunmageddon is still on it’s way, right? ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2015, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/178 "2015-03-11T20:54:26Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Misleading presentation. 100% of new models are banned. But you can produce all the old models you want and sell then in CA, provided they are on the roster. There’s a generous grandfather clause, covering 700+ models. In the shorter run that’s not much of a limit (and results in the law having very few teeth since stamping guns aren’t selling.) In the longer run the rest of the market moves on to buying new/improved/“all the guys at the range want it” models and the manufacturer has old models that nobody is really buying except Californians. That makes the business case for keeping them in production weaker. Eventually the list of models grandfathered in shrinks as they fall out of production. If companies were moving to make compliant models the transition might have a few hiccups but eventually produce a list of approved handguns. Except many of the big gun manufacturers have already said they are pulling out of the market rather than meet the standards. Not only has nobody seen a unicorn, the most likely unicorn hunters are staying home and closing the fence gate so no unicorn wanders in by accident. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2015, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/179 "2015-03-11T22:55:44Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > 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. It is WRT the insurrectionary aspect. ---
**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:** [March 12, 2015, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695/180 "2015-03-12T05:14:03Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I should have said new models not already on the roster. Also prohibited would be any existing models that are updated by the manufacturer for safety or other features. > > You can print any existing book you want, but printing of any newly written book is banned. Would you be okay with that? Facile and inapt comparison. The first amendment protects free expression and the free exercise of religion. Broad protections follow from that. The 2nd amendment protects the right to form well regulated militias and (post Heller) a right to self defense. That doesn’t mean you need a bazooka. And there’s no reason why California can’t limit your gun choices to a list that tops 700 weapons. There is no enumerated right to be an obsessive gun collector, a homicidal fantasist or a wannabe cop killer, though the NRA pretends _or believes_ otherwise. Not only isn’t the constitution a death pact; it’s also not a manifesto of maniacs. California’s requirements are not only reasonable, they are wholly constitutional. Let’s pause for a moment and contemplate a few gunnut arguments. According to Alan Gura, lead attorney for CalGuns, “This is about the state trying to eliminate the handgun market.” He clearly doesn’t have a grip on reality, given that the law was passed in 2009 and 2014 was a _record year_ for handgun sales. This isn’t an issue of education: it’s more medical than that. Mr. Gura has undercut his own argument and that of his lobby. Dino: “Eventually the list of models grandfathered in shrinks as they fall out of production.” Fine, whatever. Launch the lawsuit when _and if_ the California roster dips below 50. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-microstamping/422695.md?page=10)