The law was also amended to specifically allow for replacement of the firing pin which would remove the microstamping ability of the firearm. This is trivially easy to do.
No, a non-CA resident moving into the state with firearms would not have to surrender the non-microstamping guns at the border under current law. From the Cal Guns Wiki:
As long as the handgun being imported conforms to the other CA laws concerning firearms, it can be brought into the state. It cannot be an assault weapon, you cannot bring magazines greater than 10 round capacity, and you have to register the weapon within a certain time window and pay a fee.
Military are exempt when on active duty but the rules kick in if they are in CA and active duty terminates. Military may bring in assault weapons if required for duty use and their base commander supplies a signed MAWP (Military Assault Weapon Permit) - this doesn’t happen very frequently in practice.
Banning sales between individuals forces those sales to go through dealers which equals mandatory background check. NRA members get this, perhaps you don’t?
I’m sorry to disappoint. Since my 92% number, taken directly from actual NRA members as opposed to those who “identified” as members in the Pew study, directly conflicts with your cite I guess we are at an impasse.
As mentioned above, banning private sales forces mandatory background checks. The NRA members get it and are against that. You don’t.
To be clear, you can have private party sales and still have mandatory background checks. To do this you require all sales go through an FFL including private party sales. The FFL does the background check at the time of the transfer but is not party to the transfer. Welcome to CA. I suppose you could argue that this isn’t truly a private party sale and I wouldn’t argue with you.
It doesn’t have any measurable impact on reducing gun violence.
My point was that even with microstamping, reloaded cartridge cases will pick up several stamps, severely reducing the utility of the microstamping in the first place.
This is seeming more and more suspicious to me, and I’m hardly a gun nut. It seems pretty much like a back door gun ban, because there are quite a few un-closeable holes in it that could render the microstamping less than useful in terms of crime investigation, but the requirement would make selling guns in CA much more difficult.
This is true, plus there’s another question which indirectly is referring to background checks. #14 asks if they oppose a national registry (they do). Universal background checks aren’t possible without a national gun registry. Therefore, those NRA members oppose a background check via their opposition to a registry.
It’s impossible to think that we should have universal background checks and not have a national registry. One thing can’t exist without the other.
I don’t think this is quite right either. The background check is for the individual. It is independent of current gun ownership. A registry is not a requirement for a background check.
To conduct a background check you need to:
[ol]
[li]Identify the buyer[/li][li]Determine what constitutes a prohibited person[/li][li]Compare that buyer against a list of prohibited persons[/li][li]Return a denial if the buyer matches the list of prohibited persons[/li][/ol]
Nothing there requires a registry. Am I missing something?
Agree that it is a hijack, but disagree that it is still a “private” sale. Once the background check is mandated, anything private goes right out the window. Whether that is good bad or otherwise is a discussion for another thread.
I agree. There are several very easy ways to defeat the purported efficacy of microstamping. Reloads, changing firing pin, retaining spent brass, etc. I personally would get a firing pin that imprints a big FU on it just to be cute
It’s not even subtle. The result is being played out right now. No new models of semi automatic handguns can be sold in CA. That is a gun ban. The real problem is the Roster itself and these kind of shenanigans will continue as long as the roster exists. Killing the roster should be the goal.
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. I get a go or no go decision from the feds through your BG check and sell my gun to Joe. He robs a bank with it, and manages to kill a bystander. The gun is recovered in an alley and is found to be registered in my name via form 4473 when I purchased it new ten years ago.
Since I am still the current owner of record I am the prime suspect. I sold the gun to Joe but there is no record linking the gun to Joe making the BG check worthless. I can still sell any gun to anyone under your system, and if ever questioned all I need to do is say that I ran the go no go check and it cleared. The registry is critical to enforce all sales have a BG check run.
Current BG checks run by FFL dealers include the gun make and serial #. FYI
I think your conceptions of the universal background checks aren’t the same. You’re thinking that you have to have a background check linked to a particular weapon AND a chain of custody. That’s not how it works now, and something like that would be absurdly hard to maintain and enforce.
Bone is thinking that it’s more of a way to filter out nuts, loons and otherwise mentally unstable people from buying guns, which is what it currently is.
And… FWIW, unless it’s changed, the NICS system had you fill out a form which did have make & S/N on it, but the call-in system to determine whether to sell the gun didn’t require that info- just some basic stuff about name, etc… The forms are kept by the seller, and are required to be made available for criminal investigations, but the government doesn’t have a master database of every gun sold and to whom, since the forms stay at the gun seller.
I’m most familiar with CA law since I am a CA resident and have to navigate the bullshit.
Prior to 2014, long guns did not have to be registered. All sales are required to go through an FFL who conducts the background check. There was no statewide registry that maintained who owned the long gun. For example, I purchase a shotgun via PPT. The shot gun is then stolen but not reported (because it is not required )and used in a crime, which is recovered at the scene. When the police find that weapon, there would be no place they can see an ownership trail because it was not stored anywhere. Of course, the DROS has that information from the original sale, and police could subpoena the sale book from the original FFL. That wouldn’t show that the person sold it to me via PPT though. The PPT would be logged in the FFLs DROS book when they facilitated the transfer. Somehow police would need to know to find that FFL. They would then be able to find the record of the PPT. Of course then, the gun was stolen and I would tell the police that, through my lawyer, if compelled.
Of course, police don’t do that because the records dont exist and to track them down is not viable.
I’m just saying, CA (pre-2014) had BG checks on all sales without a registry (for long guns). The BG check was to determine if the buyer was prohibited, and that’s all.
My point is that in order to mandate that all sales must include a background check, that check must be linked to the gun. If not, there is no way to prove that the check was ever run. I doubt that those who are proposing mandatory checks are willing to take my word on the fact that I did indeed follow the law.
So what mechanism is in place to insure that all sales have a BG performed.
There are many ways to verify that a given check was performed without storing the details of the check. One way could be to store a one-way hash of the check in the registry. The details of what was checked are irretrievably lost (hence, one-way) but in the future if you say that you performed a check for gun X and user Y using FFL Z, someone could perform the hash on the data and verify that the resulting value is indeed in the registry.
You mean, what mechanism existed to ensure that people didn’t sell firearms and not go through the FFL? None. That would be a crime and no law abiding citizen would purchase a firearm this way in CA. I am not asserting that illegal sales did not take place, but it is illegal to conduct a sale transaction in CA of a firearm that does not go through an FFL (exempting certain C&R sales, inter-familial transfers, inheritance, etc.)
One other thing, there is a 10 day waiting period for all sales, including PPT. So not only do both buyer and seller have to conduct the sale through an FFL, the buyer has to travel to the FFL twice. Once to conduct the purchase, and a second time after the 10 days (but not more than 30) have elapsed. And FFLs are required to have a storage mechanism for these firearms while they are in the waiting period, and the fee they are allowed to charge is stipulated by law ($35 [$10 to the dealer and $25 to pay the DROS fee]). There are instances of buyers finding the firearms they purchased were used while in the waiting period - go figure.
I don’t endorse these laws, but I need to know them in order to comply with them. CA is the stupid?
To be more specific, the code section that requires PPT to go through an FFL is penal code 27545..
The penalty for violating this applies to both buyer and seller, and is stipulated in code section 27590. If there are no other circumstances, it’s a misdemeanor but I believe it is a wobbler. Generally normal folk wont risk the revocation of their firearm rights to conduct an illegal private sale in CA.
I put FFL in there as an example. It doesn’t have to be; there just needs to be enough information as input to the hash function to make brute-force reversal infeasible.
Only criminals can buy drugs, so what? What’s your real point?
Then I hope they will adjust the law to make it so onerous to the gun manufacturers that they all decide to pull out of California
Do you always follow every single law? :dubious: What a boring life you lead. 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. Better you should question why I don’t support the 2nd Amendment and state why you do.
You really are a monster! cries
Sure, cut off yours and I’ll eat it
By the way, other responses I considered giving you were: “No thanks, I’m full” and “I don’t feel like cooking tonight” Unless you wanted me to eat it raw, that’s just sick
Do you genuinely hope that police are no longer able to purchase firearms?
If all firearm manufacturers pulled out of CA, I think what you would see is successful lawsuits against the state and the state having to pay millions in attorney’s fees to plaintiff’s lawyers, enriching them and funding the next round of lawsuits against other jurisdictions. So win/win.
Unless you wanted me to eat it raw, that’s just sick