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
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.
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.
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.
You won’t get an argument from me.
You could have had it in February of March too if you could have kept a muzzle on Feinstein.
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?
I don’t think these were marked bullets in the way you are thinking. I think these bullets had lot numbers on them.
I think any change to the design makes it a new design.
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.
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.
:rolleyes:
I think thats the idea.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Only if you think registration makes no sense.
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.
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.
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
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.
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:
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.
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?
Their arguments tend to be better and more factually absed than arguments that the gun control side juices up their base with.
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?
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.
They usually seem to be on board with restricting firearms from the mentally ill and felons.
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.
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?
double post
To repeat: just because someone wants to buy guns doesn’t mean the company is obligated to sell any to them.
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.
It is a hijack. At least we’re in the pit where standards are looser.
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.
I’m saying my language is transparently colorful.
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.
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.
Only rhetorically. The NRA’s ideal is to have laws against felon ownership of firearms with loopholes large enough to drive a truck through.
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.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14223178&postcount=148
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.
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.
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.
Oh yeah: Damuri Ajashi. Gun fanatics are demonstrably loonier than NARAL’s crew. There is no gun enthusiast analogue to The Guttmacher Institute. 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 or they start supporting real research as the Guttmacher Institute does, then I might take them seriously rather than comparing them to waterfowl.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
*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):
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) in support of the Pena v. Lindley suit. Details inside.
And further, from yesterday, the CEO of Ruger (pdf) and the CEO of Smith and Wesson (pdf) have filed declarations in support of Pena in the Pena v. Lindley suit. From the SAF press release:
Is your point that those 92.6% of NRA members who oppose National registration might think statewide registration is somehow more palatable?
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.
Um… yes? Also, I was saying you might provide an in-thread direct quote, since your characterizations of the survey haven’t been accurate.
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):
This case has petitioned for cert but I’m unaware of the status.
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:
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.
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.
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.