Sure, maybe the wiki page is wrong, altho as i have said, usually they are more up to date. Why not edit it to correct it?
Dr Deth, I don’t think it is fair to say Harris wants to reserve the right to carry a gun to herself and not to others. I don’t think there is an “elitism” angle, either.
Post Prop H, all of the old gun models are legal to sell in CA. Harris has one of those, presumably. Maybe she bought a gun that would have been illegal to sell in CA but got it in Nevada, just to seem extra villainous. Just about anyone else in CA can buy one of those models, too. It is just new models that are “banned”, except for, yanno, new models that incorporate microstamping. Somebody is going to corner that market one of these days and print money.
Bone, assuming that it is illegal to sell guns that explode in one’s hand when fired, would you consider this a “ban” on guns, when non-exploding guns remain completely legal?
For being such a stickler for cites, you seem resistant to provide one for your claim. It’s easy enough for you to concede you overstepped.
You’re like, super wrong here. And remember, the DOJ wasn’t making a finding that microstamping tech was viable. And your characterization of “not enforcing the law” is a confusing way to make this statement. What law would not be enforced? Are you familiar with the CA roster?
Anyways, you made claim that is false and unsupportable. Good luck with that.
So you cite here is a headlines from right wing news sources and your own speculation. And yet until now, you’ve stated it as fact.
Those two sentences are not logically consistent.
I never knew until reading this thread thst it was the District Attorney’s responsibility to decide what legislation is unconstitutional and block said legislation from being implemented.
Ignorance fought, indeed.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T377A using Tapatalk
You are arguing with people who think that the ability to buy enough guns to fill up hundreds of storage containers still means that their 2nd Amendment rights are being infringed. You won’t get a coherent answer to your question.
Are you doubting that she was a district attorney!?!?!?
When I hear that someone owns a gun for personal safety reasons, my first thought is they keep one at home in case of intruders while they are home. I would not assume they carry it around with them, as I understand that to be less common than keeping a gun at home. For example, I would consider keeping a firearm at home for personal safety reasons, yet I have not ever contemplated carrying one around with me in public. So, maybe I’m projecting.
I haven’t read all the articles, but I’m not sure Senator Harris even said it was a handgun. For all we know she keeps a shotgun under her bed.
Maybe, but other states have tried microstamping and dropped it and the CA version is technologically impossible. So, no, no one will corner that market.
Feel free to continue living in your fact-free reality. The rest of us will be over here, dealing with actual words and their meanings.
I need a cite that following the law is not voluntary? Ok, bud.
Even if that had been the method by which that proposition went on the ballot (which has been shown as not being the case), saying “as far as I know this is legal” is very different from saying “I really like this”.
Spanish notarios are required to do the first for any sale of a house. They’re not required to verify that the price is appropriate, that the house is in good shape or that both parties will be happy with the transaction one year later. Just that the i’s are dotted, the t’s are crossed, the two parties are in agreement over what the contract says and the spelling is correct.
This article discusses the issue, and claims the technique has been “tested and certified”.
I don’t know if that is the final word though.
What law? There is no law that applies to the DoJ mandating they do something in PC 12126(b)(7).
Like I said, you seemed to take issue with imprecision around claiming what the law says and what it requires. If what you claimed was true, it should be pretty simple to substantiate it. That you can’t reflects poorly on your claim.
The CA DoJ made a certification pursuant to 12126(b)(7). Your claim is that this certification was somehow legally and constitutionally required - it wasn’t. You further claim that Harris was bound by law to do so - she wasn’t. The only thing you would need to do is to cite what in the law requires this action. You can’t and your claims are false.
If Harris didn’t make this certification, do you think she would be cited, arrested, fined, or penalized by law in some way? Of course not. Your problem is, that in rebutting the misunderstandings of DrDeth, you overextended and made exaggerated and false claims yourself. That’s ironic or something.
This is some rank trash right there. You’re citing the Giffords Law Center which said the tech had been tested and certified as if that’s useful in any way. And you don’t know if that’s the final word? I mean, those are words, but any actual meaning being ascribed to them beyond acknowledging that they are words is utterly worthless. This article discussesthe issue, and claims that “A number of studies have indicated that microstamping is unreliable, serves no safety purpose, is cost prohibitive and, most importantly, is not proven to aid in preventing or solving crimes.”
If you’re going to make an argument that there are sufficient number of firearms available for purchase so this type of slow ban is okay, at least that’s an argument. It’s like arguing how many books are okay to ban before the 1st amendment is infringed. Not a great one, but at least it’s an argument. But if you are going to argue that microstamping as described in CA is a viable technology, that’s a fundamentally unserious position that is laughably absurd.
Gun makers acknowledge micro stamping is feasible, but say it can’t possibly be done in two separate places in a handgun’s chamber. But the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which filed arguments in support of the law, said dual stamping has been tested and certified, with the inventor submitting a declaration to that effect during current legal proceedings.
The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence makes that claim.:dubious::dubious: But there’s billions of $ to be made in CA, so why hasnt anyone done it?
I was responding to Dr Deth’s assertion that microstamping is “impossible”. Since this thread has not exactly been a cite-studded stroll down firearms lane (though I do appreciate your cites), I went looking for my own on the subject of microstamping. The relevant quote from my article:
I didn’t spike the football on the issue with that. I said it was “probably not the last word”, just about the opposite of spiking. But, between the acknowledgement of gun manufacturers that “microstamping is feasible” and the existence of an inventor of dual stamping technology, it looks like it isn’t impossible after all.
Compare with your cites- there are a lot of quotes concerning the legal issue of “impossibility”, but not really a settling of the question AFAICT. The claims that it is not cost effective or not proven to aid in preventing or solving crimes are the assertions of Smith & Wesson, about a technology that is not currently being used. To me, the money quote in your cites is “Smith & Wesson dies not and will not include microstamping in its firearms.” Sounds like they are simply refusing to do it rather than it being “impossible”, sacrificing sales of new models to resist incorporating this tech.
Presumably I could launch the Comprehensive Firearms Co. (We don’t pick and choose which compliance laws to follow!), manufacture up to date pistols with microstamping, and clean up. Maybe in the attempt I would learn that it really doesn’t work- the question is still unsettled to me. But at this point, it looks like Smith & Wesson is refusing to manufacture compliant guns, which is a lot different than guns being banned.
Might she benefit from owning a gun because she belongs to an educated and female subgroup?
Microstamping is by no means “impossible”. It can be done- but it has been shown to be more or less useless, and it’s technologically very difficult. What is *impossible *is the CA way of doing it on two separate parts.
*In addition, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI) filed a lawsuit seeking to have the provision invalidated and to enjoin enforcement of the law. Compliance with the law’s “dual placement microstamping” requirement was practically and legally “impossible” because no semiautomatic pistol could be designed and equipped as required by the 2007 law; microstamping the required characters on any part of a semiautomatic pistol other than the firing pin wasn’t possible. In support of their claim, they cited an existing provision of California law, Civil Code section 3531, which states “[t]he law never requires impossibilities.”
Last year, California’s Court of Appeal rejected the State’s argument that stamping the characters in two places on the firing pin would comply with the statute. It directed that the plaintiffs could present evidence of impossibility of compliance and that the court could use Civil Code section 3531 to invalidate the 2007 law if compliance was shown to be impossible.
Last week, however, a unanimous panel of the California Supreme Court reversed that ruling. Considering only the question of whether the 2007 law could be invalidated on the basis of Civil Code section 3531’s declaration that “[t]he law never requires impossibilities,” the court determined that impossibility “did not authorize a court to go beyond interpreting the statute and simply invalidate it altogether.” Section 3531 could be used to support an interpretation of the law which would excuse compliance, case by case, based on impossibility, but it could not be used to declare the law itself to be void.
The majority of the court went further, though, and eliminated the possibility that its own rule could be applied to make the law inoperative in this or any other case: “Neither the text nor the purpose of the Act contemplates that a showing of impossibility can excuse compliance with the statutory requirement once the statute goes into effect,” adding that Section 3531 did “not authorize courts to independently carve out exceptions for impossibility” once the certification had been made. *
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2018/impossibility062918.htm
Here’s the anti-gun LA Times making the argument it’s a bad law:
So if it was only regular microstamping, you’d likely have a couple niche CA gun makers turning out some guns. But not with CA laws. That is totally impossible.
I’m pretty sure that is an opinion piece by a pro-gun Republican Assemblyman.