Kamala owns a gun "for personal safety"

[Bone]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

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:

You quoted Giffords. That cite is worthless. I would expect you to reject the conclusions of the NRA as well.

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.

Which gun manufacturers acknowledge that the microstamping is feasible? Glock, Ruger, and S&W are on record saying no.

Earlier this week, Ruger CEO Michael O. Fifer and Smith & Wesson President and CEO James Debney submitted declarations to the court, explaining their respective companies’ positions on the California microstamping requirement. Late last year, attorneys representing Glock, Inc. filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the SAF case.
…
In his statement, Fifer bluntly observed, “There is no workable microstamping technology today, and Ruger believes that California’s microstamping regulations make compliance impossible.”

Debney concurs in his statement, noting, “Smith & Wesson does not believe it is possible currently to comply with California’s microstamping regulations. Quite simply, the state law requires the technology to perform at a level that it cannot.”

In its earlier brief, submitted by attorneys Erik S. Jaffe of Washington, D.C. and John C. Eastman of Orange, Calif., Glock maintained that neither its pistols nor any other handgun in common use can comply with California’s microstamping mandate.

You seem to think that this is some untapped market. Consider that no new semi auto handgun models have been approved in the entire state since this went into effect. CA is a big state, and there are lots of people. If a manufacturer could comply, they would certainly do so. It’s not like these companies don’t already sell a lot of models in CA. I can buy the Glock 17 Gen 3 all day long in CA (well, only 1 per month because CA is stupid). But if I want a gen 4, that’s no bueno because it doesn’t have magical unicorn tears powering the non-existent microstamping technology.

And this is what Harris did. She chose to take the state down the path of a slow ban on all new model semi autos in the state. And this actually goes against the stated purpose of the roster. There are also other requirements for a chamber load indicator (CLI) (tells you if there is a round in the chamber) and a magazine disconnect device (MDM). But because no new models can be sold in CA, these safety features are also not available in CA. Microstamping is preventing these safety features from coming to CA. The Roster is supposed to prevent unsafe hanguns from being sold in CA - but police are exempted from the roster. And those same police can sell the off roster firearms to private parties. That is also contrary to the stated purpose. No, the real motivation behind the microstamping requirement is to ban guns. And that’s why Harris is terrible.

Maybe this would get resolved at SCOTUS.

[Ravenman]

@Bone

You quoted Giffords. That cite is worthless. I would expect you to reject the conclusions of the NRA as well.
Which gun manufacturers acknowledge that the microstamping is feasible? Glock, Ruger, and S&W are on record saying no.

I don’t know jack about microstamping, and I’m happy to let experts hash it out — but it is very amusing to say that the Giffords group and the NRA should not be trusted with their analysis of the issue, so let’s listen to the gun manufactures! Reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Troy McClure says the only reliable source of information about cigarettes and health is the tobacco industry.

Again, I don’t know who is right, but it is funny to dismiss two sources because of bias and present a few corporations as being the most trustworthy source of facts.

[Bone]

@Ravenman

I don’t know jack about microstamping, and I’m happy to let experts hash it out — but it is very amusing to say that the Giffords group and the NRA should not be trusted with their analysis of the issue, so let’s listen to the gun manufactures! Reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Troy McClure says the only reliable source of information about cigarettes and health is the tobacco industry.

Again, I don’t know who is right, but it is funny to dismiss two sources because of bias and present a few corporations as being the most trustworthy source of facts.

It was supposed to be ironic to contrast Giffords and NRA, hence the previous mirroring of language.

I think your criticism of citing manufacturers is unfounded. Because citing the manufacturers was more to rebut the claim that Try2B made, that somehow manufacturers have acknowledged that the tech was feasible. Listening to the manufacturers themselves on this matter on whether they have made this claim is directly relevant to rebutting it. It’s not trusting their analysis, but rather assessing whether they have made the claim at all.

Since the law activated in 2013, we know that there are no new models being produced or sold in CA. We know that these manufacturers have stated they cannot do what is required to legally sell these types of firearms in the state.

[DrDeth]

@Slash1972

I’m pretty sure that is an opinion piece by a pro-gun Republican Assemblyman.

Yes? Was it or was it not printed in the Times?

[Lance_Turbo]

Here’s a greatest hits of false claims.

@DrDeth

She said that gun laws that were unconstitutional were perfectly OK.

This doesn’t appear to have happened.

@DrDeth

She was in favor of a total handgun ban.

No evidence of this has been delivered.

@DrDeth

So Harris believes and has supported laws that would ban all private ownership of handguns.

Doesn’t look like it.

@DrDeth

Her law was ruled UnConstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Not her law.

@DrDeth

Sure her owning a gun is legal, but she is/was in favor of banning all private handgun possession. Thus hypocritical.

Probably not.

@DrDeth

So, yeah, there are people who want to ban all handguns (Harris)or all semi-automatics and yes, a few that want to ban all guns.

Nope.

@DrDeth

As DA she had to sign off and approve any proposition for the ballot as legal.

Definitely not.

@DrDeth

She supported it in public.

I don’t think so.

@DrDeth

Her name in the newspapers at that time. Ads.

I haven’t seen any reason to believe this.

@DrDeth

No, the DA can refuse anything for the ballot that isnt legal.

Definitely not true.

@DrDeth

I was up there, i saw her face on TV.

I don’t think this is true.

@DrDeth

In any case, can you deny she was DA? And thus she ruled that Prop H was legal?

This is false. The DA does not rule on propositions.

@DrDeth

Note that her appeals were rejected by a* unanimous decision.* Not one single judge agreed that Prop H was legal.

I don’t think she had anything to do with these appeals.

@DrDeth

No, but it means she Oked it as legal.

She did no such thing.

@DrDeth

She just could have not allowed it on the ballot. It isnt uncommon, it happens in CA.

She could not have done this. District Attorneys do not have this power.

@DrDeth

Prop 9 was just stricken and not allowed on the ballot.

Prop 9 was kept off the ballot by the California Supreme Court, not a DA.

@DrDeth

As DA she ruled it was legal to be put on the ballot.

She did not. This is not a thing that DA’s do.

@DrDeth

And the DA doesnt have to defend a law.

I’m pretty sure she didn’t.

@DrDeth

What do you want me to show? That ballot propositions in CA have to be cleared for legality before they are put on the ballot? :dubious:Or that she was DA at that time? :dubious:Either one is liek asking for proof that the sun rises in the morning, why are you asking for silly cites? Even when i provide them, you’l; just ignore them anyway, like that rest of my cites.

This clearing ballot propostions for legality mechanism is not a thing that exists. Sunrises, on the hand, do exist.

@DrDeth

Thereby as DA of SF, Harris had to pass on that Prop getting on the ballot.

Nope. That’s not a thing DAs do.

@DrDeth

And then of course I saw harris on TV on a yes on H ad, giving a soundbite about how handgun violence is bad.

This probably didn’t happen, but a cite could convince me that it did.

@DrDeth

The DA or the AG have to sign off whether or not a Prop is legal.

Definetly not. This is straight up false.

@DrDeth

Last year the Prop to split CA into several states was blocked and didnt get on the ballot.

Blocked by the CA Supreme Court, not a DA or the AG.

@DrDeth

They can do so only if they can show the prop isnt legal. Or they can say “I dont think this is legal, but I am letting it get on the ballot anyway”. But yes, they have to sign off on it’s legality. Not whether or not it is proper, right/wrong anything else- legal.

Nothing like this exists. A big ball of false.

@DrDeth

But that wasnt the issue that cites were needed for it was the fact that Harris approved the SF handgun ban while she was DA there.

Definitely not a fact. She did not do this.

@DrDeth

Her face was on TV supporting the Prop.

I doubt it.

@DrDeth

Look, I saw her on TV supporting Prop H.

I don’t believe that this occurred. I think you are mistaken.

@DrDeth

About the only thing I can’t show is that she signed off on Prop H, but since you guys dont know how SF politics works, and i do, there’s nothing I can say that will convince you.

You can’t show this because it didn’t happen.

@DrDeth

Your claim was “your nonsensical and clearly false claims”. The only claim I cant make you believe is that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors , before putting Prop H on the ballot, somehow failed to confer with their Lawyer, one DA Harris.

The DA is not Board of Supervisors’ lawyer. It is extremely unlikely that they conferred with her on this matter.

@DrDeth

There is always a City Attorney or the DA sitting there, weighing in on any legal question, and also giving advice whenever any law, bill or measure would be illegal.

Maybe the City Attorney, but I doubt it. Almost certainly not the DA.

@DrDeth

Are you saying I didnt see her on TV?

I am seriously beginning to doubt that you saw her on TV in support of Prop H. I don’t think you’re lying. I think you’re wrong.

@DrDeth

Perhaps yes, as Bone mentioned, neither had the authority to keep Prop H off the ballot. But they certainly weighed in.

They definitely don’t have the power to keep it off the ballot and there is no evidence that Kamala Harris weighed in on this. Also, this is substantially different from your original claim. Would you like to withdraw that claim (again)?

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@Bone

I’m not sure why you felt the need to add this, but it’s not appropriate for this forum. If you want to take shots at another poster, do it in the Pit.

[/moderating]

Sorry.

[DrDeth]

@Lance_Turbo

Here’s a greatest hits of false claims.

This doesn’t appear to have happened.

No evidence of this has been delivered.

Doesn’t look like it.

Not her law.

Probably not.

Nope.

Definitely not.

I don’t think so.

I haven’t seen any reason to believe this.

Definitely not true.

I don’t think this is true.

This is false. The DA does not rule on propositions.

I don’t think she had anything to do with these appeals.

She did no such thing.

She could not have done this. District Attorneys do not have this power.

Prop 9 was kept off the ballot by the California Supreme Court, not a DA.

She did not. This is not a thing that DA’s do.

I’m pretty sure she didn’t.

This clearing ballot propostions for legality mechanism is not a thing that exists. Sunrises, on the hand, do exist.

Nope. That’s not a thing DAs do.

This probably didn’t happen, but a cite could convince me that it did.

Definetly not. This is straight up false.

Blocked by the CA Supreme Court, not a DA or the AG.

Nothing like this exists. A big ball of false.

Definitely not a fact. She did not do this.

I doubt it.

I don’t believe that this occurred. I think you are mistaken.

You can’t show this because it didn’t happen.

The DA is not Board of Supervisors’ lawyer. It is extremely unlikely that they conferred with her on this matter.

Maybe the City Attorney, but I doubt it. Almost certainly not the DA.

I am seriously beginning to doubt that you saw her on TV in support of Prop H. I don’t think you’re lying. I think you’re wrong.

They definitely don’t have the power to keep it off the ballot and there is no evidence that Kamala Harris weighed in on this. Also, this is substantially different from your original claim. Would you like to withdraw that claim (again)?

Boy that must have taken you HOURS. :rolleyes: And, all it proves is that I was unable to give you a cite for something that really is meaningless. You have not proven me wrong, you just say I am wrong. And of course you dont want to violate the rules and call me a liar, even tho you clearly want to.

But that’s Ok. Ok, I dont have a cite that will make you happy for one of my claims.

Do you have any cites? For anything?

[septimus]

@DrDeth

Boy that must have taken you HOURS. :rolleyes:

Would that have been your speed for a post of his type?

I’m sorry, I’ve not studied the entire thread. Is your thesis that Kamala Harris, or anyone who’s taken a stand on gun control, is not entitled to “personal safety”? If not, what IS all this consternation about?

[Ravenman]

@septimus

Would that have been your speed for a post of his type?

I’m sorry, I’ve not studied the entire thread. Is your thesis that Kamala Harris, or anyone who’s taken a stand on gun control, is not entitled to “personal safety”? If not, what IS all this consternation about?

I think it is that DrDeth feels that all Americans are entitled to personal defense except for those who support universal background checks. Because they SUCK!!!

[Gyrate]

@DrDeth

Boy that must have taken you HOURS. :rolleyes: And, all it proves is that I was unable to give you a cite for something that really is meaningless.

The entire core of your argument, without which pretty much the entirety of your participation in this thread has been pointless, is “meaningless”?

That’s remarkably candid of you.

[Ravenman]

@Bone

I think your criticism of citing manufacturers is unfounded. Because citing the manufacturers was more to rebut the claim that Try2B made, that somehow manufacturers have acknowledged that the tech was feasible. Listening to the manufacturers themselves on this matter on whether they have made this claim is directly relevant to rebutting it. It’s not trusting their analysis, but rather assessing whether they have made the claim at all.

By the way, DrDeth, this is how you make a good argument. I posted something, and Bone responded with a clear, precise, and logical post about why my (flippant) post was in error.

[Slash1972]

@DrDeth

Yes? Was it or was it not printed in the Times?

Yes, it was printed in the Times. So, to you, anything the Times prints, even if it’s an opinion piece, means the Times itself supports that position?

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

OK, I did a little digging to get to the bottom of all this. I found a handy PDF that goes into the details of microstamping: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://efsgv.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Microstamping-Technology-Precise-and-Proven-Memo.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj2h7Lx5P_hAhVGJKwKHYX3CmMQ6sMDMA96BAgEEAU&usg=AOvVaw0J8FyKKsDFHIYYlWEnOzDr

Now, that deals with firing pin microstamping. It is useful in demonstrating that the technology works, even after firing 2500 rounds.

But the issue with the CA law is that it requires microstamping in two locations, not just the firing pin. OK, see here: https://www.csgv.org/microstamping-proves-worth/

This followed a previous test in May 2007 that demonstrated the endurance and durability of the technology. During that test, Lizotte and Ohar fired over 2,500 rounds from a microstamped Smith and Wesson .40 caliber semiautomatic handgun using five different brands of ammunition. Microstamped markings from the firing pin were transferred successfully 97% of the time using both Optical Microscopy and Scanning Electron Microscopy. Additionally, breech face markings transferred to cartridge casings 96% of the time.

In my searching, I learned that the cartridge ejection mechanism tends to leave marks on spent cartridges and may therefore be a candidate for a 3rd location for microstamping, but this much is my own speculation.

That should settle the question of “impossibility”. But my debate with bone involves the question of whether gun manufacturers admit that microstamping is feasible. If you count actions as speech, then absolutely yes: Gunmakers angry over Calif. law requiring coded ammo - CBS News

Smith & Wesson does make a California-compliant version of its M&P Shield and SDVE pistols, and said both are expected to begin shipping in 90 days and should offset the impact of pulling some models from the shelves.

That was from Jan 2014, so if they are not available now it is because Smith and Wesson refuses to produce them, not because they can’t.

Finally, to the question of “signing off” on this bill, Harris seems to have at most a tangential relationship to this law. Who literally, formally signed it into law? GOP governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Harris is just somehow taking the blame because… you tell me why.

In the end, this whole conflict may simply be a teachable moment about capitalism and stick toitiveness. Washington did not defeat the British by saying “I can’t.” Buggy whip companies went under when they didn’t keep up with the automobile. In similar Darwinian fashion, companies with the grit and know how to produce guns featuring microstamping will naturally replace the dinosaurs that can’t or won’t, leading to a better world for everyone. Yay, capitalism!

[Bone]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

But the issue with the CA law is that it requires microstamping in two locations, not just the firing pin. OK, see here: https://www.csgv.org/microstamping-proves-worth/

CSGV? They don’t link to the study so forgive me if I am skeptical. Previous testing has shown some positive results, but only after cherrypicking data and throwing out samples that didn’t pass.

That should settle the question of “impossibility”. But my debate with bone involves the question of whether gun manufacturers admit that microstamping is feasible. If you count actions as speech, then absolutely yes: Gunmakers angry over Calif. law requiring coded ammo - CBS News

That was from Jan 2014, so if they are not available now it is because Smith and Wesson refuses to produce them, not because they can’t.

This doesn’t support your point in any way. Those two models were for sale because they were certified compliant with the “not unsafe” roster prior to the microstamping requirement being implemented. Those models are equipped with the required CLI and MDM, however the MDM is easily removable.

Maybe if CA passed the right law, they could find unicorns too.

[DrDeth]

@septimus

Would that have been your speed for a post of his type?

I’m sorry, I’ve not studied the entire thread. Is your thesis that Kamala Harris, or anyone who’s taken a stand on gun control, is not entitled to “personal safety”? If not, what IS all this consternation about?

No, not at all.

Look, Harris is anti-gun, that comes from her very own quotes. We can debate the amount of anti-gun she is, but she get the worst possible rating from the NRA and the best rating from anti-gun sources. So, that’s a given. IMHO she believes that the hoi polloi are not entitled to own a gun for personal safety.

My issue is that she is thus being hypocritical. Just like a Homophobic Anti-gay rights GOp Politician who is caught having secret gay sex in a public restroom. Sure, there’s nothing wrong with having gay sex. But there is something weird about publicly denouncing gay sex and then privately committing it.

[DrDeth]

@Slash1972

Yes, it was printed in the Times. So, to you, anything the Times prints, even if it’s an opinion piece, means the Times itself supports that position?

I have no idea of what you are saying?

Are you contending that the Times doesnt support Gun control?

Are you contending that that article wasn’t in the Times?

Did I say “the Times itself supports that position”?

Why not read what I actually posted?

[DrDeth]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

…
That should settle the question of “impossibility”. But my debate with bone involves the question of whether gun manufacturers admit that microstamping is feasible. If you count actions as speech, then absolutely yes: Gunmakers angry over Calif. law requiring coded ammo - CBS News

That was from Jan 2014, so if they are not available now it is because Smith and Wesson refuses to produce them, not because they can’t.
…

Those models dont have microstamping, no gun does, afaik.
https://www.smith-wesson.com/firearms/mp-9-shield-ca-compliant

What they have is “CA Compliant Tactile Loaded Chamber Indicator and Magazine Safety” which is another rule CA added.

[Bone]

@DrDeth

Did I say “the Times itself supports that position”?
?

You did actually.

@DrDeth

Here’s the anti-gun LA Times making the argument it’s a bad law:
Commentary: It’s time to end ‘microstamp’ requirement for handguns

Unless it’s the LA Times Editorial Board publishing the Op-Ed, it’s not accurate to attribute the argument to the LA Times itself. Your statement would lead someone to believe that the LA Times is taking a position when in fact they are publishing an opinion piece written by a California Assembly member.

[RitterSport]

@DrDeth

No, not at all.

Look, Harris is anti-gun, that comes from her very own quotes. We can debate the amount of anti-gun she is, but she get the worst possible rating from the NRA and the best rating from anti-gun sources. So, that’s a given. IMHO she believes that the hoi polloi are not entitled to own a gun for personal safety.

My issue is that she is thus being hypocritical. Just like a Homophobic Anti-gay rights GOp Politician who is caught having secret gay sex in a public restroom. Sure, there’s nothing wrong with having gay sex. But there is something weird about publicly denouncing gay sex and then privately committing it.

Once again, it’s not hypocritical to own a gun if you’re at increased personal risk even if you’re anti-gun. She has to face the reality of a country with hundreds of millions of personally-owned guns.

If she lived in a country with very strict gun laws and a dearth of guns, like Australia or the UK, and was very anti-gun in public but owned one in private, maybe you’d have a case for hypocrisy. However, in the US, it can make perfect sense to be anti-gun and still own one, since this country is floating in sea of them.

A better analogy than your anti-gay analogy, I think, is the anti-nuke country one. Even if the US were very anti-nuclear weapons, given a world where our adversaries and competitors (and even allies) have them, it would not be responsible for the US to unilaterally disarm.

[Slash1972]

@DrDeth

Did I say “the Times itself supports that position”?

What **Bone **said.