Ok, I worded it badly.
Nitpick: those guns were available for purchase because they were entirely unchanged from before the microstamping law going in to effect. Only new models or modifications must have microstamping technology. Given that firearm manufacturers, like everyone else, are constantly updating and changing their products, then those new handguns will not be allowed to be sold in California. Bone had a relevant anecdote about Glock 17 generations. One generation can still be produced and sold in California, but the next generation cannot. That doesn’t exactly coincide well with “banning all the guns so peasants can’t have them”, but that’s neither here nor there. Complaints about new features like the chamber load indicators and magazine disconnect mechanisms are likewise invalid, given that those requirements predated microstamping by seven and six years, respectively.
I’ll try to find the study for you. Tomorrow. Sorry you don’t like some of my sources- I’m generally disinterested in gun issues from whatever angle, and so don’t have a taste in gun info sources.
Doh! Just when I thought I had you, I get Boned instead :smack:
Still, no comment on my other cite on microstamping? They microstamped thousands of bullets via firing pin. We can look at their photos of the results. I’m not saying that by itself makes for a worthwhile gun regulation, but if you are going to keep comparing it to “unicorns” and “unicorn tears” and so on, it’s worth pointing out that there never has been a photo of a unicorn. Firing pin microstamped bullets? Yeah, we can look at them. Right in my link! Seems silly to keep insisting that microstamping is just a fanciful fiction.
No one is saying you can’t do microstamping. You can. They have- in tests. But it is more or less useless, since criminals dont go to a gun store and buy the guns they want to use in a crime. Microstamping can also be removed in five minutes with a emery board or ten minutes with a spare firing pin. It is more or less useless for law Enforcement. But you *can *do it.
But what you* can’t* have is *CA style two places *microstamping. That is currently technologically impossible.
See the difference? If CA just asked for regular microstamping, likely some CA gun company would have made a few special CA models- CA market is quite big. But no one has or can do **CA style **microstamping.
I am not ready to agree with you, Dr Deth. Check out this patent which describes a method for not two, but four locations for microstamping a cartridge:
bolding mine
https://patents.google.com/patent/US7111423B2/en
A patent does not mean such a device is technologically possible.
There are patents for anti-grav, and for a whole list of things that are* patently *impossible.
In any case, the lower court accepted the arguments that the CA Microstamping was impossible, but the CA Supreme court ruled “So what?”.
But we are not talking about defying the laws of physics. What is impossible about enabling microstamping at any two if the four locations mentioned in my link?
I dont know. I am not a expert on this. But the lower court accepted arguments that CA style was impossible, and every major gun company has also said so. So, I trust the experts.
Might those manufacturers have had a motive? Recall that Microsoft once testified in court on an antitrust case that it would be almost impossible to ship a version of Windows without an Internet browser. :eek:
Sure. But two things hold against that:
-
Gun companies are competitors, and there are several smaller gun companies right here in CA. One of them would LOVE to steal a march on S&S or Colt and get a commanding lead in the sixth largest market.
-
The lower court accepted the arguments that the CA rules are impossible.
Again, I am not a expert. I do know that microstamping, in the Law enforcement community gets a big old roll eyes. :rolleyes: To be fair, one Agent did say “that even tho it’s a small chance, we’ll take any chance we can get.”
I finally got some info back from a guy who was in SF politics. Harris’s support was lukewarm. She did lend a generic soundbite to a TV ad, speaking out about the epidemic of gun violence in SF. She very likely weighed in on the law behind closed doors, but no, she couldn’t actually stop it, even if she wanted to. She didn’t give a *public *opinion on it’s legality. Several others did, saying it wasnt legal, her absence was noted however.
So I was wrong on one part. Mea culpa.
Cite for what she “very likely did” behind closed doors?
“I finally got some info back from a guy who was in SF politics.”
So you’ve substituted someone else’s speculation for your own. Got it.
Supposedly. 
So you are asserting that she is a hypocrite because she is doing something that conflicts with your opinion of what she “believes”. Of course, the alternative explanation is that your opinion of what she believes is simply wrong. Have you considered this?
Was he behind those closed doors with her?
Oh my. First of all, Harris’ gun-carrying is not hypocritical — see below — but even if it were, your concern is misplaced.
What about the pro-Life Congressman who advised his unwed pregnant daughter to get an abortion? Is he hypocritical? What about the Republican politicians who blather about improving public education but happily strip the schools of funds and give it to the fraudulent schools that come around with bags of cash at election time? How about subverting the U.S. census, suppressing urban votes, lying about tax plans, locking up the children of asylum seekers? Are these liars and cheaters hypocrites? How can a sober citizen imagine Harris’ gun is worth mention with all this venal hypocrisy in plain view?
@ DrDeth — I hope you do answer these questions. From other threads I see there is some doubt whether your views are worthy of attention. Can you prove those nay-sayers wrong?
Oh. BTW, Harris’ having a gun for personal safety is not hypocritical. A major reason for gun control is to reduce one’s legitimate concern for personal safety. Given the ferocious and irrational nature of many American gun-slingers, and the fact that common-sense restrictions on guns have not been imposed, it would be dangerous for an anti-gun politician not to be known as a gun packer.
Obviously this doesn’t apply to you, but many Trumpists are hateful and violent, almost psychopathic. If I were in Senator Harris’ position I would take the calls to disarm as threats of assassination.
Is a politician who calls for higher taxes on his income hypocritical if he doesn’t pay the higher tax voluntarily? No.
Is a politician who calls to improve public schools hypocritical if his children are in private schools? No.
Why in heaven’s name is a politician who calls for a reduction in gun violence hypocritical if she carries a gun as protection from gun violence? It’s too absurd a claim to take seriously.
HTH.
A similar claim was made earlier in this thread, and both times no evidence was provided to support it, and no reason given why it should be considered anything but leftist fan fiction.
She was on this guy’s list.