California slow motion handgun ban

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • masterdekoy

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    56   0   0
    Feb 12, 2013
    854
    28
    Columbus
    https://www.guns.com/2018/06/29/cal...ds-slow-motion-handgun-ban-microstamping-law/

    California Supreme Court upholds microstamping requirement for new handguns, even though it is impossible to do with current technology. My favorite quote:

    “Impossibility can occasionally excuse noncompliance with a statute,” Justice Goodwin Liu said for the majority. “But impossibility does not authorize a court to go beyond interpreting a statute and simply invalidate it.”
     

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    36,690
    113
    .
    Gun manufacturers can now shell out the bucks to Nanomark for license fees or not sell to the california market, somebody will and the cost of new guns will be covered by the citizens. Public/private partnership, the people who paid for the legislation get money and the political leadership makes it harder for the average citizen to buy a gun.

    I would be working on applying this tech to retrofit other firearms if I was working for Nanomark. More cash to be made by forcing citizens to bring in firearms they already have to be stamped or declared contraband.
     
    Last edited:

    EdC

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Aug 12, 2008
    965
    18
    Speedway, IN
    added quote

    Gun manufacturers can now shell out the bucks to Nanomark for license fees or not sell to the california market, somebody will and the cost of new guns will be covered by the citizens. Public/private partnership, the people who paid for the legislation get money and the political leadership makes it harder for the average citizen to buy a gun.

    I would be working on applying this tech to retrofit other firearms if I was working for Nanomark. More cash to be made by forcing citizens to bring in firearms they already have to be stamped or declared contraband.

    According the decision, the CA DoJ certified that there would not be patent restrictions and that Nanomark, as to their patent, offered a license royalty free (in a press release) for compliance with the law (according to the Senate Committee). This my rough summary from a quick read of the case.

    The NSSF did not challenge that certification or the royalty free offer information in any way.

    On another note, and what really puzzles me, is that the challenged statute required the imprinting information be on two or more places in the interior surfaces/working parts of the handgun so as to be imprinted on a least two places on the fired casing. So one on the end of the firing pin which doesn't seem especially technically challenging, but where in heck is the other one supposed to go? One the breach face? Seems pretty darn difficult to me. And expensive, especially for a retrofit paid for by citizens (even without any royalty payment issues)
     
    Last edited:

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    36,690
    113
    .
    It's hard to believe that Nanomark isn't making something from this, maybe they are committed corporate citizens to CA, although I don't remember if they are located there. Some years back this was shopped around the Indiana legislature, but never went anywhere.
     

    EdC

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Aug 12, 2008
    965
    18
    Speedway, IN
    It's hard to believe that Nanomark isn't making something from this, maybe they are committed corporate citizens to CA, although I don't remember if they are located there. Some years back this was shopped around the Indiana legislature, but never went anywhere.

    I agree and wouldn't be surprised if the certification from the DoJ was either mistaken or misunderstood and/or Nanomark walks back what was represented in the press release. Even the press release info was sourced from a Senate Committee states which could have been over optimistic in it's assessment. Who knows.

    I wish the NSSF challenged the DoJ Certification, if only to clarify what's going on with the patent/licensing issue but that wasn't the legal tack they took.
     

    DRob

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    20   0   0
    Aug 2, 2008
    5,869
    83
    Southside of Indy
    NanoMark execs are no doubt dancing in the halls over this incredibly stupid decision. This has been pending in Californication for about a decade. That long ago, microstamping legislation was introduced simultaneously in several (I think it was 17) states including Indiana. As usual, it was proposed by big-city democrats and touted as a public safety measure.

    https://www.all4shooters.com/en/Shooting/law/Guns-and-microstamping/
     

    spec4

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 19, 2010
    3,775
    27
    NWI
    All that I think is that this is far from the end out there. Any sane person there must have an exit strategy.
     

    worddoer

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    42   0   1
    Jul 25, 2011
    1,664
    99
    Wells County
    Well...if something not being technically possible does not matter and should still be required, then why doesn't California require that you can only own a weapon if it's a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range or a phaser? Or better yet, how about callahan 4 bore auto lock?
     

    russc2542

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Oct 24, 2015
    2,111
    83
    Columbus
    It's hard to believe that Nanomark isn't making something from this, maybe they are committed corporate citizens to CA, although I don't remember if they are located there. Some years back this was shopped around the Indiana legislature, but never went anywhere.

    They don't have to up front. They just need an occasional consultation or feasibility study to collect a fee for, maybe a research grant to improve gun safety. Once they get going, those royalty fees add up.

    Similarly, car dealerships don't expect to make money on car sales (directly) anymore. They sell at cost then collect quarterly bonus that surpasses the "lost" sales profits from the mfr for selling X number of cars. stew on that for a bit after reading all the ads.
     

    GIJEW

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 14, 2009
    2,716
    47
    Why is the SCOTUS letting Commiefornia get away with this ****?
    When this gets to them, CA will argue that they're just regulating gun ownership, not prohibiting it and therefore there's no 2A violation
     
    Top Bottom