Well if it has been ruled unconstitutional or is unenforceable then it's not the law of the land.
They should not have been passed in the first place, especially with them knowing the technology for micro stamping is now available, and that smart guns really aren't very reliable.
Making it so you can only buy those firearms denies citizens their Second Amendment rights, since again, they aren't available.I don't know the specifics of CA law, but if what you're saying is true, then there are no legal gun sales taking place in CA. Is that really what is happening?
Here's an article form the San Jose Mercury News about the record-breaking gun sales in CA in 2015, and while there is a lot of discussion about gun control laws, there is no mention of what you are talking about here. In any case, it doesn't seem like law abiding citizens are having any trouble arming themselves in CA...a simple google search "buy guns California" seems to show lots of options. If, as you seem to be saying, state law now prohibits the legal sale of guns in CA nobody seems to have noticed.
http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_29238575/californias-gun-sales-break-records
Here is a recent article on what is actually being proposed.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-gun-bills-20160519-snap-story.html
Thanks. Obviously those are still proposed laws and not actual laws as of yet, and there is nothing in there about micro stamping or smart guns, so still not sure what to make of Jerry's comments in this thread (to review, Jerry has told us that the law in CA already says that ONLY smart guns and micro stamped guns can be bought/sold in CA, and since neither are available that means by extension that NO guns can currently be bought/sold in CA).
[Edited on 5/25/2016 by gondicar]
The microstamping law was signed into law in 2007, if you wish to see the list of "California legal" firearms, go to certguns.doj.ca.gov/
Guns CAN be bought and sold in California, but they must meet the California Certifications. Some firearm manufacturers have decide to not comply with the California rules and will not export to the Republic of California.
Earlier in this thread, you said this:
"How about the California law that requires any firearms sold be a "smart gun" or has the "Judge Dredd" (microstamping) type identifiers, in other words "California Legal". The smart guns are limited to one made in Germany with a.22 caliber round, and microstamping is not available anywhere. thus pretty much stopping the legal sale of almost all firearms in the state?"
Except the last line is not true at all. If it were, firearms sales would decline when in fact the opposite is true, firearm sales were at a record high in CA in 2015. So just stop it with the false claims that CA "denies citizens their Second Amendment rights" due to the restrictions aka REGULATIONS (as in "well regulated") that the state has put in place. The second amendment is alive and well in CA as evidenced by the recent record GROWTH in firearms sales.
PS - sorry for the thread hijack
[Edited on 5/25/2016 by gondicar]
Well if it has been ruled unconstitutional or is unenforceable then it's not the law of the land.
They should not have been passed in the first place, especially with them knowing the technology for micro stamping is now available, and that smart guns really aren't very reliable.
Making it so you can only buy those firearms denies citizens their Second Amendment rights, since again, they aren't available.I don't know the specifics of CA law, but if what you're saying is true, then there are no legal gun sales taking place in CA. Is that really what is happening?
Here's an article form the San Jose Mercury News about the record-breaking gun sales in CA in 2015, and while there is a lot of discussion about gun control laws, there is no mention of what you are talking about here. In any case, it doesn't seem like law abiding citizens are having any trouble arming themselves in CA...a simple google search "buy guns California" seems to show lots of options. If, as you seem to be saying, state law now prohibits the legal sale of guns in CA nobody seems to have noticed.
http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_29238575/californias-gun-sales-break-records
Here is a recent article on what is actually being proposed.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-gun-bills-20160519-snap-story.html
Thanks. Obviously those are still proposed laws and not actual laws as of yet, and there is nothing in there about micro stamping or smart guns, so still not sure what to make of Jerry's comments in this thread (to review, Jerry has told us that the law in CA already says that ONLY smart guns and micro stamped guns can be bought/sold in CA, and since neither are available that means by extension that NO guns can currently be bought/sold in CA).
[Edited on 5/25/2016 by gondicar]
The microstamping law was signed into law in 2007, if you wish to see the list of "California legal" firearms, go to certguns.doj.ca.gov/
Guns CAN be bought and sold in California, but they must meet the California Certifications. Some firearm manufacturers have decide to not comply with the California rules and will not export to the Republic of California.Earlier in this thread, you said this:
"How about the California law that requires any firearms sold be a "smart gun" or has the "Judge Dredd" (microstamping) type identifiers, in other words "California Legal". The smart guns are limited to one made in Germany with a.22 caliber round, and microstamping is not available anywhere. thus pretty much stopping the legal sale of almost all firearms in the state?"
Except the last line is not true at all. If it were, firearms sales would decline when in fact the opposite is true, firearm sales were at a record high in CA in 2015. So just stop it with the false claims that CA "denies citizens their Second Amendment rights" due to the restrictions aka REGULATIONS (as in "well regulated") that the state has put in place. The second amendment is alive and well in CA as evidenced by the recent record GROWTH in firearms sales.
PS - sorry for the thread hijack
[Edited on 5/25/2016 by gondicar]
Here is a bit more about that law. It will plainly show it is being misrepresented in this thread. Big surprise.
Here is a bit more about that law. It will plainly show it is being misrepresented in this thread. Big surprise.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-27/california-gun-microstamping-law-is-upheld-by-federal-judge/blockquote >
As I suspected. It has been adjudicated as constitutional after all, and will remain that way if and until a higher court deems otherwise. Sorry Jerry."The law barring sales of handguns without the microstamping technology doesn’t violate the Constitution’s Second Amendment because gun owners don’t have a right to buy specific types of firearms, U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller in Sacramento said in her ruling.
“Plaintiffs insist they have the right to determine the precise way in which they would exercise their Second Amendment rights,” Mueller said. The insistence upon particular handguns falls “outside the scope of the right to bear arms,” she said.
As for Jerry's statement that "microstamping is not available anywhere", that seems to be wrong as well...
"The California law was signed in 2007 by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, and was put on hold until 2013 when state Attorney General Kamala Harris, a Democrat running for the U.S. Senate next year, determined the technology was available to all gun makers and wasn’t encumbered by patent claims."
[Edited on 5/25/2016 by gondicar]
As for Jerry's statement that "microstamping is not available anywhere", that seems to be wrong as well...
"The California law was signed in 2007 by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, and was put on hold until 2013 when state Attorney General Kamala Harris, a Democrat running for the U.S. Senate next year, determined the technology was available to all gun makers and wasn’t encumbered by patent claims."
[Edited on 5/25/2016 by gondicar]
So give me a list of available semi-autos that have the required micro-stamping technology for sale.
As soon as a semi-auto comes off the "Roster of not unsafe firearms" they will no longer be legal for sale in California. This can happen if any modifications to the design has been implemented by the factory, even if the modification is to improve the safety of the firearm. To get back on the roster, they will have to have the micro-stamping added.
NanoMark Technologies holds the patents for the micro-stamping technology, and their own test show as much as a 50% failure rate to properly mark the shell primer. Plus, you can only buy the equipment from them.
Smith&Wesson and Ruger will no longer export semi-autos to the Republic of California due to the micro-stamping laws.
And, the law hasn't passed all hurdles yet.
As for Jerry's statement that "microstamping is not available anywhere", that seems to be wrong as well...
"The California law was signed in 2007 by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, and was put on hold until 2013 when state Attorney General Kamala Harris, a Democrat running for the U.S. Senate next year, determined the technology was available to all gun makers and wasn’t encumbered by patent claims."
[Edited on 5/25/2016 by gondicar]So give me a list of available semi-autos that have the required micro-stamping technology for sale.
As soon as a semi-auto comes off the "Roster of not unsafe firearms" they will no longer be legal for sale in California. This can happen if any modifications to the design has been implemented by the factory, even if the modification is to improve the safety of the firearm. To get back on the roster, they will have to have the micro-stamping added.
NanoMark Technologies holds the patents for the micro-stamping technology, and their own test show as much as a 50% failure rate to properly mark the shell primer. Plus, you can only buy the equipment from them.
Smith&Wesson and Ruger will no longer export semi-autos to the Republic of California due to the micro-stamping laws.
And, the law hasn't passed all hurdles yet.
We've already seen that your claims on this contradict published information so please provides some links to back up your claims or they are essentially meaningless and not worthy of debate.
As for Jerry's statement that "microstamping is not available anywhere", that seems to be wrong as well...
"The California law was signed in 2007 by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, and was put on hold until 2013 when state Attorney General Kamala Harris, a Democrat running for the U.S. Senate next year, determined the technology was available to all gun makers and wasn’t encumbered by patent claims."
[Edited on 5/25/2016 by gondicar]So give me a list of available semi-autos that have the required micro-stamping technology for sale.
As soon as a semi-auto comes off the "Roster of not unsafe firearms" they will no longer be legal for sale in California. This can happen if any modifications to the design has been implemented by the factory, even if the modification is to improve the safety of the firearm. To get back on the roster, they will have to have the micro-stamping added.
NanoMark Technologies holds the patents for the micro-stamping technology, and their own test show as much as a 50% failure rate to properly mark the shell primer. Plus, you can only buy the equipment from them.
Smith&Wesson and Ruger will no longer export semi-autos to the Republic of California due to the micro-stamping laws.
And, the law hasn't passed all hurdles yet.
We've already seen that your claims on this contradict published information so please provides some links to back up your claims or they are essentially meaningless and not worthy of debate.
In other words you can't find any semi-auto firearms for sale with the microstamping technology, you don't want to do a Wikipedia search on micro-stamping, and you don't want to check on the California laws to show where I'm wrong.
As for the Ruger and Smith&Wesson comment, I'll let you go someplace where even simple minded people can pick up the real meaning of the law.
www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2429893,00.asp
When people who write articles for computer magazines get concerned, it's gotta be bad.
