quade 4
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteDoes it make more sense to do nothing; ever?
I addressed this in the thread you started. It's not a start. It's as effective as armed troops in the airports. All look, no results.
Well, yes, ya got me on that one . . . to date there have been absoultely no criminals brought up on charges as a result of microstamping evidence.
Holy f'in' poo . . . how did I miss that?
F'in' FutureCam never works the way I think it ought to, but crap, Arnold is from the future, he certainly must know something you don't!
Naw, he just will do what ever it takes (in CA) to get re-elected. Just like all the rest of them
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 3,173
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
I don't think it will be very effective overall - but it will be interesting to see whether it is any use at all in the real world. If it increases arrest rates for armed robbery/murder by 10% would it be worth it? 5%? 1%?
QuoteI don't think it will be very effective overall - but it will be interesting to see whether it is any use at all in the real world. If it increases arrest rates for armed robbery/murder by 10% would it be worth it? 5%? 1%?
Maybe. But there's a question as to the actual effect - many gun manufacturers (Glock, Sig, Smith and Wesson, among others) have said that there's a good chance they'll just stop selling guns to California entirely, making this effectively a ban (and arguably unconstitutional on those grounds?)
7CP#1 | BTR#2 | Payaso en fuego Rodriguez
"I want hot chicks in my boobies!"- McBeth
"I want hot chicks in my boobies!"- McBeth
quade 4
QuoteMaybe. But there's a question as to the actual effect - many gun manufacturers (Glock, Sig, Smith and Wesson, among others) have said that there's a good chance they'll just stop selling guns to California entirely, making this effectively a ban (and arguably unconstitutional on those grounds?)
If a company decides not to do business because of regulatory standards, that's not a ban. That's like saying that California bans cars because their emission standards are higher than the rest of the country. I think, if you drive any freeway in California, you'll see those stadards have no impact on car sales whatsoever.
Nice hype, but hardly a ban.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
billvon 3,173
>many gun manufacturers (Glock, Sig, Smith and Wesson, among others)
>have said that there's a good chance they'll just stop selling guns to
>California entirely, making this effectively a ban (and arguably
>unconstitutional on those grounds?)
?? I don't see that. Gun manufacturers can refuse to sell guns to any state they choose. Heck, they could refuse to sell guns to Montana because they have very few gun laws, and they'd prefer more protection from a liability standpoint. Would that require Montana to adopt more stringent gun laws to avoid an effective ban?
>have said that there's a good chance they'll just stop selling guns to
>California entirely, making this effectively a ban (and arguably
>unconstitutional on those grounds?)
?? I don't see that. Gun manufacturers can refuse to sell guns to any state they choose. Heck, they could refuse to sell guns to Montana because they have very few gun laws, and they'd prefer more protection from a liability standpoint. Would that require Montana to adopt more stringent gun laws to avoid an effective ban?
councilman24 37
I don't usually play here but...
The courts have continually ruled on whether regulations on abortion short of a ban are effectively a ban by making obtaining an abortion too onerous. At some point firearm regulation could reach that same threshold. By making it unreasonably onerous to exercise the right, especially one enumerated in the Constitution directly, a set of regulations could become an effective ban and be ruled unconstitutional.
Where that level would be reached would be a matter for ajudication by the courts.
The courts have continually ruled on whether regulations on abortion short of a ban are effectively a ban by making obtaining an abortion too onerous. At some point firearm regulation could reach that same threshold. By making it unreasonably onerous to exercise the right, especially one enumerated in the Constitution directly, a set of regulations could become an effective ban and be ruled unconstitutional.
Where that level would be reached would be a matter for ajudication by the courts.
I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE
Quoteclicky
How does this make any sense?
A) If the baddies police their brass - whoops no evidence.
B) If the baddies use guns made without the new micro-stamp (i.e all of the existing ones) - whoops no evidence.
It doesn't make any sense. It's just another step for law abiding gun owners to go through. Worst case, it creates a way for criminals to deceive police... throw down some random brass collected from a gun range, while picking up your own. Not only no real evidence, but wrong evidence. And what are they going to do about reloaded brass with more than one stamp?
The bill is poorly thought through and requires technology that doesn't exist.
billvon 3,173
>The courts have continually ruled on whether regulations on abortion short
>of a ban are effectively a ban by making obtaining an abortion too onerous.
Environmental laws use a similar standard referred to as BACT (best available commercial technology.) If a new environmental law mandated emissions reductions that cannot be met by BACT, then it is often nullified as being too damaging to utilities/factories. So the same could apply here - if microstamping cannot be achieved by the best available commercial technology, that would be an argument against it.
>of a ban are effectively a ban by making obtaining an abortion too onerous.
Environmental laws use a similar standard referred to as BACT (best available commercial technology.) If a new environmental law mandated emissions reductions that cannot be met by BACT, then it is often nullified as being too damaging to utilities/factories. So the same could apply here - if microstamping cannot be achieved by the best available commercial technology, that would be an argument against it.
QuoteQuoteMaybe. But there's a question as to the actual effect - many gun manufacturers (Glock, Sig, Smith and Wesson, among others) have said that there's a good chance they'll just stop selling guns to California entirely, making this effectively a ban (and arguably unconstitutional on those grounds?)
If a company decides not to do business because of regulatory standards, that's not a ban. That's like saying that California bans cars because their emission standards are higher than the rest of the country. I think, if you drive any freeway in California, you'll see those stadards have no impact on car sales whatsoever.
Nice hype, but hardly a ban.
There's a lot more car owners in CA than gun owners, and unfortunately, the number of CA gun owners has been shrinking over the past few decades. It is a very real possibility that a company may decide to forego the few thousand dollars they make out of CA gun sales to avoid the expensive process of adding microstamping technology that currently doesn't exist.
quade 4
QuoteIt's just another step for law abiding gun owners to go through.
Step? What step do the "law abiding gun owners have to go through"? It's not like you have to have existing guns retrofitted.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
quade 4
Quote. . . unfortunately, the number of CA gun owners has been shrinking over the past few decades.
The "unfortunate" part of that statement seems more like opinion than fact counselor.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
It's another step that law abiding gun owners have to convince gun manufacturers to go through so they can buy their new guns.
The bill doesn't make any sense, because most guns used in crimes are stolen or purchased on the black market, so the microstamp won't lead back to the right person.
The bill doesn't make any sense, because most guns used in crimes are stolen or purchased on the black market, so the microstamp won't lead back to the right person.
quade 4
QuoteThe bill doesn't make any sense, because most guns used in crimes are stolen or purchased on the black market, so the microstamp won't lead back to the right person.
So, if a gun is reported as being stolen it won't help exonerate the legal owner? If a gun is used in a crime and evidence is shown that it came from a manufacturer dealing on the black market rather than legal gun shops, you don't see that as a useful tool?
So far, none of your arguments are holding any sway with me. In fact, so far everything you've said up to this point makes me like the law more than hate it.
Will it be 100% effective; no. Nothing is. Is it better than nothing; yes! Absolutely.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
ExAFO 0
Does the technology exist to microstamp a Marmoset?
Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.
quade 4
QuoteDoes the technology exist to microstamp a Marmoset?
Guess they have about 2 years to figure it out.
Are you calling the gun manufacutrers stupid? Do you have so little faith in their machining skills that this can't be accomplished?
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
ExAFO 0
QuoteQuoteDoes the technology exist to microstamp a Marmoset?
Guess they have about 2 years to figure it out.
Are you calling the gun manufacutrers stupid? Do you have so little faith in their machining skills that this can't be accomplished?
No, just think zoos would like to be able to microstamp their Marmosets.
Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.
QuoteQuoteThe bill doesn't make any sense, because most guns used in crimes are stolen or purchased on the black market, so the microstamp won't lead back to the right person.
So, if a gun is reported as being stolen it won't help exonerate the legal owner?
When you shoot at a public range, any brass that falls past a line (or in some cases they try to get all of it) becomes the property of the range who resells the metal.
A gun doesn't have to be reported stolen for it to become the prime suspect at a crime scene.
I addressed this in the thread you started. It's not a start. It's as effective as armed troops in the airports. All look, no results.
Well, yes, ya got me on that one . . . to date there have been absoultely no criminals brought up on charges as a result of microstamping evidence.
Holy f'in' poo . . . how did I miss that?
F'in' FutureCam never works the way I think it ought to, but crap, Arnold is from the future, he certainly must know something you don't!
The World's Most Boring Skydiver