0
shropshire

Bills opposed by NRA signed - By Arnie

Recommended Posts

clicky

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.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

How does this make any sense?
A) If the baddies police their brass - whoops no evidence.


Most criminals are not known for their tidiness. I mean, I see so few real gang-banger's crips featured in Home and Garden.

Quote


B) If the baddies use guns made without the new micro-stamp (i.e all of the existing ones) - whoops no evidence.


True, but it's a start. Your argument is a bit like saying laws requiring safety belts and air bags in cars should have never gone into effect because, "what if you then drove a car that was manufactured before they were required?" Does it make more sense to do nothing; ever?
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D:D

Actually... seat belts and air bags have probably helped to cause more accidents not less..... people would probably drive a lot safer if they thought that they were going to die....... nah, maybe not.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



B) If the baddies use guns made without the new micro-stamp (i.e all of the existing ones) - whoops no evidence.


True, but it's a start. Your argument is a bit like saying laws requiring safety belts and air bags in cars should have never gone into effect because, "what if you then drove a car that was manufactured before they were required?" Does 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Does 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!
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Does 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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%?



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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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?)



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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

clicky

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

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?)



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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It'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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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.



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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Does 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Does 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

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.



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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0