Governor Schwarzenegger Restricts Guns

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

> If Schwarzenegger signed a bill mandating that no cars could be sold
>in California after the year 2010 unless they achieved 50 miles per gallon
>or better, would you consider that to be a good law?

Not in those words. I'd go with 35mpg myself by the 2010 model year, gradually increasing to 60mpg over the next 10 years. Gives car companies a chance to adapt.

And yet, when it comes to gun 'improvements,' manufacturers don't get a chance to adapt. They are given the mandate of non productive safety changes, never ending changes in end requirements, and now the use of unproven technology that only one provider even has a design for (and apparantly only has to license to one other to start printing money in the state). There is no benefit of CAFE averages either - either the guns meet the new requirements, or they are unsaleable, and current models are non transferable.

[billvon 3,132]

>And yet, when it comes to gun 'improvements,' manufacturers don't
>get a chance to adapt.

Are you referring to the microstamping thing? If so:

1) It does not take effect until 2010. That's three years from now - that's their "chance to adapt."
2) I've seen proposals for marking ammunition from the weapon for at least ten years now, so it's not like it's a new technology.
3) Lizotte, the inventor, has stated he will provide it to any US gun manufacturer royalty-free.

[quade 4]

Quote

Nice dodge. But the fact is, that is exactly what your stated position amounts to. You and billvon are two peas in a pod.

I really think you need a trip to dictionary.com so you can look up the definition for "exactly".

I do not think you're using that word quite right.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>And yet, when it comes to gun 'improvements,' manufacturers don't
>get a chance to adapt.

Are you referring to the microstamping thing? If so:

1) It does not take effect until 2010. That's three years from now - that's their "chance to adapt."
2) I've seen proposals for marking ammunition from the weapon for at least ten years now, so it's not like it's a new technology.
3) Lizotte, the inventor, has stated he will provide it to any US gun manufacturer royalty-free.

1) 2 years, 2 months, 1 week. And it applies to date of sale, not date of manufacturer as is more commonly done, so it's really more like one year.
2) yeah, bullshit proposals for personalized hand guns and microstamping have been around for a while.
3) the technology hasn't, and still doesn't.

But we all know whether or not it works is entirely besides the point of the exercise.

[billvon 3,132]

>But we all know whether or not it works is entirely besides the point of the exercise.

That is EXACTLY the point of the exercise.

In 2020, one of two things will happen due to this bill. Either gun crime in California will become easier to solve (resulting in more prosecutions) or it won't. If it does, then great. We have another way to catch criminals.

But if it doesn't? Heck, that's every pro-gunner's wet dream! They will have hard experimental proof that microstamping doesn't work, and thus will be pointless to implement in other states.

If it really isn't going to work, then I would think you'd be supporting this as an experiment. I think the real fear in the gun community is that it might just work - and thus other states will implement it. For once it's demonstrated to work, to take a stand against it is to take the side of criminals. And that's a hard stand to take.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>But we all know whether or not it works is entirely besides the point of the exercise.

That is EXACTLY the point of the exercise.

In 2020, one of two things will happen due to this bill. Either gun crime in California will become easier to solve (resulting in more prosecutions) or it won't. If it does, then great. We have another way to catch criminals.

But if it doesn't? Heck, that's every pro-gunner's wet dream! They will have hard experimental proof that microstamping doesn't work, and thus will be pointless to implement in other states.

Is this your Chris Rock impersonation? We already have studys showing that everything tried (both in the restrictive and supportive) has not shown results. And yet this time it will be different, so 35M Californians should pay the price for an experiment?

10 years of the Federal (let's ignore CA) Assault Weapons Ban accomplished nothing. Did the Democrats and gun controllers let it sunset quietly? No, they did not. Did anything change afterwards? No, crime rates stayed the same, but people outside of CA could get full capacity magazines again.

This is hardly a surprise, because the AW Ban was meant merely as an incremental step to a gun ban. Ban the scary ones first after we demonize them.

We know that microstamping won't change a thing in 10 years for numerous reasons. All the current guns lack it. With new ones you need only alter it, obtain someone elses (like stealing a car to commit a crime), or pick up your brass, or use a revolver. Or litter the crime scene with other brass. Or use a shotgun. Or....the list goes forever.

The gun controllers who want to ban guns will say this is proof that bigger steps are necessary. All old guns must be banned (bought by the state with unfunded $200 vouchers). Personalized gun technology must be added to make stolen guns unusable. And anything else that will add to the cost, making it unaffordable for an even larger portion of the population.

One state already put in a policy of keeping a test fire from every sale. It proved useless in crime analysis and rather expensive for the state. (nevermind the consumers)

[billvon 3,132]

>We already have studys showing that everything tried (both in the
>restrictive and supportive) has not shown results.

Kristova's testing in a .22 rifle and a .45 ACP handgun:

54% case markings were ideal; 46% had one or more illegible digits
After 1000 rounds the marks were still quite legible but starting to soften
First attempt at filing did not remove the stamp completely; second one did

>We know that microstamping won't change a thing in 10 years
>for numerous reasons.

Then it will be shown to be a failure, and you won't have to worry any more.

>The gun controllers who want to ban guns will say this is proof that
>bigger steps are necessary.

And the gun nuts who want criminals, children and the insane to own guns will scream about this measure. We should not listen to either extreme - and fortunately most people don't.

[1969912 0]

Quote

>And yet, when it comes to gun 'improvements,' manufacturers don't
>get a chance to adapt.

Are you referring to the microstamping thing? If so:

1) It does not take effect until 2010. That's three years from now - that's their "chance to adapt."
2) I've seen proposals for marking ammunition from the weapon for at least ten years now, so it's not like it's a new technology.
3) Lizotte, the inventor, has stated he will provide it to any US gun manufacturer royalty-free.

Two interesting things:

First, it may not be illegal to obliterate the (I assume raised letters) stamping die from the gun. AB 1471 doesn't state that doing so is prohibited but it does state that the stamp is not considered to be a [required marking, e.g serial number] under CA law. Grinding the stamp off wouldn't violate fed law either.


"The microscopic array of characters required by this section shall
not be considered the name of the maker, model, manufacturer's
number, or other mark of identification, including any distinguishing
number or mark assigned by the Department of Justice, within the
meaning of Sections 12090 and 12094."
--------------------------------------------



Second, some are claiming that Lizotte's "royalty-free offer" doesn't meet the requirements of AB 1471.

".....transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is
fired, provided that the Department of Justice certifies that the
technology used to create the imprint is available to more than one
manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions."


I'm not certain why the bolded part of the text was put into the bill, but my guess is its purpose is to ensure that the stamping technology will always be available, including (the real reason?) the technology to needed to read the stamps. Royalty-free may have the same legal implications as "unencumbered by any patent restrictions". AFAIK, Lizotte's offer doesn't necessarily mean that he/she will vacate the patents, if that is even possible. If there is a patent on the technology, a royalty-free grant of use might not meet the definition of "unencumbered".


There is a discussion going on here:


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=72049

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>We know that microstamping won't change a thing in 10 years
>for numerous reasons.

Then it will be shown to be a failure, and you won't have to worry any more.

The damage is done with the beginning of the experiment. The legislation does not have an expiration date.

Quote

>The gun controllers who want to ban guns will say this is proof that
>bigger steps are necessary.

And the gun nuts who want criminals, children and the insane to own guns will scream about this measure. We should not listen to either extreme - and fortunately most people don't.

And here is Chris again!

We are listening to one extreme - that's why we have this legislation now.

I'll be arming my friends rapidly in this next year.

[billvon 3,132]

>The damage is done with the beginning of the experiment.

What would be a better way to conduct it?

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

>We know that microstamping won't change a thing in 10 years
>for numerous reasons.

Then it will be shown to be a failure, and you won't have to worry any more.

The damage is done with the beginning of the experiment. The legislation does not have an expiration date.

r.

What exactly is the damage?

"If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about"

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>The damage is done with the beginning of the experiment.

What would be a better way to conduct it?

Don't.

Lacking credible evidence it will succeed, it should not be done. If the technology is beginning to fail after just 1000 rounds...it's not viable anyway.

The solution is not going to be found in this avenue anyway. Address the causes of the violence. Legalize drugs. Teach ebonics, give jobs to all. Execute all prisoners. (insert your preferred solution)

This is an expensive solution to give police a marginally useful tool to examine crimes after the fact.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

The damage is done with the beginning of the experiment. The legislation does not have an expiration date.

r.

What exactly is the damage?

"If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about"

1- all of my guns are unsaleable after Jan 1, 2010. So there is financial damage. Can be sold out of state, which will be more difficult and with a lower end return.

2- all of these guns are irreplaceable after Jan 1, 2010. At least one of my is no longer in production, but I can't buy it from out ot state. I suspect others of mine are not replaceable because they don't have the state's approved list of chamber indicators, disconnects, and safetys, all mandated by people unqualified on the subject.

3. It's is highly probable that selection will decrease and prices will increase for available handguns after Jan 1.

4. There is a low, but non zero risk of being falsely accused after someone uses brass from rounds expended at the firing range. Scenario one is an intentional framing which can be done to target an individual at at time where they lack a good alibi. A more likely scenario two involves random collection of brass and scattering it across the crime scene. You're on record for your lack of confidence in the quality of convictions of death penalty cases in Illinois. How could you trust any evidence of this sort that is so easily planted and manipulated?

So you have loss of money, loss of options, and potential loss of freedom from jail.

In exchange, what did we gain?

It's the sort of trade a Patriot Act lover would go for. So what are you?

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

It's the sort of trade a Patriot Act lover would go for. So what are you?

Sometimes a question IS just a request for information and not a challenge.

It seems that the technology is not mature enough to be useful if what you write is correct.

Maybe we could have microstamping on shoes, so we could go through airports without having to remove them.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[billvon 3,132]

>Lacking credible evidence it will succeed, it should not be done.

?? Most experiments don't have credible evidence they will succeed. That's why they do experiments.

>The solution is not going to be found in this avenue anyway.

Perhaps not. Time will tell.

>This is an expensive solution to give police a marginally useful tool to
>examine crimes after the fact.

I agree - the degree of usefulness will determine whether it's worth the expense or not. If it helps with 1 out of 1000 gun crimes, it's not worth the cost. If it helps solve 1 out of 5, it may be.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Lacking credible evidence it will succeed, it should not be done.

?? Most experiments don't have credible evidence they will succeed. That's why they do experiments.

that's why you do small experiments. Drug trials have 3 stages of increasing size. You don't jump straight to mass release on a hunch.

[billvon 3,132]

>that's why you do small experiments.

They've done small experiments; see the results above.

>Drug trials have 3 stages of increasing size.

In this case you'd have:

1) Testing by the manufacturer (done)
2) Testing by independent outside agencies, like police labs (done)
3) Testing on a small population (in process)
4) Testing on a large population (not done)

[mnealtx 0]

Another downside to this "technology" - it has the potential to cause a case rupture with hotter loads. I'm sure the potential is slight, but it is still there.

My litmus test for any proposal like this is "are the legislators willing to have the police department be a test case?" If the answer is no, then I am unwilling to support it from the start, regardless of how "gee-whiz" the purported advantages are.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

In 2020, one of two things will happen due to this bill. Either gun crime in California will become easier to solve (resulting in more prosecutions) or it won't. If it does, then great. We have another way to catch criminals.

But if it doesn't? Heck, that's every pro-gunner's wet dream! They will have hard experimental proof that microstamping doesn't work, and thus will be pointless to implement in other states.

If it really isn't going to work, then I would think you'd be supporting this as an experiment. I think the real fear in the gun community is that it might just work - and thus other states will implement it. For once it's demonstrated to work, to take a stand against it is to take the side of criminals. And that's a hard stand to take.

A while back, Maryland mandated that every new handgun sold in the state had to have a fired shell casing provided with it by the manufacturer, so that it could be entered into a ballistic characteristics database, for the purpose of future matching with shell casings from crime scenes. That severely restricted the number and type of handguns that could be sold in the state. And then about 10 years later, the Maryland State Police recommended that the whole system be scrapped, because it hadn't solved a single crime, and was sucking up resources that could be better utilized elsewhere.

This microstamping will be no different. The only thing it will accomplish is to deprive Californians of a variety of handguns to choose from when making a new purchase. And that has absolutely nothing at all to do with solving crimes.

[billvon 3,132]

>My litmus test for any proposal like this is "are the legislators willing
>to have the police department be a test case?"

Legislators aren't known for their technical savvy. A better question might be - "are the police departments willing to test this technology?" And the answer to _that_ question is yes, since it's been done.

[billvon 3,132]

>And that has absolutely nothing at all to do with solving crimes.

If that is true, then in 10 years you will have a statistic to use if Texas ever proposes such a law. Given that, I am surprised you object.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>My litmus test for any proposal like this is "are the legislators willing
>to have the police department be a test case?"

Legislators aren't known for their technical savvy. A better question might be - "are the police departments willing to test this technology?" And the answer to _that_ question is yes, since it's been done.

You're telling a lot of untruths on this subject.

Police departments testing it would translate to having their officers carry weapons with the technology. Thus far, they've been remarkedly unwilling to do so. And no wonder why. Like everyone else, they rely on those guns for their own safety and don't feel they should die for someone's "social experiment." Somehow you either missed or choose to ignore the ethical requirements of experimentation on humans.

> 3) Testing on a small population (in process)
> 4) Testing on a large population (not done)

California is not a small population.

[DFWAJG 4]

Quote

Uh . . . didn't we discuss this a week or two ago?

Oh, wait, wait, wait . . . that's right, it's not NEWS until it hits one of your silly blogs that you read and repost from.

mmmm.....me thinks the moderator is trolling!