Bullet-Stamping Impossible, says CA Supreme Court

I said it in 2004, and California is finally admitting that the proposition that you can identify crime evidence by stamping an unique serial number on EVERY BULLET is an impossible task!

The Latest: California Justices Toss Bullet Stamping Suit | California News | US News: SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The Latest on a ruling by the California Supreme Court on a state bullet stamping law (all times local): 10:45 a.m. The California Supreme Court says state laws cannot be invalidated on the grounds that complying with them is impossible. The unanimous ruling on Thursday rejected a lawsuit by gun rights groups that sought to throw out a California law that requires new models of semi-automatic handguns to stamp identifying information on bullet casings. The groups argued that technology did not exist to meet the stamping requirements, and a law can't mandate something that's not possible.

(Actually, I think the term "Bullet Stamping" is misleading; the intent is not to serialize the actual projectile, but to emboss on the base of the cartridge a code which uniquely identifies the firearm which fired the cartridge.)

So .. the whole "Bullet-Stamping" thingie is no longer an issue in California.

Because the Supreme Court of the State of California doesn't care that it's technically impossible to comply with the law.   Which implies that the law will be enacted.

I addressed it twice in 2014: here and here.

(BTW .. most alternatives include stamping or embossing  unique serial numbers on the base of a cartridge when the gun is fired the identifiers would supposedly identify the guj from which the round was fired..   That doesn't do much for rounds fired from a revolver, which are not automatically ejected onto a 'crime scene".)

Embossed serial numbers from firing pins and breaches of firerms can easily be sanded down or filled in until the actual serial number is obfuscated to the point where they are unreliable in a Court of Law.

The last time I addressed the issue was 2014, when I finally admitted that California had their heads so far up their nether regions that they were unlikely to ever change their unrealistic rhetoric.

Things have changed.  Sort of.

 California DID ... finally ... take a closer look at the mechanics of the  issue and realize that they were wasting time, money and political power on a never-win issue.    So they said "do it anyway", and washed their hands of the issue.

ONE OF THE ISSUES in this inane law is that the details were .. unclear.

Ultimately, EVERY gun part which might be used to stamp an unique identifier onto either the primer or the base of a cartridge is readily (and cheaply) replaceable ... or subject to obfuscation by use of a file or an emery board..

There is no part of a semi-automatic pistol which cannot be replaced or altered .. even temporarily ... with a "Box Stock"  part within a matter of seconds.  Which makes the concept that imprinting a "serial number" on the base of a cartridge not only unrealistic, but laughable.

You may argue that the "frame" of a handgun is inviolate.  It isn't; if I have a file and sandpaper.

While California is working hard to accept 20th Century realities... they still have a long way to go.

But a "We Did Our Best" is not good enough in a court of law.'

And it's still anti-Second Amendment to register a gun.

(updated August 05, 2018, to recognize that the California Supreme court rejected an argument which would have invalidated the new law)

NEW NEWS: Harvard Students Are "LIBERAL"!!!!

It SOUNDS as if Harvard were contemplating the inclusion of Republicans on their staff.
But we know that's never going to happen.

Perhaps a couple of  Republican students may be admitted; but that would be just cruel in a student body where they're outnumbered 20,000 to one.

Harvard Student Paper Calls Out University's Liberal Bias, Pushes for Ideological Diversity on Campus | Fox News Insider:

Harvard University's student newspaper criticized the school's liberal bias and called for greater ideological diversity on campus. In an editorial, The Crimson argued that the conversation surrounding diversity and inclusion at Harvard has been dominated by issues of race and gender. "While we should always strive for more conversation that focuses on addressing the unquestionably salient issues of racial and gender identity, approaches seeking to foster diversity, inclusion, and belonging at Harvard should be more comprehensive," the editorial board wrote.

In reference to Conservative Students, would they refer to them using the N-word?

Finger Pointing Is Punishable If The Thumb Is Cocked

Oh my!   If these New Rules were in effect when I was 12 years old, I'd still be in prison!

To summarize; a juvenile was handcuffed and "arrested" because he pointed the wrong fingers at a too-sensitive teacher.

When did elementary teachers become so "Politically Correct" that  pre-adolescent children need to be handcuffed and arrested?

12-year-old boy with autism arrested for brandishing imaginary rifle at Texas school | KUTV: (KUTV) — A 12-year-old autistic boy was placed in a Juvenile Detention Center on Monday after brandishing an imaginary rifle at his art teacher, FOX 26 reports. The 5th grade teacher reportedly felt threatened by the child, identified as David Sims, who was arrested by a school police officer. "She (the officer) just put handcuffs on me and told me I need to go with her," Sims said.

In TEXAS?

Nobody has yet reported whether his fingers were loaded, or whether they were loaded with "Hollow-Point" or "Armor Piercing" fingernails.

Gun Owners React Rudely to a proposal to "take their guns away"?

Besmirching the image of honest, law-abiding gun owners by conflating them with criminals and madmen is both dishonest and misleading.

We cannot tell the difference between a peaceful, law-abiding gun owner and a criminal or a madman, except for their record of arrests.   Smearing the peaceful with the tar of madmen and felons is Not Helpful ... it only flings another torch into the flames of ignorance and Constitutional apathy.
Too often, the authors of such screeds will include not-so-subtle hints that Americans With Guns feel that their masculinity is threatened when faced with a movement for total civilian disarmament.

No, we're only sad that you chose to have such a low opinion of America.

I am coming from a place of passion, but I am willing to compromise. Yes of course, in the churn of yet another school shooting, in the only country where this happens anywhere near as often as it does, I want to make the problem go away. In these all-too-common moments, my most special wish is to make all the guns disappear. I would also, while we’re at it, like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony, and the song I would like to teach us all is “Jump! (For My Love)” by the Pointer Sisters.

"... I Am Willing To Compromise ... " 

"... my most special wish is to make all the guns disappear"

No.  Actually, you are willing to encourage the repeal of the Second Amendment for the purpose of advancing your career.   Millions of Americans own and use firearms legally and safely, and have done so for centuries.   You offer no plan for "compromise" ... which is good; because every "compromise" which anti-gun writers propose only compromises the rights of Americans to enjoy their Second Amendment rights.  When will a "compromise" act in favor of responsible gun owners?  

Never yet, so far.  

We have "compromised" our rights so often that it's a wonder that we have any rights at all ... and "you people" still ask for us to give you more.   There is never enough as long as anti-gun people define the word.

The suggestion that lawful gun-owners will over-react (and badly!) to the proposition that "now you want to take all the guns away" .... is another taunt.   Yes, he does want to take your guns away.

Or if he's just another media whore (one will write anything to elicit a response, and make him more marketable as an author) we must admit that he's very good at stirring up public opinion against defenders of the Second Amendment.

The only thing we know for sure, is that any group (including gun owners) will have "bad apples" who make the huge majority seem irresponsible.

I guess Opinion Writers have their bad apples, as well.

The Dangers of Writing About Gun Control in America:

When you write a piece about America’s unique and uniquely deadly gun problem, as I have done many times for Esquire, you expect a few things to happen: gun-control people will applaud, gun-rights advocates will get upset, and your Twitter mentions will be a mess for a few days. But when, in the face of another school shooting, you write an angry one about how you’ve finally had it and now you want to take all the guns away—even if that piece ends up being pretty moderate when you actually look at it—a whole new series of events will happen. In case you’re thinking about taking on such an endeavor, here are a few things to expect.   (See the original article for more.)

Huffington Post: "Gun rights? We don' need no Steekin' Gun Rights!

(Huffington Post Article HERE)

There's a deep and surreptitious movement on the part of Liberal anti-gunners to encourage dramatic infringements on the Second Amendment rights of Americans for the purpose of ... er ... infringing on your Second Amendment Rights???

Outdoor writers' group responds to gun control op-ed from some senior members:
The letter by Ashe advanced an agenda to curb gun violence through regulations that included outlawing the sale of all semi-auto rifles and shotguns capable of holding more than 10 cartridges, a ban on gun sales to those under age 21, and a “no-fly/no-buy” law that would bar those on terror watch lists or with a mental illness recognized by the Social Security Administration from buying guns. Other suggested measures included a ban on bump stocks, mandatory and universal background checks, the institution of gun violence restraining orders and increased federal gun research. “(I)n comparison to the 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School who have been stripped of all of their rights, and of life and liberty, it is a small price to pay,” said Ashe in the piece, saying, “There are simple, responsible solutions. No one should use hunters and hunting as an excuse to avoid pursuing them.”

Let me see:

"No one should use hunters and hunting as an excuse to avoid pursuing them.”

This goes beyond the usual "anti-gun violence" rhetoric.

It exceeds all previous proposed restrictions on the Second Amendment. 

Yes, some of the proposals which have previously been proposed elsewhere, and some of the restrictions seem almost reasonable.
But the part about SSA defining "Mental Illness" has already been defined as excessive ... just because someone wants another party to help with Social Security form doesn't mean they are mentally deficient.

"Simple, responsible solutions"?
Neither Simple, nor Responsible.  Only burdensome to honest, law-abiding citizens.


"A Small Price to Pay"?
I think not!


The reference to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School is excessive, bordering on Facetious.

EVERYTHING they propose is overly simplistic and arbitrary, designed only to  undermine the Second amendment rights of Americans.

We are not amused.

Remington Won't Sell Guns to ... who? Anyone with money? Get Outta Here!

Bank of America's loan to Remington tests its firearms pledge | Reuters:

“It’s perfectly reasonable for them (BOA) to say to any borrower, ‘We’re happy to lend to you if you don’t make military-style assault weapons,’” said Ted Gavin of the Gavin/Solmonese LLC restructuring advisory firm. “The lender has all the power.”

But if the lender is too picky about their customers .. they don't have any customers.
And there are plenty of other customers who really really want to upgrade their  product line with another Major Customer!!!!

(Watch for the "Cave-in" on this perfectly reasonable statement.)

Remington Firearms are perfectly legal.   When the "lender" has sufficiently milked the political  issue, the corporate position will shift just enough to accept perfectly legal firearms as a perfectly legal manufacturer's product.

And Remington Firearms can't stay in business if they don't sell guns.  

What other product do they have?  Popcorn?

Because   $$$,$$$,$$$

And banks don't loan money to companies which don't sell product.

Leftist Gun Confiscation: Whatever It Takes!

Prologue:  I encourage any 2nd Amendment researcher to follow the reference links included in this article.   Many of them are new to me.

Leftists Demanding Gun Confiscation – The short List updated to March 2018:

In order to execute the necessary steps to confiscate guns, the Left must first take control of private property with Intergalactic Background Checks [Universal, Enhanced, etc.] But they need to Lie about their ultimate goal so that the people will accept this drastic intrusion into their personal lives.

Fortunately for the Leftists, their definition of "Morality" includes saying anything which advances their agenda, with no qualms about "persiflage" as a defense against any charge of "lying".

The Right, on the other hand, is held to a higher standard.
Which is not difficult to accommodate, as long as they always tell the truth.

Which nobody believes, because it's not as interesting.

(emphasis added)

This is an abbreviated list [which] shows they are openly lying when they deny their intentions, it also shows they have developed some clever euphemisms for the taking everyone’s firearms.

NRA Blunder?

Bloomberg was all over last weekend's anti-gun march, featuring a plethora of teenagers who were mad as heck and are just not going to take it any more.    And for lack of any other organization devoted to protecting our Constitutional Rights, they (both the marchers and Bloomberg) dumped a smelly load all over the NRA.

NRA Created the March for Our Lives That Now Threatens It - Bloomberg:

... The marches against gun violence would not have been as big without the undercurrent of rage that liberals, Democrats, good-government activists, racial minorities, ethical conservatives and others carry through daily life under President Donald Trump’s regime. And they wouldn’t have been as big without the cathartic breakthroughs of #MeToo and the Women’s March that preceded them.

(At a guess, an "ethical conservative" is a RINO.)

I was rather impressed with the determination of these young people to take on the 500 pound gorilla  (the National Rifle Association) in the room.   And even more impressed by the liberal adults who used them like a rented mule to further the Liberal Agenda.






It would have been more impressive if the marchers actually knew what an "assault weapon" was :   (H/T: MasterClass)


The reporter embarrassed a lot of teens when he asked them what an "Assault Weapon" is.

He should have asked them to define "Roofie".

They know what that is.

Adding Insult to Injury in the State of Misery

Good intentions, I'm sure, but how happy will you be to prosecute a parent who has just lost his or her child due to an accident in the home?

Bill would hold adults liable for unsecured guns | Local News | newspressnow.com:

A Missouri state representative is proposing a bill that will hold an adult responsible if a child gains access to an unsecured firearm. Stacey Newman, D-St. Louis, is sponsoring House Bill 1343, which specifies that a person commits the offense of endangering the welfare of a child if he or she knowingly fails to secure a firearm. The goal is to eliminate the cases of children accidentally shooting themselves or others after gaining access to a firearm.

Molan Labe

California Lt. Gov Gavin Newsome to NRA: "We ARE Coming for Your Guns":

 “We have a message for the NRA – National Rifle Association of America: If you hurt people, we ARE coming for your guns,” wrote Newsome. The message was accompanied by a video featuring Newsome speaking on how the only thing more certain than another mass shooting is the “moral cowardice” of Republicans who ignore it.

Hat Tip: Red State


What in the  WORLD is this asshole talking about?

What ever gave him the idea that NRA members want to "hurt people"?

I have no information which suggests that the NRA, or members of this organization, have ever  (Individually or as a group) deliberately hurt people except in defense of  innocents who were arbitrarily attacked by other  people.  So I don't know what this means.

And what has all this to do with "Mass Shootings".  Has he information about NRA membership of murderers in the news, recently?  If so, I've not been privy to that news.

The charge of "moral cowardice" is equally as confusing;. As far as I know, the only moral cowardice possible is the dis-inclination to defend self, home and family against assault by those who choose to attack those who they assume are unarmed ... Lord knows the attackers are never, ever, members of the NRA! 

Is he accusing Republicans of "Moral Cowardice" because of their political affiliation?  Someone should tell the Republican Party that their membership is composed of "Moral Cowards".  I'm sure that would be news to them!

I am currently a member of the National Rifle Association (NRA); but the moral equivalence of the NRA has never been an issue; if anything, I sometimes feel that the NRA is insufficiently supportive of the Second Amendment.


An "armed society" is a "respectful society".  So saith the memorable author Robert Heinlein, and more people know his name than know the name of Gavin Knowsless!

And not all members of the NRA are "Republicans" who "ignore"  ... well, the original article is lacking in the definition of moral fiber which is, in his view, ignored by NRA members.  Many of our members are Democrats, and members of other policies; our common ground is to just be left alone to enjoy a day hunting, or shooting a match on the range.

God knows that our intention is not to "hurt people"!

Newsome speaks of "Moral Cowardice", but I'm sure that my brothers who are armed are as astounded as I am to learn that we are so charged.   Many of us are veterans, as I am, and whatever cowardice we may rightfully be accused of is to go to a foreign country and fight a war for a cause which we did not agree ... but we went there, and fought a war we did not believe in, only because our National Leaders decreed that we should do so.

So to my mind, the only "Moral Cowardice" of which we may be accused, is the we didn't emigrate to Canada instead of allowing ourselves to be drafted.  Did Newsome ever face such a moral quandary?

Newsome, you've spent too much time in The Land of Fruits and Nuts.  You should get out more.  Go visit folks in flyover country and discover America.  You may be surprised to learn that most Americans love their country more than their state or their selves, and are willing to get shot at when they are drafted into that "Crazy Asian War" which you so conveniently missed.

Newsome's entire screed is based on disrespect for his country, his people, and anyone whose political viewpoint differs from his.

I lived in California for a couple of years in the 1970's; The weather was great, but  I sure am glad I  moved out of there before people like THIS nimrod came into power!

I'll Huffpost and Huffpost until I blow your house down! (Ex Post Facto? Never heard of it!)

The Huffingtons are at it again, working political double-speak rather than facing the facts.

The problem with "Universal Backgrounds Checks" isn't so much the issue with distrust of firearms owners as it is with the way the checks are conducted. Heck, legitimate firearms owners are no more eager for criminals that the "mentally adjudicated unstable" to own firearms than anyone else is.

The problem is with the supposedly secure record keeping; there was an agreement back in the '90s that the proposed Background Check system would validate, but not permanently record, firearms transfers.  In fact, as soon as a transaction was not denied because neither party was disqualified from firearms ownership, the record of the traction was suppose to disappear within a very narrow period.

Why did firearms owners oppose that facet?  Because they didn't want to agree to a "Firearms Registry", which would track firearms transfers in great detail with the subsequent consequence that a database of transfers would be tantamount to registry of firearms.

But it it isn't permanently recorded, why do Universal Background Checks require that the firearm description ... including Make, Model, Caliber and Serial Number ... recorded on the background check form?  If it isn't permanently recorded, why is it considered as important as the personal identification of both the buyer and the seller?

And no, that's not paranoia ... that's "learning from Experience" as Californians learned when their state Attorney General back in 1990 agreed that a certain rifle  (the "SKS") would not be 'tracked' because it was a legal rifle:

The situation became more complicated for the writers of the
Roberti-Roos law in 1992 when then California Attorney General, Dan
Lungren, approved the sale of Chinese-designed SKS, which use detachable
magazines.
Even though Lungren said the SKS “Sporter” was legal to sell, some
district attorneys throughout the state threatened to arrest anyone who
sold the gun claiming it violated the Roberti-Roos law.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/1999/07/3745/#ac4ggB4C1wdafWLi.99

 ... and then later that same Democratic Politician changed his tune and hundreds of up-to-then legal rifles which had been transferred between individuals and the detail entered into a state data-base were (arbitrarily) "reclassified".  Then the State decided that the specific firearm was an "assault weapon", retroactively downloaded transfer information from their database (which they swore would never be used for that purpose), and CONFISCATED EVERY RIFLE WHICH HAD BEEN SOLD UNDER THE ASSURANCES THAT IT WAS LEGAL!

And they were able to do so because every firearm transfer was part of their state database.

And now Huffington accuses the NRA of doublespeak?

Despicable!

Ex Poste facto laws are the way that politicians ... and politically biased pseudo "information sources", prey upon the naive and trusting citizens who put them in office and pay their salaries to protect their civil rights.

Just because they come right out in public and say "Oh, that's okay, we're not going to take THAT gun away from you", that doesn't mean they won't come back next week and declare it illegal.

Americans who rely on the Constitution to protect their rights, and their elected representatives (and their appointees) to respect those rights, have been getting a raw deal from both their representatives and the henchmen who do their dirty work for them.

And the Huffington Post is just one of their minions .. who don't get paid for lying to Citizens; they just do it for practice ... until  they  can get elected to lie to citizens who pay their wages.

The NRA's Background-Check Doublespeak | HuffPost:

... And if NICS is fixed to everyone’s satisfaction in a way that really prevents the criminals, the drug abusers and the mentally ill from walking into a gun shop and buying a gun, the idea that private gun transfers requiring background checks is a violation of the 2nd Amendment wouldn’t pass muster in any court. When all is said and done, the NRA’s opposition to background checks boils down to one, simple thing; namely, that government regulation of the gun industry is a bad and unnecessary thing. In that respect, the gun industry’s opposition to regulation is no different from every other industry.

 Nobody wants to take your guns away.

Except hollywood celebrities, comedians, talk-show hosts, Liberals, your State Government, your Federal government ... oh, since Al Franken was elected a U.S. Senator  these categories seem to overlap quite a bit, don't they?  I always thought it was inevitable that a "Franken" was elected to the Senate.  He fit right in with the rest of the Clowns; his recent legal problems only prove the appropriateness.