California Scheming: 9th Circuit Court Findings (Microstamping by firearms)

Microstamping in California!


As nearly as I can tell, the Ninth Circuit Court has decided that California can legally impose "broad" restrictions on "acceptable" firearms.

(NOTE:  the following two paragraphs are ALL "Copy & Paste" quotes;  see the links for details.  I haven't yet had the time to drill-down to the logic of either the order or the interpretation by a 3rd party blogger.   I offer minimal interpretation or commentary at this time. Some phrases are high-lighted for your attention, not because they are embedded in the original text.)

GUN WATCH: Ninth Circuit Panel Rules CA Unsafe Handgun Act not Covered by Second Amendment: The key to the decision is the Ninth Circuit's hostility to a broad reading of the Second Amendment. The Circuit, in it's en banc rulings, such as Peruta, Tiexeira v. County of Alameda, and in a three judge panel, Silvester v. Harris, has consistently worked to restrict Second Amendment rights to the narrowest possible box.
 An analogous reading of the First Amendment would be that the State can restrict certain publications on the grounds that they might impact public safety. For example, that violent video games could be banned. The Supreme Court has rejected that argument for the First Amendment.

The upshot is that California can impose restrictions on "Acceptable Handgun Characteristics"; some of which may make it more difficult for handgun manufacturer to keep handgun prices affordable; others which may be technologically unfeasible, and finally most or all of these new regulations may require mandatory registration (in case nobody noticed the nuances of the legislation).


 Here is the summation of the opinion of the court, From Pena v. Lindley:

California requires that new models of handguns meet certain criteria, and be listed on a handgun roster, before they may be offered for sale in the state. Two provisions require that a handgun have a chamber load indicator and a magazine detachment mechanism, both of which are designed to limit accidental firearm discharges. The third provision, adopted to aid law enforcement, requires new handguns to stamp microscopically the handgun’s make, model, and serial number onto each fired shell casing. Plaintiffs asserted that these three provisions have narrowed their ability to buy firearms in California, in violation of the Second Amendment, and that the handgun roster scheme imposes irrational exceptions, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Note that some of the provisions eliminate category your standard 1911 frame; others (microstamping) require technology which has not yet proven feasible by current production technology.

Two Comments:
(1) it's convenient, as a state, to be able to require technical tweaks which are not yet possible for the manufacturers to conform if you want to make it more cumbersome (impossible) to own a new firearm:
(2) I'm glad I don't live in California

California has officially become a "NICHE" market for Firearms Manufacturers

California's new "Bullet-Stamping" law serves no useful crime-solving purpose, because it's prohibitively expensive and ineffective even if it were technically and economically feasible.  Which, as of this date, it is not. It only serves the Leftist agenda of making it more difficult and expensive for law-abiding citizens of that state to purchase  new semi-automatic handguns.

Fear Mongers R (not) US!

The Limeys have their knickers in a knot because Americans are being terrorized by the National Rifle Association.

'The NRA are fearmongers': students excoriate gun group and politicians' lack of action | US news | The Guardian: Students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school accused the National Rifle Association on Sunday of exploiting people’s fears to sell weapons and criticized the Trump administration for its stuttering response to last month’s gun rampage in Florida, which left 14 of their peers and three teachers dead.

Actually, the NRA doesn't sell weapons.

Those who libel shooters are generally timid folks.  They see danger in situations which have nothing to do with them, except in their own minds.   They live in protected environments, stay in their high-rise apartments, and email to their publishers opinions on subjects which they are poorly qualified to evaluate.

In my PERSONAL opinion, a bunch of teenagers who have recently been traumatized by a terrible act of violence are inclined to react emotionally, given the slightest bit of encouragement from Liberal News Networks. 

I don't criticize the teenagers who have reacted emotionally to a horrible experience. 

But I DO blame the Liberal Press for taking advantage of a malleable group of victims to buoy the Liberal Anti-gun agenda.

Dicks

We're talking about "Dick's" sporting goods store ... which I never heard of before this week, and I'm pretty sure I'll never hear about after next week:

How to Destroy an AR-15 - Rolling Stone: "We are in the process of destroying all firearms and accessories that are no longer for sale as a result of our February 28th policy change," a company spokesperson said in a statement. "We are destroying the firearms in accordance with federal guidelines and regulations."

It's only "inventory", after all.


("Insert your own commentary; you can probably do a better of quoting the MSM than I can.)

Somebody wants to ALLOW you to "own a gun"?

The Liberal talking point is that if you don't NEED a gun, why should you be allowed to HAVE a gun?

Why do Americans need guns? Rip UP the Second Amendment, problem solved.
I won't go into the details of the counter-argument to the 2nd Amendment, but  if you care .. you can go read it here.

But just to give you the flavor, here's a full paragraph quote:

Now am sorry to spit on your 2nd amendment right, but for me self defence is not a valid argument for defending the 2nd amendment. Also the ability to carry arms has been severely restricted by the Gun-Free School zones act of 1990 signed by Gorge [sic] H W Bush, which is ironic considering that 41% of republicans own a firearm compared to only 23% of democrats so kudos to Bush. This does mean though that as a law abiding citizen in a town or city you really can’t carry a gun knowing that you are not breaking a law. As such you would be better just not carrying one, so again if you get attacked by someone you shouldn’t have a gun to defend yourself in the first place because to be carrying said firearm you would be breaking the law. 

[emphasis added]

And Liberals think that Conservative arguments are not compelling.

.380 Pistol Banned in Ohio: Mouse Gun Is an "Assault Weapon"

Ohio Politicians are as ignorant as Oregon Politicians (and that's saying something), when it comes to "Gun Control Laws".
 
Under the bill, an “assault weapon” is an automatic firearm or semi-automatic firearm capable of accepting a detachable magazine with the capacity of accepting ten or more cartridges and a semi-automatic firearm with a fixed magazine with the capacity of accepting ten or more cartridges. 

This is why firearms owners hold politicians in such scorn disdain;
Elected officials feel the need to "do something" about the gun control problem, and anything they propose is either illogical, impossible, or inane.

Take  Kel-Tec .380 semi-automatic pistol.  It is "magazine fed", and so by the bill proposed in Ohio it is would be legally defined an "Assault Weapon"!

I don't believe that anyone currently offers for sale a 10-round magazine for the P3AT, but the standard 6-round magazine may be replaced by a 7-round magazine ... which IS currently available.   And who cares?  It's a freaking Belly Gun, inadequate even for self-defense at distances over, say ... six inches?

And it doesn't matter whether a 10-round magazine is available for the Kel-Tec.   Under the proposed Ohio bill, the gun is capable of accepting a detachable magazine with the capacity of accepting ten or more cartridges 

  Which means that if the bill is enacted, the Mouse Gun is now an Assault Weapon.

They Say The Fault Line Runs Right Through Here

Sometimes, one cannot help but wish that the Pacific Coast Fault Line would truncate the California coastal area, so the rest of California could just be part of America:  as long as it took Sacramento.

California man arrested for bringing 'assault rifle, large capacity magazines' from Nevada:

 Authorities in Contra Costa County announced the arrest of a man who allegedly smuggled guns and magazines legally bought in Nevada into California where they are banned. 

Oh dear ... he violated the law which says he is in California, and no longer in America?   I've been to California; they have check stations at the border where troopers ask if you have any fruits or vegetables.  But they don't ask about munitions.  Is that fair?

 The man, Virgilio Salazar, 50, of Antioch, was arrested late last month as part of a task force effort after he allegedly purchased guns and magazines in Nevada and brought them back to the San Francisco Bay Area to resell. Police seized “a .223 Colt AR-15 assault rifle, CZ 9mm semi-auto assault pistol, three large capacity rifle magazines, and two large capacity pistol magazines,” during a search of Salazar’s home. 

That could have been me!

Whether he bought them to 'resell' is controversial, and immaterial.  The POINT is, he had an "assault rifle" (legally undefined), and "assault pistol" (nobody has any idea what THAT is), and various "large capacity magazines" in his possession.  (Nobody knows what number of round-capacity defines a "large capacity" magazine, either, except that it's a Really Bad Thing!)

 He was booked on felony charges under California law that include importing an assault rifle, possession of an assault rifle, and importing large capacity magazines. 

It would be asking too much for the news feed to cite the laws which Salazar is purported to have violated; but it would be nice if they DID tell us what the laws were so we could know when we were felons in California when we were not felons in ... say ... Oregon for possession of the same standard equipment.  (see: Gun Laws By State)

Salazar was released on $300,000 bail. Of note, the Contra Costa County Superior Court felony bail schedule, by comparison, sets bail for those charged with rape at $100,000 and child beating at $50,000.

Well, that's good to know, and thank you Guns-dot-Com for providing the comparative standards of Justice in California.

I have children and grand-children residing in California.  It's reassuring to know that California law is more concerned about magazines capable of holding more than x-number of rounds than the well-being of my grand-daughter.

If the coastal fault line runs through California (and it does), and if there Is A God In Heaven, it would be nice if He deleted Sacramento and its Liberal politicians but left the Secret Hidden Bunker where my grandchildren live.

Because frankly, I think they are in more danger from the Liberals who run the state, than from a guy who owns magazine holding more than 6 rounds.

Or whatever.

But it's good to know that I can no longer safely visit my grandchildren, because I don't travel under-armed, and I don't travel light.  Thank you again, California, for causing me to fear prison because I wish to defend myself against assailants ... including the No-Longer-Great State of California!

File under:  (Insane Clown Posse Liberals)

See:  "The Allure of the AR-15"