Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Rancho Roy

For all the California Pards

Recommended Posts

This is from a lawyer friend of mine, David,  with his comments in red......

 

Californians Will Have Fewer Handguns Available to Them Thanks to New Microstamping Law

by   S.H. BLANNELBERRY   on   SEPTEMBER 3, 2020
 
 
 

Sailing through the California Senate last Friday, a microstamping bill now heads to the desk of anti-gun Gov. Gavin Newsom to be signed into law.  

This is bad news for gun owners in The Golden State.  

 

Per the legislation (AB 2847), starting on July 1, 2022, all new handguns sold in the state will need to be microstamped in one place on the interior of the handgun (current law requires two imprinting locations).  

Probably will push up the price of used guns.  David

Additionally, for every new gun added to the state’s roster of approved handguns, three firearms that do not meet the requirements for what the state calls a “safe” handgun must be removed by the Dept. of Justice.  

 

Assemblyman David Chiu (D-San Francisco), the author of AB 2847, said the legislation “would require gunmakers to incorporate microstamping technology — to imprint microscopic characters that identify a handgun’s make, model, and serial number on the casing of every bullet that is fired. Having this information is critical to solving countless crimes involving firearms, as well as to reducing the black market for guns.”

AB 2847 is problematic for a number of reasons as Mark Oliva, director of Public Affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, noted in an email to GunsAmerica.  

“This microstamping bill is doubling down an a technology the state knows is unworkable and is easily defeated by criminals,” explained Oliva. 

“The state’s Department of Justice hasn’t even begun to weigh in on how this will be enforced and regulated. There’s no formula for which guns would come off the approved roster and why. This is nothing short of a slow-rolling gun ban that will eventually eliminate Californian’s Second Amendment rights,” he continued.

Since the original microstamping law was certified in 2013, no new semiautomatic handguns have been added to the state’s roster.  Microstamping has always been a scheme to reduce the number of self-defense options Californians have when it comes to protecting themselves and their families.  

That doesn’t change under AB 2847.  In fact, it only gets worse.  

By saying to the industry that new pistols only need one microstamping location as opposed to two, lawmakers are hoping gun makers will play ball and start selling new handguns equipped with microstamping.

If this happens, the Dept. of Justice can start pulling “unsafe” guns off the market, as mentioned in a 3 to 1 ratio, while also criminalizing the sale or manufacture of those “unsafe” guns. 

Law-abiding citizens caught selling or transferring a once legal but newly designated “unsafe” gun that has been removed from the roster could then be held criminally liable.  

But are those guns still legal to possess to the present owner ?  And probably not unlawful to transfer to an out of state FFL.  My thoughts, David

What makes a pistol or a revolver unsafe in California? 

31910. As used in this part, “unsafe handgun” means any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, for which any of the following is true:

(a) For a revolver:

  • (1) It does not have a safety device that, either automatically in the case of a double-action firing mechanism, or by manual operation in the case of a single-action firing mechanism, causes the hammer to retract to a point where the firing pin does not rest upon the primer of the cartridge.
  • (2) It does not meet the firing requirement for handguns.
  • (3) It does not meet the drop safety requirement for handguns.

(b) For a pistol:

  • (1) It does not have a positive manually operated safety device, as determined by standards relating to imported guns promulgated by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
  • (2) It does not meet the firing requirement for handguns.
  • (3) It does not meet the drop safety requirement for handguns.
  • (4) Commencing July 1, 2022, for all centerfire semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015, it does not have a chamber load indicator.
  • (5) Commencing July 1, 2022, for all centerfire or rimfire semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015, it does not have a magazine disconnect mechanism if it has a detachable magazine.
  • (6) (A) Commencing July 1, 2022, for all semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015, it is not designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters used to identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched or otherwise imprinted in one or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired.

Alan Gottlieb, Founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, told GunsAmerica via email, “The real intent of this legislation is to make fewer guns available to the public for self-defense by limiting the number of models and making others more expensive.”

“Not if, but when Governor Newsom signs it into law it will allow for a new legal challenge in court,” he added.  

SAF, along with other gun-rights groups, had sued the state before over its microstamping mandate but lost on a technicality. Looks like they’ll get another chance to set things straight. Stay tuned for updates.  The battle over microstamping is heating up once again! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Law-abiding citizens caught selling or transferring a once legal but newly designated “unsafe” gun that has been removed from the roster could then be held criminally liable."

 Unless this changes another law also it would still be legal to sell person to person, through an FFL.  So nothing changes there. Let's not make it sound any worse than it is, it is bad enough already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Massachusetts, guns that are deemed "Unsafe" and not on the "roster" can not be transferred through an FFL. But they can be sold face to face using the Massachusetts FA-10 online portal for face to face, instate transfer . Go figure!

 

When AR-15s were banned here in Massachusetts a couple years ago, they were not to be transferred instate by FFL or even face to face, but the AG said she wasn't going to prosecute anyone "right now"......... Oh boy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.