Ninth Circuit Panel Rules CA Microstamping Requirement Not Covered by Second Amendment

A three-judge panel in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled the restrictions of the California Unsafe Handgun Act (UHA) do not violate the Second Amendment. That’s the law that requires new models of firearms sold in the Golden State to have microstamping capability.

In circular reasoning, the opinion in Pena v. Lindley posits that the UHA restrictions do not restrict behavior protected by the Second Amendment. They then apply the least restrictive Constitutional test to determine whether the behavior is protected. Unsurprisingly, they found that it is not.

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, Teixeira v. County of Alameda, and in a three-judge ruling, Silvester v. Harris, has consistently worked to restrict Second Amendment rights to the narrowest possible interpretation.

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.

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.

The panel held that it did not need to reach the question of whether the challenged provisions fell within the scope of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms because, even assuming coverage, the provisions passed constitutional muster. Applying intermediate scrutiny, the panel held that the Act only regulates commercial sales, not possession, and does so in a way that does not impose a substantial burden on purchasers. The panel held that the requirements for a chamber load indicator and a magazine detachment mechanism reasonably fit with California’s interest in public safety. The panel further held that California had met its burden of showing that the microstamping requirement was reasonably tailored to address the substantial problem of untraceable bullets at crime scenes and the value of a reasonable means of identification. The panel rejected plaintiffs’ claim that they have a constitutional right to purchase a particular handgun and their claim that the provisions violate the Equal Protection Clause.

The Court’s use of the words “intermediate scrutiny” belies the fact that, in the case of the Second Amendment, “intermediate scrutiny” has collapsed to mere rational basis scrutiny. Rational basis is so close to no scrutiny that there is effectively no difference.

Under “intermediate scrutiny” in a Second Amendment case at the Ninth Circuit, to pass Constitutional muster, the state only has to claim some vague governmental interest. “Public safety” is a favorite. It can be made to fit nearly every possible circumstance. The State does not have to show the law actually accomplishes any increase in public safety; nor does the state have to show the law performs better than other, less restrictive, remedies.

In effect, in the Ninth Circuit and in other circuits hostile to a broad interpretation of Second Amendment rights, intermediate scrutiny is used as a sophistry to restrict the Second Amendment to narrower and narrower meanings.

The problem cannot be solved at the current Ninth Circuit. There are too many judges on the Circuit actively hostile to Second Amendment rights.

Given the political situation in California, it is unlikely the California legislature will correct the situation. Citizens in California who resent every greater restrictions on exercise of their Second Amendment rights have one judicial remedy left: appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court may or may not accept the case. The Supreme Court has been unwilling to accept appeals from the Ninth Circuit on Second Amendment grounds.  I cannot recall a single case the Supreme Court has accepted from the Ninth Circuit on a Second Amendment challenge.

When and if President Trump’s nominee, Judge Kavanaugh, becomes Justice Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, the makeup of the Supreme Court may be changed enough so the Court will accept Second Amendment appeals from the Ninth Circuit.

That remains to be seen.

An alternate, and plausible solution, would be for the Congress of the United States to pass legislation to enforce Second Amendment rights against the states. A national reciprocity act, as has broad support in the Congress, would go a long way to restore Second Amendment rights to Californians.

 

Congress could remove the current prohibition on interstate handgun sales, if it so wished.

©2018 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

comments

  1. avatar Jross says:

    people always say you can file down the pin but I wonder if it would be possible to put a tiny dab of epoxy on the primer.

    1. avatar Notsocommoncents says:

      Why not just order a new firing pin. Going the next state over to buy a unaltered pin is also an option.

      1. avatar Ingenero says:

        This is probably part of the logic (ha) behind a push here to make ALL firearm parts come through an FFL. Mind, some people would just drive another state over and buy one, but that’s a much bigger pain.

        1. avatar arc says:

          A china harbor lathe can make a firing pin…. Actually a power drill in a vice and a good tool file can make a firing pin.

          If all parts go through an FLL, guess people gota make their own. Gun smiths will be rolling in money. Great way to create a new black market!

    2. avatar kevin says:

      If it were as simple as marking the firing pin with the serial number of the gun, it would be a non-issue. The reason that won’t fly is that it doesn’t just have to mark the first round, but the 1000th, and the 10,000th. The tiny little numbers just won’t hold up over time, but they will wear out. Thus it’s an impossible goal. It’s not designed to be “safer,” but to be a de-facto ban on guns.

      1. avatar Draven says:

        Their own pet scientists at U.C. Davis recommended against the whole microstamping thing, noting that a few strokes of a tool file can remove the stamping, or 200 rounds or so depending on the pressure of the round. The law actually does not forbid you from buying a normal firing pin, even in CA.

      2. avatar Ingenero says:

        Yep. A slowly strangling ban on handguns (rifles and shotguns are immune, at the moment). The technology still won’t work. They still don’t ban brass catchers (and can’t, given people can jury-rig one easily if they want). And I’m sure most people would just buy some +P rounds, police their brass, and then make sure the imprint was gone and go about their business.

      3. avatar Chadwick says:

        No it’s still a problem. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed… Pretty simple English that.

      4. avatar American Patriot says:

        I think all the gun companies should ban together & not sell any guns or parts to any entity in Calif. & that includes all law enforcement. If the citizens of the state can’t have them than nobody should have them……. except the criminals of course.

        Beside the micro stamping would prove nothing, Revolvers don’t leave spent brass on the ground & anyone can pick up brass at a shooting range or a desert area & scatter them around a crime scene it would prove nothing. If the gun from a crime scene was wrapped up in a nice gift box and handed to the cops how would that make anything safer?? But then we all know the liberals are not about safety they are about control.

        1. avatar Draven says:

          STI won’t sell to CA, and Barrett refuses to do maintenance for CA law enforcement.

    3. avatar Mark F says:

      The law says you the gun has to imprint 2 serial numbers. I don’t have the law handy, but from my recollection one can be on the primer with the firing pin, but the other has to be on the case. I believe the idea is for the side of the chamber to imprint when the brass expands when fired. That’s the one they can’t get to work.

      But yes, just buy a new barrel and firing pin… There’s nothing that says they have to be there once you buy it, just like the magazine disconnect and loaded chamber indicator.

      1. avatar kevin says:

        I think you’re right- but it would also have to work on aluminum (Blazer) and steel (Wolf) cases, which would be a trick.

        1. avatar Ingenero says:

          Someone would probably start selling specially-cased ammo just to wear down the printing. They wouldn’t *say* that, but someone would find a reason to come up with it and sell it.

    4. avatar California Richard says:

      Don’t be so naive. They know that. They also know its economically impossible for gun makers to bring to market a gun that meets these requirements. Thats the whole point. The court even said it understands that it is legal for end users to change and modify the parts co-opting the microstamping features. It got around this by saying the law doesn’t prohibit the ownership of non-microstamping guns, oh no… it simply prohibits the sale of non-microstamping guns. It’s a new version of the “machinegun stamp act”: you can buy and own a machine gun… it’s perfectly fine…. you just need to get a $200 government approved stamp before you buy it. But, if the government doesn’t issue any stamps, then, ya, nobody’s buying or owning any machineguns.

    5. avatar Old Fur Trapper says:

      File the pin or replace it is the best method. And CA is spending millions of taxpayer dollars they don’t have! NEW DORK STATE tried that and it didn’t solve one fracking crime!

    6. avatar Michael says:

      TIME to drain the Demo-Rat Swamp in CA. The Jerry Brown crowd and China, ChiCons dream’s to disarm CA then America, will never happen.

    7. avatar Khiem says:

      Soon California will be ruled by the Mexican Mafia, they aren’t too far from that now with their Legislature already controlled by Hispanics and Hispanics being the largest part of their population, then there won’t be any Laws which are enforced! So who really cares what California Laws are passed, they will never be enforced or will only be “selectively” enforced!

  2. avatar RA-15 says:

    I think it is time for POTG in commifornia to move to another state. One that’s court’s believe in our constitution. I think there are a few such states left in the US , or are there !!

    1. avatar Ingenero says:

      So…we let the rest of the state go to hell in a handbasket? I’m not here because I like the laws, but because of family going back generations. People shouldn’t be forced to move because the 9th Circuit can’t read. The Supreme Court and Congress need to make California and the 9th understand that “Will not be infringed” means it, and make it stick.

      1. avatar EWTHeckman says:

        I certainly understand your reluctance. But the simple fact is that the government of IS forcing a loss on you. Period. Sorry, but them’s the facts.

        Fortunately, you are still in a period where you still have the freedom to choose which loss you are willing to accept; your ability to defend your life, your liberty, and your property from their ever increasing tyranny, or your deep connections to the past.

        This is one that the Supreme Court should take, so you probably have a little time yet. But if they let it stand in any way, I suspect you’ll have a hard decision to make in very short order.

      2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

        As a former Californian (born, raised, and educated) I admire your fighting spirit. However, California has already been “fundamentally transformed.” I like that people are finally getting fed up enough for Joe Cox to finish top two for governor, but it’s just too late. CA is just too far down the post-Constitutional path.

    2. avatar Pelvicpunch says:

      Im here on orders for the time being:(

  3. avatar How_Terrible says:

    I have a question about Cali’s approved handgun roster. If someone from outside of California moves to Cali and has one or more newer handguns that aren’t on the the approved list can they legally bring them into California or not? I’m not from Cali and have no intention of ever moving there, but I’ve long been curious about that.

    1. avatar kevin says:

      You can. But not with your <10 magazines.
      You can even buy off-roster guns private party, or through an inter-family transfer. (not surprisingly, private party transfer of off-roster guns go for a premium.
      Of course if you're LEO, you're exempt from the whole list- you can buy anything you want.

      1. avatar Ingenero says:

        Interfamily really means Parent/child Grandparent/grandchild. My Dad lives in a free state and hates the California idiocy with a passion, so he’s probably going to give me an off-roster handgun legally, but that’s the only way to do things unless you move out of state and back in, or know a LEO who wants to sell. Otherwise the markups…are nuts. Used guns sell for more than the new price. A lot more, from what I’ve seen.

    2. avatar Tt78 says:

      The ban is on sales, not possession.

      1. avatar Captain Insano says:

        But they can’t cross state lines to buy a firearm without going through an FFL in California.

    3. avatar Chris says:

      Sure, and there’s a burgeoning grey market of entrepreneurs made up of LEO and people moving in to sell those pistols on places like Calguns. Something you paid $300 could easily be worth $700 or more, and it’s all legal. Another person replied about the 10 round limit. That was overturned by, of all people, the ninth. It was unenforced before and it’s double enforceable now. We won’t see any magazines on the shelf great than ten rounds any time soon, it still has to go somewhere else which will probably never happen.

      1. avatar Mark F says:

        That was about the ban on possession. The law about acquiring them, or bringing them into the state was not challenged and still stands. He still couldn’t legally bring in his 10+ round magazines.

        1. avatar Chris says:

          I’m aware of what happened and I did my best to explain it. But there’s an old saying from origin unknown that laws without enforcement are just good advice. As if we really expect people to bend over just because somebody, somewhere thinks they should. He can bring them in, or he can choose not to. The burden of proof as to when and where rests on the state, and like you already said: They aren’t enforcing possession because it is not against the law. Spin it however you want, at the end of the day it makes no difference.

      2. avatar California Richard says:

        The ATF has burned a bunch of entrepreneurs doing THIS. They said it constitutes a firearms business and they needed an FFL to operate. Since all the transactions were legal and through FFL’s it doesn’t make sense to me, but: CALIFORNIA; so, it makes perfect sense.

  4. avatar kevin says:

    The only possible ways to do this would be using the firing pin or the ejector/extractor, all of which are easily replaceable on every single firearm I’ve ever seen.

    And couldn’t range brass be used to frame someone innocent?

    Another problem is that the “stamping” surfaces will wear down with use.

    And what about revolvers?

    I know, facts. Logic. Guns.

    1. avatar John in TX (Was CT) says:

      Why stop at microstamping, if they’re going to do the whole “impractical technology” thing. They might as well say that anything using explosive charges or compressed gas to fire a projectile is “unsafe”, and require that you use some manner of handheld railgun. It amounts to the same thing.

      1. avatar arc says:

        A good home made coil / rail gun can punch 1/4th inch steel with battery power. A rail cannon can be built on the back of a trailer and pointed at anything several miles away.

        1. avatar Ingenero says:

          I need to see the websites you read…at least the railgun related ones, not anything naughty.

  5. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    *forget* CA

  6. avatar James W Crawford says:

    This is comparable to trying to prevent rape by demanding that every man in the country provide a DNA sample. Might provide careers for women such as Monica Lewinski.

    1. avatar Havid Dogg says:

      Not every man, only those born after a certain year.

  7. avatar Chris says:

    This has always bugged me because a pin can be changed in a matter of minutes for the ones I own. That and microstamping technology doesn’t exist.

    They need to appeal to scotus, they’re the only ones who can fix this bullshit because today it’s california and tomorrow it could be you. Beretta just released a new line called the apx and I’m pissed that I’ll never be able to buy one because I live in this ridiculous state.

  8. avatar neiowa says:

    “shall not be infringed” is just so damn hard to understand.

  9. avatar MeRp says:

    Instead of being an interpretation of the 1a that disallows violent video games, I’d say it is more like an interpretation of the 1a that disallows any media that doesn’t utilize NSA servers, with NSA approved encryption to publish.

    This mirrors more closely because a) no current/past media tech meets the requirement (except very recent work, mostly by the NSA) and b) it gives the Gov absolute insight into everything you’re doing in the scope of this activity.

  10. avatar Tt78 says:

    Are firing pins and barrels registered at the manufacturers? If not, this law is already pointless for any real criminal will ditch identifying hardware. I never understood disposing of an entire firearm, wouldn’t replacing the firing pin and barrel be sufficient?

  11. avatar DaveL says:

    does so in a way that does not impose a substantial burden on purchasers.

    How can it not be a “substantial burden” to forbid purchasers from acquiring anything that can be built with current technology?

  12. avatar TommyJay says:

    I have legally purchased 4 new pistols in CA over the last few years. Two don’t have magazine trigger disconnects, two of them don’t have any chambered round indicators, and one has a joke of a chamber peep hole.

    So what are the actual rules here? Pay us (the CA DOJ cert. lab) enough money and we will legalize your older models?

    1. avatar Ingenero says:

      Nope. Old stuff is Grandfathered in, new stuff has to meet the new (impossible) restrictions. So you can buy anything approved before the current restriction so long as the manufacturer wants to make it and never change any parts or processes (yeah, no improvements to old models, even if they enhance safety, because then they have to add the new impossible-to-add features). So the greatest irony is that Californians have to buy handguns that are *less* safe, because any improvements after the microstamping thing was put into place by a lie from Kamela Harris can’t be incorporated.

    2. avatar Draven says:

      they aren’t new models, they [predate the microstamping law. Hense why you can’t get a Ruger LC9 in CA anymore…

  13. avatar GoD says:

    You can’t stop the criminal retarded!

    Bad guy steals a Priest Gun and goes out and kills someone!

    Cops find the gun or casings and ck the micro-stamp and charge the priest with murder!

    That is real justice!

    Yeah Felons don’t buy guns at the FFL Store where they will get caught unless they are really dumb criminals!

  14. avatar No one of consequence says:

    Upon reflection, the “can’t be done” argument is an ultimately losing one, because while the technology isn’t quite there now, it could be in future. It would be like making a law in 1860 requiring all guns to use metallic cartridges. Ahead of its time but not against the laws of physics.

    Better, perhaps, to pursue it on the grounds that it would require a national registry to be of any use, and that’s illegal. Of course,.California has a gun registry already so perhaps we should also extend the no-registry rule to the states as well.

  15. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    I’m aware that the self esteemed jurists of the Ninth Circus think they have a deep understanding of the Second Amendment,however there finding is a Infringement on said Second Amendment,

  16. avatar Silentbrick says:

    The answer to this crap is simple. All gun and ammo manufacturers should simply stop doing business with ANY LEO organization in california.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      ..and no federal dollars or programs.

  17. avatar CZJay says:

    National reciprocity is setup to do more harm than it could do good. Just stick to enforcing the 2nd Amendment in every state through the federal government as it is so designed. Crazy idea, for sure. If you don’t do that, states like California will think they also can not allow the enforcement of things like border security and legal immigration.

    What’s the point of the law if no one follows it? What’s the point of police if they refuse to do their job?

  18. avatar Todd G says:

    Has anyone tried an equal protection suit based on LEO exemptions? LEOs–particularly retired LEOs–are civilians and should be subject to the same laws. On duty and off.

    Make all LEO guns subject to this and other restrictive laws. The balance of interest would quickly change.

    1. avatar Ingenero says:

      That would probably put pressure on them to change. Heck, make the lawmakers’ security all adhere to 10 round magazine limits and “assault weapons” bans…

    2. I believe the equal protection argument was in this lawsuit. The three judge panel simply said it did not apply and ignored it, as I recall.

      1. avatar Ingenero says:

        Sounds about right for the 9th Circuit. Some people are more equal than others…especially if they’re our bodyguards.

  19. avatar Havid Dogg says:

    The only surprising thing is there’s no carve-out for illegal immigrants.

  20. avatar Billyno teeth says:

    It’s the Idiot Manufactuerer’s That should do something about it. Rather than not sell to the public make a outright ban to sell to the LEO in the state citing the law. But they won’t do that as those contracts is what they want and not deal with providing to the public.

    1. avatar Draven says:

      STI and Barrett did…

  21. avatar Ralph says:

    “Ninth Circuit Panel Rules That Guns Are Not Covered by Second Amendment but Hobos Sh!tting on the Sidewalk is Covered by a Penumbra.”

    FIFY

  22. avatar Jeremy D. says:

    Crafty criminals will pepper the crime scene with casings they picked up off the ground at the range…

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Crafty criminals will pepper the crime scene with casings they picked up off the ground in Chicago.

  23. avatar DrewN says:

    This should be a sobering object lesson for everyone who underestimates Kamala Harris. She’ll be everyone’s problem in ’20. She managed to leverage banging a married Willie Brown into a Ca. senate seat, despite being either outright terrible at every job she’s held along the way and spending most her time at those jobs trying to move up. I doubt she’s done a lick of real work outside of campaigning in years. I also doubt she came up with microstamping herself, but she was smart enough to grasp the ramifications right away. She could very well steamroll Trump, no way he pulls the same shit again and wins.

    1. avatar Draven says:

      Microstamping went up in the regime before hers (Bill Lockyer, iirc). She’s just the one that bold-face lied and said that microstamping was free from any patent encumbrances and that the law could go into effect.

  24. avatar Bigus Dickus says:

    California can lock my taint.

  25. avatar thevictoriousgecko says:

    Trump needs to smash California’s anti-science regulations. When a bag of sand is known to cause Californians to develop cancer, the rest of us don’t care.

    1. avatar Ingenero says:

      You think that’s bad…they nearly forced those warnings on COFFEE. That was a step too far for the Berkeley set…but it was really close to happening.

  26. avatar Bob in IN says:

    If stamped brass was required I would no longer fire a auto feeding firearm since it would be impossible to police all my brass that a criminal could pick up and scatter at any crime scene to mask his or her trail.

    1. avatar DANA CHRISTENSEN says:

      I the bad guys were really smart, they would gather and buy as much range brass, both public ranges and LEO ranges, mix it all up and scatter a couple of hand fills of mixed calibers and stampings and let the circus begin.

  27. avatar ollie says:

    Why not require the inside of the brass case to be stamped during firing ?
    Make it really difficult.

  28. avatar User_s says:

    Opens Constitution.pdf. Ctrl-F “scrutiny”…

  29. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    California is a lost cause.
    The voters there support the homosexual agenda which includes supporting gay gun grabbing politicians, they voted for. They also support Marijuana legalization by voting for people who want pot legal ,BUT, also support gun control. The communists have a strong foot hold in the state. Getting “free stuff”, like government heroin, and passing laws to bother conservatives are now the primary goals of the state leadership.

    I don’t say this lightly, the only way to change California is with federal troops. Like what happened in Alabama or Arkansas in the 1950s. Or during Reconstruction in the 1870s. But the Posse Comitatus Act I think might prevent this.

    1. avatar Ingenero says:

      That type of fatalism and rhetoric that you would not only resent, but be genuinely angry about from a Dem (think Obama saying that abou Texas) is a lot of the problem. The lost cause of this state is less true than you’d think. What you’re seeing is a great deal of inertia, a Republican Party that managed to anger most Latinos in the state by acting like they were against everyone of Mexican ancestry (in a state that has a huge Mexican-American population from before the US was a thing), and a coastal elite that is so flush with tech and movie cash they feel like they can afford everything. My understanding is that if the Republicans reached out to the legal Latino population here al la the Texas Republicans and managed to actually run on things that matter (real housing solutions, fixing the idiotic tax structure, fixing our broken school system and wasteful spending, tackling real corruption, etc) and really challenge the Dems rather than acting like Democrat-lite or elitists, they might be able to turn things around. Elizabeth Heng near Fresno seems to be going the right direction, and Faulkner in San Diego oscillates between sensible and irritating, but most of the rest I’ve seen from the California Republicans has been disappointing. Rah rah Trump and Down with Pelosi – sentiments I’m fine with, but little to offer an alternative to the entrenched interests and change people’s minds rather than fundraise. They pin their hopes on lost cause candidates (like the guy running against Newsom), and give up on contesting state House and senate races and house of representative positions in a unified way rather than having tons of people split the vote and miss out on a candidate in the general.

  30. avatar I Shot Lucifer says:

    Wheel guns and Derringers, shock the world with it, we bring the truth to life.

  31. avatar Sabrina Gray says:

    Ummm, so criminals won’t switch to revolvers which don’t eject rounds automatically?

    1. avatar Anymouse says:

      Criminals wouldn’t care. It doesn’t matter to them who the gun was originally stolen from. Once they kill someone with it, they might want to get rid of it since tool marks on even ordinary guns can match cases to breech blocks and firing pins.

  32. avatar little horn says:

    don’t agree.
    microstamping in no way shape or form stops anyone from buying/carrying anything. it is no way any type of registration either. it is literally the same thing as them using your barrel to prove you shot that round. no different.
    NON ISSUE.

    1. avatar Scoutino says:

      It does stop everyone from buying new guns, since no manufacturer offers microstamping guns for sale. The required technology doesn’t exist. Hence no new pistols for Californians. Unless they are or were agents of the government of course, they are more equal and therefore can buy whatever they want.

  33. avatar PWincett says:

    Maybe not the 2nd Amendment, but what about the 5th? This is compulsion to leave evidence, to be a witness against yourself.

  34. avatar Alan says:

    What is it, or what might it be that serves to wind up the 9th Circuit Court, and or panels thereof, one wonders? Additionally, respecting the role played byThe Congress, what goes on with the worthies thereof.

  35. avatar james says:

    Here is the Micro Stamp I will use, a hand with one digit extended up. You get the idea.

  36. avatar Tog says:

    seeing that the technology to do microstaming doesnt exist and wont for another 40 years based on metallurgical evolution alone, it basically dooms California to not being able to buy anything but used guns. A clear violation of the Second Amendment. I predict SCOTUS will hear his case and rule on it real soon. I’m thinking they are getting tired of the loony 9th trashing all over precedent.

    1. avatar Draven says:

      The technology does exist, it is patented by one company and they won’t license the patent, but they will sell you the machines to put microstamping on your firing pin. Hence why I call Kamala Harris a liar.

      (btw: their machines are so slow they would delay all firearm production being sent to CA)

  37. avatar BRUCE CLARK says:

    The pain isn’t the microscopic stamp, it’s the fact that after a couple hundres rounds of firing it wears out and becomes illegible and requires replacement.

    1. avatar Draven says:

      200-500 rounds depending on ammo type, primer hardness, and the caliber in question… (i.e. 40 S&W wears faster than 9mm etc)

      a few swipes with a tool file will also remove it.

      The CA assembly was told his by their pet scientists at UC Davis , but passed the law anyway.

  38. avatar Russel A Helmers says:

    I’m a reloader, so if I’m reading this right if I imported casings from California that have been fired with micro stamping and if someone gets their hands on some of my reloads then use them to committed a crime those casings would point back to the owner of the original pistol? Makes sense to me California. NOT!

    1. avatar BRUCE CLARK says:

      Your gun would have to actually stamp them. So if you lose track of some of your empty cases at the range and someone sprinkled them around a crime scene and the investigators didn’t bother to match the bullets in the victim to the spent shell casings on the ground then I guess. Lmao.

      1. avatar BRUCE CLARK says:

        Plus, I believe it micro stamps the primer, so to refire that same cartridge the primer would have to be changed right?

        1. avatar Draven says:

          there was supposed to be two types, one on the firing pin and one in the chamber wall… because having little fine lettering sticking out of the chamber wall won’t affect your reliability at all, I am sure.

        2. avatar Russel A Helmers says:

          Well I guess I can see a primer being stamped but if any other part of the casing is stamped it’s just plain foolish for the reasons I stated above. Doesn’t work well on the revolvers. Still senseless!

        3. avatar Bruce Clark says:

          When was the last time Californians did anything rational? I visited California back in the middle 1960’s, even as a pre teenager I realized then that there was something radically wrong with that place. The people of California like those in New York made their bed so to speak, and now that It’s spiraling out of control all they can do is whine about it. I have no compassion for them, their problems are many years in the making.

        4. avatar Bruce Clark says:

          It will work equally well in anything that has a firing pin or striker pin. One major issue I can see in it is that eventually it will wear out forcing the pistol owners to replace the pin/striker on a regular basis under penalty of law. Probably a misdemeanor the first time with a fine/tax, and working up to a felony with various high fines/taxes and jail times. Do you see where I’m going here? As per usual, “IT’S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY”.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email