Previous Post
Next Post


In 2007, then California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a microstamping law that would go into effect only when certain technologies that did not actually–you know–exist, came into being. In 2013, Attorney General Kamala Harris declared those tech triggers to be extant–they weren’t–and thus, the law to be in force. Alan Gura, the most successful attorney vindicating the Second Amendment rights of Americans in recent American history, filed a lawsuit–Pena v. Lindley–on behalf of the Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation, as Fox News notes . . .

“This is about the state trying to eliminate the handgun market,’ said Alan Gura, the lead attorney in Pena v. Lindley, filed on behalf of the Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation against the Chief of the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms. ‘The evidence submitted by the manufacturers shows this is science fiction and there is not a practical way to implement the law…

‘At some point gun sales will cease,’ he added.”

The Second Amendment is finally beginning to catch up to the Democrat rulers of California, gradually forcing them to obey the law and recognize the right to keep and bear arms. However, they do not do this willingly, and throw any legislative obstacle or lie they can in the path of the honest and law-abiding:

“The microstamping bill was introduced by the state lawmaker and current Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer, who insists the technology is not only workable, it will make it much easier to solve gun crimes.

‘When we know who bought the crime gun, that’s a significant lead for law enforcement,’ said Feuer co-founder of Prosecutors Against Gun Violence.

If the law were expanded throughout the country, Feuer believes the technology could help solve the approximately 45 percent of gun crimes in the country that go unsolved.

Dr. Dallas Stout, president of the California Brady Chapters, also endorsed the law after pushing for its passage, saying it will ‘provide law enforcement with an important tool to track down armed criminals and help solve gun crimes.’

Both ballistic identification and microstamping systems help law enforcement investigate gun crimes because cartridge cases are much more likely to be recovered at the scene of a shooting than the gun itself, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence maintained.”

Microstamping technology is far from ready for prime time. This has been well addressed elsewhere.  This article will, therefore, focus primarily on the claims of California–and other–politicians and anti-liberty activists that microstamping is a vital crime fighting and solving tool.

The popular “CSI” programs have been profitable, but where accurate knowledge of science, police procedure and the law are concerned, they serve the public poorly. Crime scene techs, with virtually no exceptions, don’t carry firearms, don’t question suspects, don’t make arrests, and are seen outside their labs only when investigating a crime scene, when testifying in court, or at lunch. Their labs look nothing like the gleaming, high-tech glass and stainless steel wonders of Hollywood sets. They’re not filled with magic equipment like holographic projectors, and they don’t have a fraction of the 24th century technological capabilities as is portrayed on TV.

Take, for example, fingerprint identification. For as long as it has been practiced, fingerprint ID is still far more an art than a science. There is no universal agreement on how many points must be identified to make a positive match, or precisely how such things are to be determined. There is, particularly, no universal federal computer database containing hundreds of millions of fingerprints.

Unlike television, no technician can feed a partial fingerprint recovered at a crime scene into a mythical database which will, within seconds—or minutes, hours, days or weeks, for that matter—spit out a positive identification of the criminal, including photos, his address, and all other identifying information. There are no such state systems, either. Computer technology has made storage of fingerprints and their retrieval by name, date of birth and other identifiers a more efficient matter, but this process is far from universal, and is still, in most places, in its infancy.

In reality, fingerprints, and virtually all other physical evidence, are useful only when they can be compared with known suspects.

If a detective in Phoenix, say, has recovered latent fingerprints from a burglary scene and he develops three suspects, he can have a local examiner—or an FBI examiner—look over the fingerprints of those three suspects, but only if they are already on file and known by name. Or only if the detective can get the suspects to submit to fingerprinting.

If those three suspects refuse to be fingerprinted, if they weren’t involved, if they do not have prior criminal records that required fingerprinting, or if the examiner can’t make a positive match, the detective is out of luck. If there is other evidence, they might still be arrested and convicted, but those partial latent fingerprints found at the scene of the crime are essentially useless.

All experienced police officers have wasted time delicately spreading a bit of fingerprint powder around burglary scenes at the insistence of citizens just sure that will solve the crime. To make the citizens happy and avoid complaints, they dirty up their homes or vehicles, lift a few latent prints, and make the appropriate moves and noises. In reality, fingerprints don’t readily adhere to many surfaces, and most are mere partial prints, smeared or otherwise useless. And again, unless one has specific suspects with which to compare those partial latent prints, they’re useless.

In years of police work, when I specialized in the burglaries of motor vehicles, I did not solve a single case via fingerprint identification (I solved hundreds otherwise). In nearly two decades of police work, I did not solve a single case via cartridge cases left at the scene, nor did such evidence ever play a meaningful role in solving a case, nor was I ever aware of such a case. Microstamping would have made no difference at all.

The simple truth of police work is that virtually all crimes are solved the old fashioned way: by cops talking to people. Only after they develop suspects the old fashioned way is physical evidence of any kind usually useful in helping to tie those suspects to crimes, and in many cases, that’s just not possible. Anyone suggesting that microstamping can be a valuable crime-solving tool is either woefully uninformed about actual police work, lying, or both.

The California law, like virtually all others, applies only to semiautomatic handguns, not rifles, shotguns or revolvers. Even if it applied to every other firearm type, it would still be ridiculously easy for criminals to defeat. The easiest method: leave no expended cases behind. Criminals can add brass catchers to their weapons–one can be made with duct tape and a plastic bag–or simply spend a few seconds picking up their brass.

Other methods are only slightly more difficult and time-consuming. Criminals can use non-microstamped firearms, which is most firearms in America. Microstamped engraving–done by laser–can be removed from a firing pin with only a few minute’s application of sandpaper or other abrasives, or a non-engraved firing pin can be substituted. If a criminal were particularly bright, he could use a non-engraved pin when committing crimes, and replace the engraved pin thereafter. “You want to examine my gun? Of course, officer! Go right ahead.”

Extractors and other parts of firearms leave potentially distinctive marks on cases, but these too can be altered or exchanged.

Perhaps the most obvious method is to steal a gun and use that. This is how criminals get the majority of their firearms in the first place. They tend not to obey laws, which is why they are called “criminals.”

A particularly cleverly perverse criminal could collect microstamped cases at a shooting range and leave a few at the scenes of his crimes. This would have the effect of sending the police on lengthy and expensive wild goose chases; they’d have to follow up every potential lead.

Criminals could merely dispose of any weapon they used in a shooting, which is not an uncommon practice even now. No gun existing, nothing to which to match a microstamped case.

Many of these possibilities read like a fictional thriller in which a super-intelligent criminal is pitted against a super-intelligent investigator. In the real world, most criminals are not highly intelligent, nor do they take the time to go through all manner of stunts to thwart identification. One doesn’t have to be very bright to dispose of guns they use in crimes, nor do they have to be criminal masterminds not to leave brass behind, whether they do it by picking up expended casings or by simply using guns that don’t automatically eject their brass. A smart crook could kill someone with a muzzle loading firearm, which uses no brass or firing pin at all.

But what about preventing crimes? Won’t microstamping make bad guys think twice? People commit crimes, not guns. It is people who must be identified, caught and imprisoned, not their tools. Likewise, tools cannot be deterred.

But just for the sake of placating Misters Feuer and Stout, consider this scenario, set in 2082. Microstamping legislation has swept the nation and every firearm in America has been microstamp capable for the last half-century. Only certain non-shooting antiques are exempt. There is a vast national microstamping database tied into equally vast state databases, and all of the hardware and software–because it’s a government project–works perfectly and is foolproof (it’s fiction; play along).

A man is shot and killed in a dark alley and a single piece of empty brass, appropriately microstamped in two places, is found. The brass is scanned into a holographic computer that, within two seconds, finds that the brass was fired by a Ruger model PZ97Q 9mm semiautomatic handgun. The computer dutifully displays the date of manufacture, the distributor that sold the gun to a retail gun store, and the federal paperwork on the original buyer, one Thomas P. Honest, of 2785 Respectable Lane, Solid Citizen, North Dakota six years earlier.

Great news! The crime is solved! A SWAT teams breaks down Honest’s door, there is a tearful confession, and that’s that.

Not quite.

Even assuming such miraculous technology, all that is really known is that Thomas P. Honest may have bought the gun six years ago, and even that must be proved in court. The police and prosecution–assuming we still have a presumption of innocence and the rule of law in whatever version of America exists in 2082–must still be able to prove who was in possession of that gun at the place and time of the crime. They must be able to prove that the person in possession of the gun actually fired it and that the bullet he fired struck and killed the victim. This is commonly far more difficult than CSI dramas lead one to believe.

Return to 2015 where no such computers and software exist. Even if an abandoned microstamped case could possibly lead to the original purchaser of the involved gun, all the police have is that information–the original purchaser of the gun. That’s better than nothing, but in virtually all cases, will do nothing to catch bad guys and solve crimes. Let along prevent them.

CSI–and microstamping–remain fictions, in fact and application.

Mike’s Home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.

Previous Post
Next Post


      • True, but give the higher than average IQ of our armed brothers and sisters I’m sure they point was well received.

    • Hopefully if the lawsuits banning micro-stamping as De Facto handgun bans makes it to the 9th circuit or possibly the Supreme Court it may go a long way to prevent other forms of De Facto gun bans as well.

      • It will make it to the Ninth Circuit. Yesterday the federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of the state and against plaintiffs/Gura on the basis that the government requirements for guns do not violate the second amendment, and that there are plenty of guns still around, so that there is no virtual ban. (Currently there are 796 handguns of all types on the roster.)

        • Yep, the stupid in that judges decision is sadly, not surprising. Almost five years to write that confused mess, but the good news is it was going to the 9th CA anyway. Kudos to SAF and Calguns Foundation for bringing the case, and funding Gura- it will be overturned on the law eventually.

          Lots more at here:

          Excellent article MIke, by the way. Much more detail on the practical truth of micro-stamping, which proves that portion of the law was just another immoral abuse of executive action by CA AG Kamala Harris, in collusion with the Democratic controlled legislature- a supermajority the last three years, and with Democrat Governor- no check and balance available, except the Courts- and politics and incompetence makes that long slow process that much less reliable as the constituional balance of power the Founders envisioned…

          Some may have forgotten that Armatix was granted a pass on their 22LR pistol “smart gun”, for exception to the microstamping by way of a rushed and quietly under-the-radar CA DOJ addition to the list of ‘approved handguns’ JUST before the Roster law took effect. Lets just pretend it was a coincidence, shall we?

    • Perhaps. However, just like every umpteenth caliber war or anti-GLOCK or pro-1911 debate, or just about anything else firearm-related, it’s often somebody’s first exposure to the topic. What did TTAG report the other day, 2 million unique readers per month? Lots of people new to firearms in there, or at least new to other facets of firearms, like the legal/political angles.

      I’ve been reading/posting here for maybe two or three years, and I read new information in the articles and posts all the time. I’d expect that’s true for others.

  1. “This will help us solve gun crime buy showing who bought the gun.”
    {searches data base}
    “Aaaaaand…it was stolen from the original and lawful owner two years ago…”

  2. ‘If the law were expanded throughout the country, Feuer believes the technology could help solve the approximately 45 percent of gun crimes in the country that go unsolved.’

    That seems like a stretch since I’d wager that at least 45% of gun crimes don’t involve a gun being fired. Armed robbery is still a crime, even if you don’t shoot anyone.

    And yes, the technology would be easily defeated. One stroke with a file and your done.

    • More than one swipe. The law actually requires that the imprint be left in two places on the casing. As far as I know, current technology only leaves an imprint on the primer, such that the AG’s certification of the technology as being available is actually wrong.

  3. “How come there was no micro stamped brass left behind? There is a law!”

    “Um, the suspect probably used a revolver…”

    “Oh”. “Well, there ought to be a law!”

  4. Good perspective on solving crime. I remember reading “Homicide” 20-25 years ago and I was stuck but how often they got the suspect to confess just using simple jedi mind tricks.

  5. My best prognostication is that in 2082, criminals will be using killing tools that don’t involve brass, nitrocellulose, or lead. But someone probably made the same prediction 100 years ago. Who knows?

    I had to chuckle at the idea of thugs picking up brass after a crime. Any criminal worried about such things would just use a revolver instead. And the black market fences and straw buyers who sell guns to thugs would quickly learn to hit the tip of the firing pin with a piece of emery cloth before the sale.

  6. I understand the Pena case wasn’t the focus of the article, but it at least bears mentioning that the district court’s ruling on the cross-MSJ’s came out very recently:

    Short out-of-context quote that more or less sums up the court’s reasoning: “The UHA does not adversely impact the access to and sale of firearms generally; plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights are satisfied by the scheme’s allowing the purchase of nearly 1000 types of rostered firearms. This degree of regulation is negligible and does not burden plaintiffs’ rights under the Second Amendment.”

    • And that 1,000 firearms is a joke.
      The list literally includes firearms that are no longer manufactured, and each length of barrel and color is counted as a separate firearm.
      For example, the Ruger P95 is on the roster twice, one for black and one for stainless, but the Ruger SR 45 is not. There are no stores in California selling new P95s.
      In fact, the only semi-autos Rugers legally allowed to be sold California are the two P95s, which are not actually for sale.

        • And as some at Calguns have pointed out, when you remove the double counting on same gun for listing as a separate item, for different finish, or other superficial differences, you are down to about 400.

          With something like 150 to drop off this year, in two years we’ll be down to the Armatix, and revolvers only…

          Ironically- one of the guns Heller sued to carry in DC is not among the approved guns now…

  7. This reminds me of the cop that returns The Dude’s car in The Big Lebowski.

    Also worth noting in the world of hollywood BS.
    ”enhance that image/video”

  8. So one wonders if there could be a business model to sell custom firing pins to CA so that people there can adapt new designs. Obviously for CA to accept this there would have to some registration thinger to match up said custom pin to a guns serial number, like pins have to be FFL transferred, or something.

    Not that I would want to empower the CA stupidity, but profiting from it and allowing CA residents to get the latest toys wouldn’t be bad.

  9. I’d like to see a totally realistic cop show. Even COPS is pretty fake the way they act when the camera hits them.
    I want to see cops rolling eyes as they begrudgingly fill out reports. Laugh with each other about the desperate victim who honestly believes his particular crime is getting 100% or even 50% of the cops attention.
    A show where two-thirds or more of all crimes go completely unsolved.
    A show where harassing innocent people or bringing in innocent suspects just to get a clearance score happens.

    About the most realistic cop show I think I ever watched was Columbo and that’s only because nine times out of ten it was the perps own mouth that got him caught otherwise most of Columbos shows would have ended with no closure.

  10. Is micro stamping required for rimfire ammunition? The examples always show well defined impressions made into centerfire primers that must be soft as modeling clay. Or are criminals not allowed to use rimfire firearms?

    • No. Rimfires are exempt. Also exempt are rifles, shotguns and revolvers, plus all guns currently in circulation. The law applies only to “new models” being added to the roster. (What constitutes a “new model” is an area of great dispute as well. for example, Ruger changed a part from forged to MIM–new model. Glock wanted to add Gen IVs, but was told new model. Glock complained. so the DOJ determined that all Gen IIIs produced by Glock’s Georgia plant were “new models” also; the only Glocks available for sale new from a dealer are imported from Austria.)

  11. While on the subject of California and gun tracing, here’s a little factoid that I gleaned from the ATF’s gun-trace website (and to all those gun-control advocates saying background checks stop interstate gun trafficking): 89% of firearms recovered in California came from… California. In fact, I found that 4 of the top 5 states for recovered and traced guns found at a crime scene came from states with background checks and other stringent gun-control laws.

    You can do the excel calculations yourself from the downloadable spreadsheets with all the info you need here:

    • Very few crimes are committed by the original purchaser. Guns are stolen, sold, or exchanged for drugs. If the original buyer murders someone, it’s usually a family member as a result of a domestic dispute, “heat of the moment”, and a very easy to solve. So the identification of the original buyer is virtually useless.

  12. Not completely true in fingerprints. There are several states with their own databases in the 10+million size. I worked on one of the multi state systems that has over 30 million records. They can and do get hits on latent inquiry’s. Most of the time they get a candidate list. In that instance a latent examiner will recall archived fulls either electronic images or in some cases the real print cards. Since everything is Livescan nowadays recalling full images and printing them for manual compare is normal.

  13. The mere fact that we can’t always track all of our spent casings at a range (I collect my brass to reuse at some point and can rarely find it all at the public range) should worry anyone in a state that has a law like this on the books. The chance for getting the wrong guy is as or more likely than getting the right one, completely useless.

  14. CSI and its ilk feed the fantasy that people and technology can provide order to our chaotic world. Jerry Bruckheimer may be a Republican, but his show perpetuates the progressive notion that humanity can make the world perfect (if only all the naysayers would just disappear).

    Science fiction predicates on the collapse of that supposed order — because it’s just a myth. Heinlein, Clarke, Dick, et al (even the progressive Asimov), have done their part to warn against such hubris. Everyone here knows chaos and evil are always with us. We don’t desperately need the gods of ballistic fingerprinting and microstamping to fool us into thinking we can have 100% of crimes solved.

    All I know is: if this ever happened, I know I would never leave brass at the range again.

    • Do you mean to suggest that only progressives have a tendency to believe that everything could be perfect if only the naysayers would go away?

  15. Funny when a 2-3 dollar file basically takes care of any so-called benefit from its use. All that time and money spent on researching this microstamping nonsense all can be erased with a file.

    • Dear Second Amendment:

      Not quite. While there are several attempts at building a fingerprint database, none are comprehensive. My primary point regarding fingerprints is that while computers can be programmed to “identify” prints, there remains no scientific consensus on how many points must be identical to make a match. In addition, even if a computer is successful in finding some number of possible matches–and that number can be large–a single human being is still required to make a final determination. This may make the entire process more rapid than doing it by hand, but that assumes that the suspect’s prints are in the database, etc. Again, virtually all crimes are solved by cops doing it the old fashioned way.

      A society with databases of the kind of biometric information on individuals that would allow the kinds of results seen on CSI-type television shows is the kind of totalitarian society that would surely never allow individual citizens to keep or bear arms. We must always be careful what we–and politicians–ask for lest we accidentally get it.

  16. Commit your crimes with a .38 revolver or brass-catcher and leave discarded 9mm brass from the range at the scene. Get some poor innocent guy SWATed in the middle of the night.

  17. Mr. McDaniel answers the question I have asked numerous times, but which the authorities will not answer: What is the point of “racing”? OK, so you foind the original purchaser–but given that the time to crime statistic is measured in years, and the original buyer says the gun was stolen a decade ago, what have you learned? Nada, Zippo. Zilch. Gangbangers use mostly stolen guns–the brass left at the scene tells you nothing but the caliber, and there is a possibility that you may be able to match the brass to a particular handgun, assuming it is recovered, but does nothing to prove the identity of the perpetrator. And this is true even if there is a nifty microstamp on the casing.

    • I’d like to hear same answer. And btw- maybe I am dense, but isnt it a law that the State of CA, even if it DOES maintain a de facto gun registry, by requiring FFLs to track every handgun and now, long rifles,

      is not supposed to cross-the list of owners, from background checks and FFLs, with the actual weapon?
      I mean- that is the boogey man of 1930s gun registration in Germany that everyone, conservatives and liberals alike fear as overwhelming power for the State, for later confiscation?

      I recall reading that CAs own separate database from NICS was 40% incorrect – so out of date and not correct as to background checks per NICS, and missing mental health information-

      thats why they dove into that illegal pot of money from DROS fees, to hire a bunch of new armed agents to go out and bust those wrongfully listed as prohibited owners.

      In fact, it was Kamala’w whine to Judge Ishi on CGFs lawsuit and win on the 10 day waiting period (parts of it) that the State didnt have enough money and time to reprogram computers…

      Why should we believe the State of CA could keep track of the microstamping info, even if the tech WAS good? They cant even keep track of what they are supposed to be doing already…

      You’d almost think the whole point of CA AG Harris and Sacramento’s mish-mash of ridiculous laws is just to take guns away from the law-abiding…

      • PS: I forgot to list Judge Ishii’s reply to that lame excuse:

        “A bench trial has concluded, and a law that is actively being enforced has been found to be unconstitutional. The Court does not know how Defendant or the BOF prioritizes projects, but dealing with an unconstitutional law should be towards the top of the list.”

  18. I know some people reload cartridges to save money, although I do not. So, whenever I have fired a few hundred rounds, I drive down the road and throw the fired cases out the window, so that others can benefit from them. I’ve probably pitched thousands like that, in most every state. I’m not surprised you managed to find a few somewhere. So what?

    Absolutely useless. After one box of ammo has been fired, the microstamp means nothing whatsoever, I doubt if I would even take the teeny bit of trouble to defeat it. These people really are fools.

    • LarryinTX, I’m pretty sure that’s called littering, not sharing. Most people probably don’t go looking around in ditches for old dirty spent casings to reload. Please stop filling up our state with your crap, there’s enough out there already.

  19. What about knives? A lot of people are stabbed to death. Oh, I know what we can do. We will enact a law that say’s every knife must have a fragile “break-a-way” point, so that if you stab someone, the micro stamped point will stay in the victim!
    Anybody else got any dumb ass ideas?

  20. It seems to me that the entire notion of microstamping is just a ruse to justify creating a firearms registration database. After all, what good does a microstamp do if there isn’t a great big gov’t microstamp database of who purchased what firearm? And we all know what follows registration, right?

  21. Clearly the California law makers, lawyers and politicians already know the information and arguments against microstamping for, being in the positions they are, they must be smarter than your average (California) bear. Because they MUST have figured out how to stop the illegal import and sales of new firearms, stop all sales of non-stamped pins and firearms to any other state/country, stop all cross-border sales and keep any Californian or criminal from literally walking to and from gun loving Arizona or Nevada with a non-microstamped and registered firearm, and even have created a metal for firing pins so hard it could never be altered. And, most importantly, they have figured out a way to stop all theft in the state, if not the entire country. Bravo! These above average bears are very intelligent indeed. I can’t wait until lawmakers and politicians implement California’s theft prevention practices here in the great state of Texas. Until then, I will continue to hold dear all my non-microstamped, non-registered firearms of choice

  22. Skiped alot of the comments, sorry if this was already said but we hear all the time that movies and tv have made it hard to convict people when there is not clear cut dna or finger prints on a weapon. Won’t this law just make it harder to convict when the defense asks where the micro stamped case is?

  23. I watched exactly 2 CSI shows and was completely disgusted with them. If I were a crook I’d pray the CSI folks where on the job because the case would be thrown out.

  24. But…. But Kamala wouldn’t lie! She’s an attorney general!

    It’s official commiefornians… You have to have each microstamp registered to your barcode tattoo as well; as soon as an actor/politician combo mandates it! It’s for the children don’tcha know!

    • You will no doubt notice that no LEOs ANYWHERE want anything to do with a “smart gun”,
      that can be easily defeated by any device that jams cell phones or RFIDs, not to mention fail from dead battery,

      I know this is obvious to CA readers, but others may be interested to know that LEOs in CA are exempt from the Roster rules that apply to the citizens.

  25. Jeez, I wonder what portion of the criminal, ie non-law-abiding population of California is going to be deterred from buying a gun in Vegas, or someone who went there and brought some back, across state line, (felony) without going thru an FFL, (misdemeanor/felony) to register it or get a background check (misdemeanor), to sell it to his gang-banging buddies?

    Microstamping and increasingly arcane safety devices and forbidden features rules do nothing but restrict the availability of guns in common use, elsewhere, for law-abiding citizens in CA.

    At some point the restrictions become “unreasonable” and that de facto is a strict scrutiny argument that per Heller and McDonald, Moore, and Tyler in the 6th, is unconstitutional infringement on the 2A right. Interesting summation of the differences in definitions of reasonable and two step theory as applied in the other 2A decisions that SCOTUS has not taken up for cert. Start reading at page 20 here:

    Tl;dr- Pena v Cid is another example of the outright judicial rebellion against SCOTUS law, by activist judges in CA, and elsewhere.

  26. New York spent, over the course of ten years, Forty million dollars on COBIS, a program that collected a fired cartridge from every new handgun sold. Over those ten years no crimes were resolved using this data.

  27. The most significant point in this article is just how easy it would be for criminals to get other people’s brass from shooting ranges and simply drop them at a crime scene. This would bring total and unwarranted inconvenience to the innocent people who’d have to be brought into police stations for lengthy interrogations, which would also be a huge waste of time for law enforcement.

  28. Aside from using revolvers, previously manufactured guns and aftermarket firing pins (blackmarket, if need be), what about everyday garden variety *wear*? How many rounds does it take to obscure even partially the microstamping on a firing pin? Or did they repeal the Second Law of Thermodynamics in California as well?

  29. In light of the recent ruling (6/3/21 ) by Federal judge Roger Benitez overturning a California firearms ban on assault weapons where he ruled it violates the Constitutional right to bear arms, his words, referring to the Second Amendment, I have a suggestion. In my thesis regarding the Second Amendment I think it will prove his ruling right to bear arms” has everything to do with a “militia” and nothing to do with a “person” or individual, which the following will suggest..

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett Second Amendment dilemma

    In some 225 years neither law professors, academic scholars, teachers, students, lawyers or congressional legislators after much debate have not been able to satisfactorily explain or demonstrate the Framers intended purpose of Second Amendment of the Constitution. I had taken up that challenge allowing  Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s dilemma to understand the true intent of the Second Amendment.

    I will relate further by demonstration, the intent of the Framers, my understanding using the associated wording to explain. The Second Amendment states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Militia, a body of citizens organized for military service.

    If, as some may argue, the Second Amendment’s “militia” meaning is that every person has a right to keep and bear arms, the only way to describe ones right as a private individual is not as a “militia” but as a “person.” (The individual personality of a human being: self)

    The 4th Amendment reminds us, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons….”

    The Article of Confederation lists eleven (11) references to“person/s.” The Constitution lists “person” or “persons” 49 times to explicitly describe, clarify and mandate a constitutional legal standing as to a “person” his or her constitutional duty and rights, what he or she can do or not do.

    It’s not enough to just say “person/s” is mentioned in the United States Constitution 49 times, but to see it for yourself (forgo listing), and the realization was for the concern envisioned by the Framers that every person be secure in these rights explicitly spelled out, referenced and understood how these rights were to be applied to that “person.”

    Whereas, in the Second Amendment any reference to “person” is not to be found. Was there a reason? Which leaves the obvious question, why did the Framers use the noun “person/s” as liberally as they did throughout the Constitution 49 times and not apply this understanding to explicitly convey the same legal standard in defining an individual “persons” right to bear arms as a person?

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissent in Barr v Kanter (2019) Second Amendment argument acquiesced to 42 references to “person/s, of which 13 characterize either a gun or firearm. Her Second Amendment, “textualism” approach having zero reference to “person/s. Justice Barrett’s  view only recognizes “person/s” in Barr, as well in her many other 7th circuit rulings. It is her refusal to acknowledge, recognize or connect the U.S. Constitution benchmark legislative interpretive precept language of “person/s,” mandated in our Constitution 49 times, to the Second Amendment.
    Leaving Supreme Court Justice Barrett’s judgment in question.

    In the entire U.S. Constitution “militia” is mentioned 5 times. In these references there is no mention of “person” or “persons.” One reference to “people” in the Second Amendment. People, meaning not a person but persons in describing militia.

    Now comes the word “shall” mentioned in the Constitution 100 times. SHALL; ought to, must ..

    And interestingly, the word “shall” appears in the Second Amendment. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and shall not be infringed.”

    “[S]hall not be infringed.” Adding another word “infringed” to clarify any misunderstanding as to the intent of the Second Amendment. Infringe. To encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another;

    The condition “Infringe” has put a stop as to any counter thoughts regarding the Second Amendment, as you shall  not infringe or encroach  on beliefs other to what is evident as to the subject “Militia.”

    Finally, clarifying “..the right of the people to keep and bear arms…
    People. Human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest.

    In closing, I am not against guns, everybody has them. I’m against using the Second Amendment illogically as a crutch. If it makes those feel better so be it. Just what it deserves, use it with a wink.

    William Heino Sr


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here