Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old 05-09-2017, 10:18 AM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
☆☆ More Cowbell ☆☆
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Overhead Orbit
Posts: 9,989
iTrader: 122 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade Gunner View Post
The stamp would be on the primer, which is replaced during reloading. The concept is bad guy don't stick around to pick up their brass and certainly don't bother to reload spent brass.
The law requires markings in two places. The primer is only one, basically the case is the other. IIRC the idea was that the chamber would imprint the information as the case is fire formed to the chamber walls.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...ctionNum=31910.

Quote:
(7) (A) Commencing January 1, 2010, 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 that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched or otherwise imprinted in two 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, provided that the Department of Justice certifies that the technology used to create the imprint is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions.
http://patents.justia.com/patent/20050241203

Quote:
In one implementation of the present invention, the interior surface is a striking surface of a firing pin and the marking indicia is brought into contact with the imprint surface by a striking action of the firing pin against the imprint surface and the imprint surface is located on a primer of the cartridge.

In another implementation of the present invention, the interior surface is an inner surface of the firearm chamber abutting a wall of the cartridge case and the marking indicia is brought into contact with the imprint surface by expansion of the cartridge case wall due to a propellant charge pressure in the cartridge case.
__________________
.



"Texans always move them!"
General Robert E. Lee, May 6, 1864 - Battle of the Wilderness

Last edited by SkyHawk; 05-09-2017 at 10:33 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 05-09-2017, 10:20 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,242
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade Gunner View Post
The stamp would be on the primer, which is replaced during reloading. The concept is bad guy don't stick around to pick up their brass and certainly don't bother to reload spent brass.
The concept they don't understand, is the bad guy also isn't going to bother buying a microstamped gun, and even if he does, he certainly isn't going to leave the firing pin stamps intact.
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 05-09-2017, 10:22 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,242
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyHawk View Post
The law requires the chamber to also leave the serial on the side of the case, if I am not mistaken.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...ctionNum=31910.
I believe it just says "two or more places on the casing", so theoretically that could just mean stamping the primer twice. Of course, then there's the argument about whether or not the primer even counts as part of the "casing".
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 05-09-2017, 10:23 AM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,149
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
The concept they don't understand, is the bad guy also isn't going to bother buying a microstamped gun, and even if he does, he certainly isn't going to leave the firing pin stamps intact.


These "true crime" shows crack me up, with all the ballistic match BS. Change the firing pin before crime and change the barrel after the crime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 05-09-2017, 10:35 AM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
☆☆ More Cowbell ☆☆
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Overhead Orbit
Posts: 9,989
iTrader: 122 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
I believe it just says "two or more places on the casing", so theoretically that could just mean stamping the primer twice. Of course, then there's the argument about whether or not the primer even counts as part of the "casing".
I edited and posted the patent info above, and the penal code. It says two places on the firearm interior must be marked, I'd think the firing pin only counts as one place but who knows.
__________________
.



"Texans always move them!"
General Robert E. Lee, May 6, 1864 - Battle of the Wilderness

Last edited by SkyHawk; 05-09-2017 at 10:38 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 05-09-2017, 10:12 PM
Zoongide Zoongide is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I thought I read the stamp is not only primer but casing too
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 05-10-2017, 12:27 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 533
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade Gunner View Post
Change the firing pin before crime and change the barrel after the crime.
In most autoloaders, changing the firing pin is not as easy as changing the barrel, so there is some barrier to the remedy you are discussing.

On a related subject, does any firearm manufacturer have an 'operational' microstamping pistol or rifle available for sale?
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 05-10-2017, 1:44 PM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,149
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
In most autoloaders, changing the firing pin is not as easy as changing the barrel, so there is some barrier to the remedy you are discussing.



On a related subject, does any firearm manufacturer have an 'operational' microstamping pistol or rifle available for sale?


Admittedly changing a barrel is simple (if not expensive). The firing pin is not challenging. Most semi auto's it's a 15 minute operation to change the firing pin and YouTube abounds with instructions on how to do it. Some guns are really simple. Any Glock it's a 5 minute job to change the striker pin. I've stripped so many semi autos to the frame to cerakote or polish, I've lost count. Just keep a bunch of spare pins, detents, and springs around.

No firearm manufacturer has viable microstamping technology. The dufuss that patented it didn't ever have a proof of concept. He was trying to make a fast buck off gun manufacturers. When he had no luck, he released the patent into the public domain. Get the patent office to declare the patent null and void. No patent, no micro stamping therefore open up the roster. The law can't ask something that is impossible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 05-10-2017, 2:01 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 533
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade Gunner View Post
No firearm manufacturer has viable microstamping technology. The dufuss that patented it didn't ever have a proof of concept. He was trying to make a fast buck off gun manufacturers. When he had no luck, he released the patent into the public domain. Get the patent office to declare the patent null and void. No patent, no micro stamping therefore open up the roster. The law can't ask something that is impossible.
Unfortunately, getting a patent invalidated is not exactly a trivial matter. Inter partes review (IPR) challenges cost $ (serious $, between the fees to the PTAB (patent trial and appeals board) and the law firm to file and prosecute the challenge). Given that the patent is in the public domain, there is minimal incentive to go the IPR route.

There would seem to be more opportunity to challenge a law for asking something that is impossible. However, that will still require a lawsuit (and the $ to sustain the lawsuit).
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 05-10-2017, 5:00 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,380
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade Gunner View Post

No firearm manufacturer has viable microstamping technology. The dufuss that patented it didn't ever have a proof of concept. He was trying to make a fast buck off gun manufacturers. When he had no luck, he released the patent into the public domain. Get the patent office to declare the patent null and void. No patent, no micro stamping therefore open up the roster. The law can't ask something that is impossible.
No, invalidating the patent does not help - the law says
Quote:
(7) (A) Commencing January 1, 2010, 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 that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched or otherwise imprinted in two 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, provided that the Department of Justice certifies that the technology used to create the imprint is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions.
No patent, technology is unencumbered by any patent restrictions.
__________________
The Legislature is in recess. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 05-11-2017, 11:07 AM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,149
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
No, invalidating the patent does not help - the law says No patent, technology is unencumbered by any patent restrictions.


Yes that is how the law in written. "Technology" unencumbered by patents. Get the patent rescinded on the basis there is "no technology" to patent, therefore DOJ is certifying a non existent technology is unencumbered by patents.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 05-11-2017, 12:02 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 533
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade Gunner View Post
Yes that is how the law in written. "Technology" unencumbered by patents. Get the patent rescinded on the basis there is "no technology" to patent, therefore DOJ is certifying a non existent technology is unencumbered by patents.
Ummm. Not really. You can file for a patent based on an idea. You don't have to have a working prototype to get a patent. The microstamping patent is in the public domain, so it is not inhibiting the microstamping requirement per se.

The stronger argument against microstamping would seem to be that no manufacturer has produced a working implementation that is ready for prime time. An idea is not a working implementation. I can have an idea for an internal combustion engine that gets 200 mpg. Until I can deliver a working version, it is just my idea.

Ironically, the microstamping patent-owner should have contacted NRA or CRPA for a license - the patent would have been a perfect way to block the legislation....
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 05-11-2017, 12:04 PM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,149
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
Ummm. Not really. You can file for a patent based on an idea. You don't have to have a working prototype to get a patent. The microstamping patent is in the public domain, so it is not inhibiting the microstamping requirement per se.



The stronger argument against microstamping would seem to be that no manufacturer has produced a working implementation that is ready for prime time. An idea is not a working implementation. I can have an idea for an internal combustion engine that gets 200 mpg. Until I can deliver a working version, it is just my idea.



Ironically, the microstamping patent-owner should have contacted NRA or CRPA for a license - the patent would have been a perfect way to block the legislation....






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 05-11-2017, 12:06 PM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,149
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Having the NRA or CRPA own the patent would have been an excellent out come. That's true out of the box thinking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 05-12-2017, 10:28 PM
sbo80's Avatar
sbo80 sbo80 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: San Diego
Posts: 188
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

plenty of technology is patented before it actually works, for precisely the reason of encumbering (preventing) others from beating you to it. See Boeing's "plasma shield" patent a couple years ago.
https://www.engadget.com/2015/03/23/...plasma-shield/
Clearly still fantasy, but if they get it to work they make a fortune. That's the point. So the entire idea of using a filed patent as a basis to say something is viable is extremely stupid, that's not how patents work. Great last line in this article "we'll believe it when we see it".
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 05-14-2017, 4:43 PM
librarian72 librarian72 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 31
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade Gunner View Post
Having the NRA or CRPA own the patent would have been an excellent out come.
Debatable. Remember, utility patents expire and then the idea is in the public domain. It's pretty astounding how many "patents" reach popularity after their expiration date.
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 05-14-2017, 6:57 PM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,149
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by librarian72 View Post
Debatable. Remember, utility patents expire and then the idea is in the public domain. It's pretty astounding how many "patents" reach popularity after their expiration date.


That Librarian guy, always a few steps ahead of me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 05-17-2017, 7:08 PM
librarian72 librarian72 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 31
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

LOL, wrong Librarian!
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 05-17-2017, 9:09 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,380
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by librarian72 View Post
LOL, wrong Librarian!
No such thing as a 'wrong'* librarian!













* for some usages of 'wrong' and 'right'
__________________
The Legislature is in recess. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 05-17-2017, 9:16 PM
Lonestargrizzly's Avatar
Lonestargrizzly Lonestargrizzly is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 4,854
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
No such thing as a 'wrong'* librarian!













* for some usages of 'wrong' and 'right'
+1, ban phony Librarian
Reply With Quote
  #181  
Old 06-30-2017, 3:04 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,242
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Is there anything new with this case? Last I recall, oral arguments were presented to the 9th. Is it still in a holding pattern while we wait for the 9th to say something?
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 06-30-2017, 6:27 PM
ronlglock's Avatar
ronlglock ronlglock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,137
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
The architects of the assault weapon bans … are simply trying to fight the Culture War ... And we can't win, not in California anyway. The reason is because you guys, the ones with the most to lose, refuse to do what you need to do to win the Culture Wars, which is to make Calguns and the gun rights community a truly big tent and stop driving people away simply because they are different from you.
With brings up a great point. When was the last time you offered to take a new shooter to the range and supply them with firearms and ammo? I'm in the high tech field and have taken a bunch of millennials who left the range with the biggest grin ever.
__________________

NRA Patron, CRPA Life, SAF Life, GSSF Life, NRA RSO and pistol instructor, ILEETA instructor. Stop me before I join something else!

Last edited by ronlglock; 06-30-2017 at 6:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 07-03-2017, 3:47 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,268
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Is there anything new with this case? Last I recall, oral arguments were presented to the 9th. Is it still in a holding pattern while we wait for the 9th to say something SLAP IT DOWN?
FIFY
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 07-05-2017, 3:44 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 132
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

*sigh*
This case is not now and never has been in the federal court system, as the Eleventh Amendment to the US Constitution provides an immunity from prosecution to the states and state officers.

That said, this state law case resulted in a summary judgment in favor of the state in the trial court, followed by an appeal and reversal by the court of appeal, in a ruling that allowed the plaintiffs to attempt to show that the technology mandated by the statute to microstamp cartridges does not currently exist, and that therefore the AG's certification is in error and an abuse of her discretion.

Unsurprisingly, the State filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court in January of this year, which petition was granted as follows: Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Can a statute be challenged on the ground that compliance with it is allegedly impossible? (2) If so, how is the trial court to make that determination?

The State, after several extensions, filed its opening brief on the merits June 21, 2017 along with a request for judicial notice. My request to the attorney for NSSF (which is no longer Chuck Michel) went unanswered, so I have no idea what the State argued. Appellant's (plaintiff's) brief on the merits is due July 21, unless a request for an extension is sought and granted.

NSSF is represented by Lance Alan Selfridge, Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000, Los Angeles, CA. Maybe someone can get them to post a link or at least send the .pdf of the state's brief (which was filed electronically so it is already in thatformat)

Last edited by TruOil; 07-05-2017 at 3:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 07-05-2017, 3:52 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 132
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade Gunner View Post
Having the NRA or CRPA own the patent would have been an excellent out come. That's true out of the box thinking.
As I recall, that was tried, but I think the purchase was Calguns.org. Working with the AG, the inventor waived his patent protection (mooting the extension), and thus the tech entered the public domain, at which time the certification was issued.
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 07-20-2017, 4:17 PM
cg&p cg&p is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 51
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
*sigh*
This case is not now and never has been in the federal court system, as the Eleventh Amendment to the US Constitution provides an immunity from prosecution to the states and state officers.

That said, this state law case resulted in a summary judgment in favor of the state in the trial court, followed by an appeal and reversal by the court of appeal, in a ruling that allowed the plaintiffs to attempt to show that the technology mandated by the statute to microstamp cartridges does not currently exist, and that therefore the AG's certification is in error and an abuse of her discretion.

Unsurprisingly, the State filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court in January of this year, which petition was granted as follows: Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Can a statute be challenged on the ground that compliance with it is allegedly impossible? (2) If so, how is the trial court to make that determination?

The State, after several extensions, filed its opening brief on the merits June 21, 2017 along with a request for judicial notice. My request to the attorney for NSSF (which is no longer Chuck Michel) went unanswered, so I have no idea what the State argued. Appellant's (plaintiff's) brief on the merits is due July 21, unless a request for an extension is sought and granted.

NSSF is represented by Lance Alan Selfridge, Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000, Los Angeles, CA. Maybe someone can get them to post a link or at least send the .pdf of the state's brief (which was filed electronically so it is already in thatformat)
I managed to find a link to the CA SC website with the current case info: http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.g...doc_no=S239397

The case number for those interested is S239397

It looks like NSSF filed a motion for an extension of time until Aug 21, 2017 yesterday. And so the wait continues...
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 07-20-2017, 4:22 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,242
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cg&p View Post
I managed to find a link to the CA SC website with the current case info: http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.g...doc_no=S239397

The case number for those interested is S239397

It looks like NSSF filed a motion for an extension of time until Aug 21, 2017 yesterday. And so the wait continues...
Thanks for finding that, looks like a number of things have happened since the last time anything was reported here. Nothing hugely noteworthy though.

Anyways, nice to see the wheels are turning, I had just assumed that the case was dormant, waiting for some judge to find it behind the file cabinet and dust it off.
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 07-28-2017, 10:15 AM
relatively-anonymous's Avatar
relatively-anonymous relatively-anonymous is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: SF Peninsula
Posts: 267
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

To those who keep this thread updated by chasing down court dates and lawyers and briefs and such: Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 07-31-2017, 12:55 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 132
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If you go to the linked court web site, yo will find that you can sign up for e-mail alerts when anything happens. Unfortunately, there is no link to the briefs themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 07-31-2017, 6:59 PM
rdtompki rdtompki is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Hollister, CA
Posts: 573
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

It seems an undue burden to prove that something doesn't exist. The state should have to prove that a)the techology exists and b)that it can be manufactured "economically". Let's ignore whether the technology would have any benefit whatsoever and the potential to increase revolver use by the criminal elements.
__________________
San Benito County, CA
NRA Life Member
CRPA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 08-01-2017, 1:36 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 132
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The Attorney General, in her infinite wisdom, "certified" that the technology does exist, and therefore, as far as the law is concerned, it does exist until proved otherwise. Further, although we will have to wait and see what the Supreme Court has to say, I suspect that Plaintiff will also have to show that her "factual" determination was not just wrong, but that she "abused her discretion" in making that determination, a significant burden. Under the abuse of discretion standard, it must be shown that the decision was "outside the bounds of reason." Given that the technology that is currently available (although experimental) does not stamp a casing in two places as mandated by the law, I think that Plaintiff has a pretty good shot at winning this case, depending of course, on what the Supreme court ultimately decides. If it reverses, the court of appeal, the case is over. If it sustains, then it will set the evidentiary standard that the Plaintiff will have to meet to overturn the certification.
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 08-01-2017, 1:45 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,242
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
The Attorney General, in her infinite wisdom, "certified" that the technology does exist, and therefore, as far as the law is concerned, it does exist until proved otherwise. Further, although we will have to wait and see what the Supreme Court has to say, I suspect that Plaintiff will also have to show that her "factual" determination was not just wrong, but that she "abused her discretion" in making that determination, a significant burden. Under the abuse of discretion standard, it must be shown that the decision was "outside the bounds of reason." Given that the technology that is currently available (although experimental) does not stamp a casing in two places as mandated by the law, I think that Plaintiff has a pretty good shot at winning this case, depending of course, on what the Supreme court ultimately decides. If it reverses, the court of appeal, the case is over. If it sustains, then it will set the evidentiary standard that the Plaintiff will have to meet to overturn the certification.
As an added bonus, I'd like to see Kamala jailed for perjury. I don't think she was technically under oath when she wrote her certification, but seeing as it was a bold-faced lie with serious consequences, I would lose no sleep to see her behind bars as a result.
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 08-12-2017, 6:28 PM
packnrat's Avatar
packnrat packnrat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,821
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldjedi View Post
I don't fully understand the summary of the arguments in the ruling. It sounds to me that microstamping is no longer valid. Not because it can't be done. Rather, the two locations on a handgun (as required by law) is not specific enough for the manufacturers to comply.

I think this ruling is political expediency. Sacramento is trying to clean up the gun laws before Trump gets into office.
trump is in office now.

and he has done nothing on this front at all. he is just like any other elected zombi.
just doing nothing for the tax payers. and lining his ( and $ friends) pockets with our tax dollars.
__________________
big gun's...i love big gun's
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 08-14-2017, 2:17 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 132
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by packnrat View Post
trump is in office now.

and he has done nothing on this front at all. he is just like any other elected zombi.
just doing nothing for the tax payers. and lining his ( and $ friends) pockets with our tax dollars.
Trump has no authority over state laws or cases in federal courts challenging state laws. What would you have him do, within constitutional limits that is?
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 08-14-2017, 4:19 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,268
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Trump has no authority over state laws or cases in federal courts challenging state laws. What would you have him do, within constitutional limits that is?
Wait, What! You mean, Obama took his "Magic Pen" with him when he left?

Last edited by retired; 08-20-2017 at 4:49 PM.. Reason: rule 3
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 08-14-2017, 5:57 PM
ronlglock's Avatar
ronlglock ronlglock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,137
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
In most autoloaders, changing the firing pin is not as easy as changing the barrel, so there is some barrier to the remedy you are discussing.
Really? Try <5 minutes.
__________________

NRA Patron, CRPA Life, SAF Life, GSSF Life, NRA RSO and pistol instructor, ILEETA instructor. Stop me before I join something else!
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 08-14-2017, 8:12 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 533
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronlglock View Post
Really? Try <5 minutes.
Changing the barrel is at most, a 15 second undertaking.
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 08-14-2017, 8:39 PM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
☆☆ More Cowbell ☆☆
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Overhead Orbit
Posts: 9,989
iTrader: 122 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
Changing the barrel is at most, a 15 second undertaking.
Changing the striker in a Glock would only take 30 seconds more. Same for a 1911. There is, practically speaking and for purposes of this conversation, no difference. There is no barrier to the remedy, zero.

And try changing out the barrel on a PPK or similar, maybe a Ruger Mk series 22 - let me know how your 15 second rule works out.
__________________
.



"Texans always move them!"
General Robert E. Lee, May 6, 1864 - Battle of the Wilderness

Last edited by SkyHawk; 08-14-2017 at 8:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 08-17-2017, 12:56 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,085
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyHawk View Post
Changing the striker in a Glock would only take 30 seconds more. Same for a 1911. There is, practically speaking and for purposes of this conversation, no difference. There is no barrier to the remedy, zero.

And try changing out the barrel on a PPK or similar, maybe a Ruger Mk series 22 - let me know how your 15 second rule works out.
All of this is moot since 70% of guns used in crimes are stolen, the stamped casing would just point to the original owner from whom the gun was stolen.
But then again, they never intended to solve crimes, did they?
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 08-21-2017, 11:09 AM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 132
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

NSSF filed its answering brief today. The State has 20 days to file a reply.

Perhaps Librarian can contact NSSF's counsel Lance A. Selfridge and get copies for posting here?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:00 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.