BARF Militia

[Sharxfan]

Asking Californians about a handgun not on the roster is like asking a blind man what shade of blue he prefers.

True but some on here are out of the state also and may have an opinion.

It's actually kind of surprising the manufacturers aren't bringing the modern .22s to CA. The level of burden, I believe, for them to be on the roster is lower than a centerfire pistol. (There is still a burden and cost, of course, but CA is a big market and you'd think those fixed costs would be readily absorbed, especially for something as popular as a .22.).

I know folks like Ruger aren't doing it "because CA", but not all manufacturers are necessarily as principled as Ruger.

But then you also have to do 10rd mags so there is that also and don't they have that stupid micro ID/stamp thing also?

 

[berth]

I didn't realize the .22 needed to be microstamped.

This humdinger was passed last year:

The Department of Justice shall, for each semiautomatic pistol newly added to the roster pursuant to Section 32015, remove from the roster exactly three semiautomatic pistols lacking one or more of the applicable features described in paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of subdivision (b) and added to the roster before July 1, 2022.

So, if and when MS pistols show up, basically the "old" models will quickly vanish from the roster, causing a cascading effect.

Neato.

 

[Sharxfan]

Wow that is harsh so they are going to take away all handgun options because there are a ton of manufacturers that are not submitting anything new to Cali due to the roster. So you guys gain one and lose three.

Have they tried to take the roster to court and fight it?

 

[berth]

Wow that is harsh so they are going to take away all handgun options because there are a ton of manufacturers that are not submitting anything new to Cali due to the roster. So you guys gain one and lose three.

Have they tried to take the roster to court and fight it?

This is California, everything ends up in court.

Honestly, the bright side of this is this it the kind of thing that can also break open the dam.

There's no criteria that the pistols released from the roster be from the same manufacturer as the new pistol. (Contrived example) Glock could make changes and start submitting pistols. Watch Glock submit a 17, 19, 26, 34, 43, 45 (and those are just 9mm). Boom, there went potentially 18 Rugers, Smiths, Colt, and anyone else.

Glock bringing their entire line to CA could practically sweep off the bulk of the current registry.

They don't now, because they don't have to. They're willing to rest on their laurels with their Gen 2, and sell Gen 4s to the Law Enforcement. If the State wanted to really affect the roster, if they were committed to the changes they propose, they'd make the roster a requirement for duty officers, and the manufacturers would adapt right quick.

It takes one actor willing to step up to disrupt the market for everyone else.

 

[wilit]

In 3 years, this will be the only approved handgun for sale in CA.

 

[900ss]

In 3 years, this will be the only approved handgun for sale in CA.

Until they decide you could put someone's eye out with it.

 

[berth]

In 3 years, this will be the only approved handgun for sale in CA.

I dunno, looks like it could be 3D printed. Can't have that.

 

[Sharxfan]

This is California, everything ends up in court.

Honestly, the bright side of this is this it the kind of thing that can also break open the dam.

There's no criteria that the pistols released from the roster be from the same manufacturer as the new pistol. (Contrived example) Glock could make changes and start submitting pistols. Watch Glock submit a 17, 19, 26, 34, 43, 45 (and those are just 9mm). Boom, there went potentially 18 Rugers, Smiths, Colt, and anyone else.

Glock bringing their entire line to CA could practically sweep off the bulk of the current registry.

They don't now, because they don't have to. They're willing to rest on their laurels with their Gen 2, and sell Gen 4s to the Law Enforcement. If the State wanted to really affect the roster, if they were committed to the changes they propose, they'd make the roster a requirement for duty officers, and the manufacturers would adapt right quick.

It takes one actor willing to step up to disrupt the market for everyone else.

You do know they are at Gen 5 now right? I thought LEO could buy any gun even if off roster?

 

[CABilly]

You do know they are at Gen 5 now right? I thought LEO could buy any gun even if off roster?

They can. It’s a nice perk of a side hustle but it doesn’t make any sense. Exemptions should only apply to duty weapons but LE support is how these laws keep getting crammed up our asses.

 

[berth]

You do know they are at Gen 5 now right? I thought LEO could buy any gun even if off roster?

No, I didn't know about the Gen 5.

And there's some mechanism that off roster guns get in here and can be sold, I just don't know the details. It's not a floodgate to be sure.

You can move in to the state with one, as I understand it.

 

[splat]

They don't now, because they don't have to. They're willing to rest on their laurels with their Gen 2, and sell Gen 4s to the Law Enforcement.

They don't do it now because the technology for microstamping doesn't exist.

And there's some mechanism that off roster guns get in here and can be sold, I just don't know the details. It's not a floodgate to be sure.

You can move in to the state with one, as I understand it.

1) You bring it into the state if you lawfully owned it in another state that isn't California, while not being a California resident. You have 60 days from the day of import to register, no penalty for late registration.
2) You can buy it from a LEO. They have access to off-roster firearms that are too dangerous for second class citizens unless owned by a LEO first.
3) Intra-familial transfers. If you have a (Grand)parent or (Grand)child living in a free state, they may GIFT it to you, so long as no consideration was given. Meaning you cannot ask them to buy it for you, then you pay them back. You cannot do an intra-familial transfer between siblings, between uncles, cousins, etc.

 

[berth]

They don't do it now because the technology for microstamping doesn't exist.

Well, that's the problem. According to the DOJ, it does exist. The requirement on the law was that it would go in to effect a) when the tech existed and b) not encumbered by patent.

DOJ said that was the case back in 2013. Their memo didn't provide any details as to how it figured that out.

 

[bergmen]

Well, that's the problem. According to the DOJ, it does exist. The requirement on the law was that it would go in to effect a) when the tech existed and b) not encumbered by patent.

DOJ said that was the case back in 2013. Their memo didn't provide any details as to how it figured that out.

According to Kamala Harris (Cal AG at the time) the requirement for micro stamping exists, not necessarily the technology. Her way to prevent modern semi-auto handgun ownership by the law abiding.

Dan

 

[berth]

From AB 1471:

(7) Commencing January 1, 2010, for all semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 12131, 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. The Attorney General may also approve a method of equal or greater reliability and effectiveness in identifying the specific serial number of a firearm from spent cartridge casings discharged by that firearm than that which is set forth in this paragraph, to be thereafter required as otherwise set forth by this paragraph where the Attorney General certifies that this new method is also unencumbered by any patent restrictions. Approval by the Attorney General shall include notice of that fact via regulations adopted by the Attorney General for purposes of implementing that method for purposes of this paragraph. The microscopic array of characters required by this section shall not be considered the name of the maker, model, manufacturer’s number, or other mark of identification, including any distinguishing number or mark assigned by the Department of Justice, within the meaning of Sections 12090 and 12094.

This was followed up in 2013 by the DOJ:

The purpose of this bulletin is to inform California licensed firearms dealers, California Department of Justice certified laboratories, firearm manufacturers with firearms listed on the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale in California, and all other interested persons/entities of the Department of Justice’s certification on May 17, 2013 pursuant to Penal Code section 31910, subdivision (b)(7)(A) that the microstamping technology is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions.

From the NRAILA, they quoted this clarification:

The law became effective as soon as the California Department of Justice certified that the technology used to create the imprint was available. When this certification occurred in 2013, the State clarified that the certification confirmed only “the lack of any patent restrictions on the imprinting technology, not the availability of the technology itself.” In layman’s terms, the state was saying that nothing was stopping someone from developing the technology, so it was “available,” even though it wasn’t.

The sticking point, however, seems to be that the CA law require the microstamping to happen two places, vs just the firing pin.

Because, there's this Smith & Wesson memo (from the NRAILA article above):

Smith & Wesson does not and will not include microstamping in its firearms. A number of studies have indicated that microstamping is unreliable, serves no safety purpose, is cost prohibitive and, most importantly, is not proven to aid in preventing or solving crimes.

See, this suggests that microstamping does exist, the tech is there, it's not not particularly good. They don't cite how unreliable it is, and the CA law doesn't have any notes about how good is has to be, it just needs to be microstamped. What the measure of unreliability? A successful stamp? Is that happening 10% of the time? 70%? Does it impact actual performance (i.e. does it cause misfires)?

It also suggests it's expensive. The other stuff isn't the purview of S&W, that's a decision for CA public policy.

The new law, AB 2847 changes the requirement from 2 places to one place:

(3) The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute concedes that “microstamped characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of a semi-automatic pistol can be etched or imprinted on the tip of the pistol’s firing pin” and tests have shown it is feasible to do the same on the firearm breechface.
(i) The Legislature continues to believe that the requirements of the Unsafe Handgun Act serve consumer and public safety and are feasible and necessary. To further implement this lifesaving law, the Legislature has considered and adopted the amendments contained in this act, including a provision to require that new semiautomatic pistol models have microstamped characters on one location on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol instead of two. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute concedes this can be done on the pistol’s firing pin, and tests have shown that such imprints allow for successful identification of microstamped characters in 97 percent of cases.

So, they reduced the burden from 2 places to 1 place.

Now, if any manufacturer decides that they can produce a microstamping firing pin that can pass the CA test, then that manufacturer can have a large impact on the gun roster in the state and negatively impact other manufacturers.

According to Wikipedia, they say:

The proprietary technology was invented and patented by Todd Lizotte and is presently owned by a company he founded called NanoMark, a division of ID Dynamics of Seattle, Washington. They are the only company from which this technology can be purchased.

If that's true, then that should be taken to court to override the DOJ assessment of 2013, which is different from the lawsuit that was filed before.

Pena v Lindley, which is the current case about this, is in the inbox at the Supreme Court (as I understand it). But this does not address the feasibility of microstamping, or CA DOJ assessment. It's more a basic 2A case.

This is a note from P v L:

This concession was made in the context of a state-law challenge to the microstamping requirement by NSSF, an amicus in this case. Although NSSF claimed (as it does here) that the dual-imprint requirement is impossible to comply with, the California Supreme Court had no cause to address this technical question. See Nat’l Shooting Sports Found., 2018 WL 3150950, at *1–2. Rather, “[t]he sole dispute” was whether a California court could invalidate the microstamping requirement “on the basis of Civil Code section 3531’s declaration that ‘[t]he law never requires impossibilities.’” Id. at *2 (alteration in original). Because the challenge was decided below at the pleading stage, the California Supreme Court “assume[d] that complying with the [microstamping requirement] is impossible . . . .” Id. The court’s decision addressed only a matter of state statutory interpretation and therefore has no bearing on the question before us. Nor should we draw any inference from the fact that—as the majority points out—NSSF did not challenge the propriety of CDOJ’s certification of “the availability of dual placement microstamping technology . . . .” Id. at *4; see also Maj. Op. at 25 n.10. Again, the absence of a patent encumbrance says nothing about the technology’s feasibility.

Basically, the NSSF chose a different tact, rather than challenging the State assessment of microstamping.

This is the context of that:

The majority highlights aspects of the UHA that, in its view, offset Plaintiffs’ central contention that the requirement effectively bans the sale of new handguns. It cites, for instance, the fact that “[t]he microstamping requirement only became effective after the CDOJ certified that the technology ‘is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions.’” Maj. Op. at 29. If the majority is implying that this certification has any bearing on the issue before us, this assertion is wide of the mark. The certification was required by the legislature to ensure that manufacturers had legal access to the technology; the certification was about patent rights, not technological feasibility. CAL. PENAL CODE § 31910(b)(7)(A). As the State recently conceded before the California Supreme Court, “this certification confirms the lack of any patent restrictions on the imprinting technology, not the availability of the technology itself.”11 Nat’l Shooting Sports Found., Inc. v. State, No. S239397, 2018 WL 3150950, at *1, slip op. at 2 (Cal. June 28, 2018). The absence of patent restrictions resulted from Lizotte generously placing his technology in “the public domain . . . free of royalty.”

So the big question is whether the limitation was any concept of microstamping, or the 2 part requirement.

If firing pin microstamping is possible/practical, then this could be a big sea change in handgun availability in CA.