^$&@&%!@! California Anti-Gun Legislature.

[California Tanker]

For once, I'm not going to post in an existing firearms thread.

Watch for a surge in firearms sales in CA in the next couple of years, just as happened in 1999 and 2005. I'm going to have to go shopping a bit myself.

The Governator has just signed the Microstamping Bill, which requires that after 2010 semi-auto pistols sold in CA must have a feature which engraves into each shell casing the identification numbers of the pistol which fired it. As you can imagine, this is technically not particularly easy, and will increase the price of firearms. Of course, this does not apply to police, so they won't be paying through the nose like the rest of us, assuming that a company even thinks it's worth bothering with making a CA-Specific firearm and doesn't just abandon the market entirely. (Which may be the goal of the anti-gunners)

The idea is that when a gang-banger goes around and does a drive-by or whatever, the police can just go up to the crime scene, match the shell casing's imprinted number with the owner of the pistol, and Bob's your uncle.

Now, stupid though most gang-bangers probably are, I think they can probably figure out a few ways to avoid this problem.

1) Use a revolver. No shell casings ejected.
2) Use one of the tens of millions of semi-auto pistols already in circulation.
3) Use a casing catchment bag. Goes for about $20, fits to the outside of the pistol, leaves no casings.
4) Two minutes with a file on the extractor, firing pin, or whatever other component will do the microstamping.
5) These are considered 'wear parts'. Just buy another extractor, firing pin, whatever from a Nevada gun store.
6) (My favourite). Go to a range, or better yet, some public place known for shooting, pick up someone else's casings, and drop those at the crime scene. Technically, this could apply to crooked cops as well.

The 'out' is that if less than two manufacturers are capable of microstamping (Including if technology is covered by patents), that the provision will die.

In the meantime, there is now a movement to increase the number of firearms manufacturers which boycott the State of California (To include its government agencies). The threat, (Which has nationwide following, in case other States decide California had a good idea) is that any manufacturer which complies with this requirement (Or worse, deals with CA) get boycotted. Doubtless the manufacturers will recall what happened to Smith and Wesson when gun-owners boycotted them for doing a deal with the devil (Government).

NTM

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

1) Use a revolver. No shell casings ejected.

Once again, I get to post a picture of my favorite handgun of the moment, the Smith & Wesson 500 Magnum:

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

Once again, I get to post a picture of my favorite handgun of the moment, the Smith & Wesson 500 Magnum:

Can I assume you've seen this video of a chap shooting 12 shots with a S&W six-shooter in three seconds?

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3fgduPdH_Y[/YOUTUBE]

NTM

[Dingfod]

I had not seen that particular one. He's faaast.

7) Steal your neighbour's gun and use it to commit some heinous act. Frameups and hilarity ensue!

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Can I assume you've seen this video of a chap shooting 12 shots with a S&W six-shooter in three seconds?

Holy farking shit. Did he have to actually hit a target or just anywhere on those brown thingies? I couldn't see a bullseye or the outline of a man or anything.

[Clutch Munny]

Cool video.

As for the the Fear Factor of the OP: stand by for major arms manufacturers to abandon the California market in just the same way that major car manufacturers did, after California emissions standards came in.

[California Tanker]

Emission standards
i) make more sense and
ii) are relatively easy to implement effectively with technology available at the time.

Nobody has yet (I'm happy to say) come up with an effective mechanism for microstamping. I am unaware of any auto manufacturers who boycotted California, but the odd firearm manufacturer, notably Barrett, which have already been hit by legislation have abandoned what is their largest state market and refuse to deal with any CA state or local agency.

NTM

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Emission standards
i) make more sense

Which means nothing to the market. Is there money to be made? End of story.

and
ii) are relatively easy to implement effectively with technology available at the time.

Nobody has yet (I'm happy to say) come up with an effective mechanism for microstamping. I am unaware of any auto manufacturers who boycotted California, but the odd firearm manufacturer, notably Barrett, which have already been hit by legislation have abandoned what is their largest state market and refuse to deal with any CA state or local agency.

NTM

But not with everyone in California.

The technical difficulties and impossible costs of safety (&c) mechanisms are an old story; the "relative ease" of California emissions, airbags and seatbelts is only obvious in hindsight, since the auto industry swore to the unfeasibility of all these things in advance.

I guess we'll just have to see whether microstamping will drive arms manufacturers out of selling guns to the nearly 40 million person California market. Do I get a cookie if they opt for continuing to make large amounts of money?

[California Tanker]

Perhaps.

The interesting thing is that much of the pressure is coming from outside of California. The State's considered something of a legislative lost cause as far as firearms owners are concerned, and there's as much of, if not a more vocal reaction from non-Californians who do not want to see the legislation spread. The 300million person National market has proven willing to destroy a large firearm company for acceeding to unpopular requirements.

As far as abandoning the market, I'll get back to you this evening to see how many new pistols since the 2006/2007 California restrictions have been placed on sale outside California, but not within California by the manufacturers. I'll need to ask.

NTM

[wildernesse]

Why do consumers not want the microstamping thing?

The only reason I can see is that it will increase the cost of firearms. But, really, would it raise the cost THAT much? Legally traded guns seem to me to be one of those products that are kind of inelastic in terms of demand--the people who want them are going to get them at about the same rates no matter how much they cost.

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Why do consumers not want the microstamping thing?

I usually shoot on public ranges, and occasionally on open public land. I could find myself receiving annoying questions from the constabulary by virtue of someone picking up one of my shell casings and leaving them somewhere else. Even if it was something innocuous like a kid picking up a shell casing when he was on a trip to the range with dad, and being found with it at school.

Even buying a firearm would become a chore: You would have to test fire the weapon to ensure that nobody swapped the firing pin (or whatever component), a five-minute job of routine maintenance, to make sure that the number being associated with your purchase is indeed the one which is imprinted. Many gunstores do not have a range to shoot on.

Basically it adds liability and complexity for zero gain.

The only reason I can see is that it will increase the cost of firearms. But, really, would it raise the cost THAT much?

A manufacturer would need to make a CA-specific model on the production line, and each microstamp needs to be embedded in relief individually on at least two components of the firearm. In addition, it can reduce the reliability of the pistol, as the etching/embedding process can weaken the firing pin.

NTM

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

But not with everyone in California.

It's to be noted that in Barrett's case, that defaults to everyone in California as the reason for that particular boycott was that CA had made his products illegal for private citizens in CA to purchase. As they are expensive specialty firearms, outside of the military, CA agencies were the largest market.

However, after asking around, it seems that Kel-Tec at least has abandoned the CA market entirely, and H&K and Glock do not make CA-Legal versions of their latest pistols. (The latest round of restrictions in CA are less than a year old, not many companies have released new models since)

NTM

[California Tanker]

Glock, SIGArms and Smith & Wesson have all published letters announcing that they will be forced to "reconsider their participation in the California market" due to costs associated with microstamping.

Of course, they may change their mind in two years, but once you make a public statement like that...

NTM

[Clutch Munny]

I don't think that "reconsider" commits them to very much. We'll see, though. As you say, one major difference with the vehicle cases is that vehicle owners were not politicized to act vengefully against auto makers who complied with emission controls and safety standards. So the main worry for these arms dealers may well have little to do with production costs and much to do with punitive behaviour by other markets.

[seebs]

On the one hand, there doesn't seem to be much benefit, because clever criminals can outsmart it.

On the other hand, there just aren't that many clever criminals.

On the other other hand, this gives the few clever criminals a huge leg up in their goal of getting other people in trouble and deflecting attention from themselves.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

1) Use a revolver. No shell casings ejected.
2) Use one of the tens of millions of semi-auto pistols already in circulation.
3) Use a casing catchment bag. Goes for about $20, fits to the outside of the pistol, leaves no casings.
4) Two minutes with a file on the extractor, firing pin, or whatever other component will do the microstamping.
5) These are considered 'wear parts'. Just buy another extractor, firing pin, whatever from a Nevada gun store.
6) (My favourite). Go to a range, or better yet, some public place known for shooting, pick up someone else's casings, and drop those at the crime scene. Technically, this could apply to crooked cops as well.

These avoidance mechanisms also mostly apply to whatever identifications can be made from ejected shell casings in any event. Some criminals use revolvers, lots of others do not. Yes, criminals get guns from all kinds of places "in circulation." As different guns come onto the market, including microstamped ones, the criminals will choose from what the black market has to offer, including, sooner or later, microstamping guns. Criminals in the cases I've seen, have seldom or never invested in a catchment bag on existing pistols, even though that would also remove evidence at the crime scene. Getting mix and match components from out of state is always available for whatever tracing methods enable guns to be identified from shell casings. Most criminals don't bother filing off stuff or buying special components. And dropping bogus shells at a scene to throw off the scent is available now, whether microstamping is done or not. Most criminals don't bother. And the lawful gun owner can defeat the range-pickup trick by installing the cheap catchment bag you just mentioned.

Whether the legislation is enacted or not is of no particular pressing importance to me; I can see the "for" and the "against."

#1431

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Even buying a firearm would become a chore: You would have to test fire the weapon to ensure that nobody swapped the firing pin (or whatever component), a five-minute job of routine maintenance, to make sure that the number being associated with your purchase is indeed the one which is imprinted. Many gunstores do not have a range to shoot on.

What good is this going to do? You're going to have the equipment to read the stamping and see if it's right?

Besides, why do you need a range? Take a shell casing with primer but no powder or bullet and "shoot" that.

Basically it adds liability and complexity for zero gain.

Agreed. It's a stupid idea.

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel

What good is this going to do? You're going to have the equipment to read the stamping and see if it's right?

A good magnifying glass should do the trick. We're not talking about stamping at a molecular level here.

Besides, why do you need a range? Take a shell casing with primer but no powder or bullet and "shoot" that.

One method of stamping the case itself instead of the primer relies on the expansion of the brass casing during firing to press itself against the stamper which is somewhere in the chamber wall.

NTM

[California Tanker]

STI (They make and accurise 1911-based models) have announced they are withdrawing from all sales in CA, to include LEO.

http://www.stiguns.com/CA-PressRelease.pdf

With the micro stamping bill, we as a company have decided enough is enough.
While our sales to Law Enforcement agencies are not huge, all revenue sources are important to a company of our size and it hurts us to turn our backs on those revenues [...] it is our hope that other manufacturers will follow our lead. It is time for the gun industry as a whole to take a stand against the insanity of the antigunners.

Interestingly, it seems to have been an excellent marketing move. I have very little interest in 1911s, but now I've heard of STI. Apparently they're suddenly getting a lot of interest from purchasors in the other 49 states.

NTM

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Emission standards
i) make more sense and

That is your opinion. Carmakers and republicans thought otherwise.

ii) are relatively easy to implement effectively with technology available at the time.

Not at the time that emissions standards were proposed. The technology had to be invented.

Glock, SIGArms and Smith & Wesson have all published letters announcing that they will be forced to "reconsider their participation in the California market" due to costs associated with microstamping.

How strange.

Gun manufacturers used to say that firearms laws were impossible to enforce because of porous borders between markets. Apparently now they think that geographic segmentation can work after all. Funny how their position changes like that, isn't it.

[California Tanker]

Gun manufacturers used to say that firearms laws were impossible to enforce because of porous borders between markets. Apparently now they think that geographic segmentation can work after all. Funny how their position changes like that, isn't it.

The difference here is that in the first instance it proved to be the case because people weren't following the laws (And the firearm manufacturers were right), in the second instance it's directly targetting those who enforce the laws. I doubt LAPD will be as interested in risking Federal prosecution for purchasing firearms in Nevada for their use, and I'm not sure it would send the best signal to the citizens they're representing.

NTM

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Gun manufacturers used to say that firearms laws were impossible to enforce because of porous borders between markets. Apparently now they think that geographic segmentation can work after all. Funny how their position changes like that, isn't it.

The difference here is that in the first instance it proved to be the case because people weren't following the laws (And the firearm manufacturers were right),

However the same argument can be made for any law - or tax - it ceases to have effect at the political boundary. We have the same problem here in Washington, where people cross the border from Canada to buy things they cannot purchase at home, or which cost more.

Porosity of borders is unavoidable. But it does not mean the law is pointless or has no positive effect. By that argument, all laws are pointless, since we don't have a world govt to enforce them across all boundaries.

Either that, or the firearms manufacturers were simply tossing dust in the air and hoping to sway the public with a patently bogus argument.

in the second instance it's directly targetting those who enforce the laws.

No, it isn't. It's targeting the entire state of California, which includes (but is not limited to) law enforcement.

[California Tanker]

The legislation which was passed contains an exemption for law enforcement. I guess they want to have more options, or less cost, available to the rozzers than to us mere mortals. This market would not have been affected by any manufacturer's decision or ability to comply with the microstamping requirements. As a result, any decision by a firearm manufacturer which has not developed a CA-legal firearm will by default be targetting law enforcement and other State agencies.

NTM