CA's AB 1471 Microstamping Q&A

[Librarian]

The same questions keep popping up.

First: the bill/law itself:

(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.

Background:

California has this law (Penal Code 12131) that creates a Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale.

California FFLs may sell to 'civilians' only handguns which are on the Roster - the Dealer Record Of Sale - DROS - software FFLs must use does a database lookup against the Roster. C&R is exempt.

Police are exempt from the effects of this law, because police are not restricted to guns on the Roster.

People moving to California with guns not on the Roster MAY bring those guns (presuming they are not California 'assault weapons') and any California resident MAY sell them via Private Party Transfer - PPT.

Guns on the Roster stay on the Roster so long as the manufacturer or importer continues to pay the annual fee. Only a manufacturer or importer may pay the fee to keep a a gun on the Roster.

Guns already on the Roster do NOT, as the law is written, have to meet requirements added after the gun was added to the Roster.

Example: A Glock 17, on the list from the beginning, DOES NOT NEED the loaded chamber indicator or the magazine disconnect (in effect today), nor will it need the microstamping in 2010 - because it is already on the Roster.​

This bill:

This microstamping bill is a new requirement manufacturers must meet in order to get a gun on the Roster after 1 January 2010.

It does NOT apply to guns already on the Roster, or already submitted for inclusion on the Roster, on or before 31 December 2009.


Although the Roster is supposed to be guns 'not unsafe', that's a sham. We know it, the DOJ knows it, the Legislature knows it, the Governor knows it. Please don't bother criticizing the law because it doesn't do what its supporters claim it does or will do.

We have spent months pointing out the defects - reloading, picking up brass and leaving it elsewhere, unreadable marks, use of non-ejecting weapons, wear on the gun parts, hard primers/steel cases, as well as the fact that there are already 30 million guns here that do not have the microstamps, and the guns on the list which may continue to be sold without the microstamps.

The legislators and the Governor know all of this.

And being perilously close to ranting, I'll stop here.

 

[TexasRifleman]

The legislators and the Governor know all of this.

And being perilously close to ranting, I'll stop here

OK well maybe we can have a thread on what to do now rather than the other ones ongoing about whose fault it is and who is related to Hitler.

First off I see a couple of loopholes maybe.

One is the requirement that any technique used not be patented, "open source" if you will. Firearms makers could run out and patent all the ways to do this and defeat or postpone it that way maybe.

The other is the exception that "other means" could be substituted. Maybe the manufacturers can find an alternate method that would not cost them as much or require them to retool their factories.

t does NOT apply to guns already on the Roster, or already submitted for inclusion on the Roster, on or before 31 December 2009.

But any firearms time on the list is finite, they all expire eventually. Once they expire they cannot renew without this, so it only buys time.

Guns on the Roster stay on the Roster so long as the manufacturer or importer continues to pay the annual fee. Only a manufacturer or importer may pay the fee to keep a a gun on the Roster.

Then what is the website showing the expiration dates? Is it an automatic extension simply by paying the fee?

What is the time for an approval? 5 years? I'm not arguing, simply asking.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Are you saying that a gun that is already on the California approved list will not have to have a microstamping system even after 2010?

For example, the Glock 17 is already on the list (I assume). So does that mean that new Glock 17's made in 2011 won't have to have microstamping devices?

 

[LAR-15]

Sure seems like it.

 

[Librarian]

Are you saying that a gun that is already on the California approved list will not have to have a microstamping system even after 2010?

For example, the Glock 17 is already on the list (I assume). So does that mean that new Glock 17's made in 2011 won't have to have microstamping devices?

Correct. [ ETA That's the way the law is today. ]
[ETA minor expansion: The thing called "Glock 17" sold in California in 2011 must be EXACTLY the same thing as was tested when "Glock 17" was put on the list; Glock could not rechamber it in 9mm Makarov or add an external safety or change the grip angle without resubmitting it for testing under whatever rules would then be in effect.]

But any firearms time on the list is finite, they all expire eventually. Once they expire they cannot renew without this, so it only buys time.

Incorrect - pay the fee, stay on the list. 'Expire' means 'time to pay the annual fee'.

Is it an automatic extension simply by paying the fee?

Correct.

What is the time for an approval?

As in, submit gun, wait to be put on the list? Seems to be a couple of months. I guess it's somewhat dependent on how many certified testing labs there are (according to the DOJ there are three certified labs) and how busy they may be and whether the gun passes with no problems.

 

[Junkyard Dog]

IANAL And I am not from Kali. That being said, from what I have read I think
that any gun on the legal registry is good to go so long as the manufacturer
keeps paying the fee to keep it on the registry. If they fail to do so then it
has to be re-registered and thus it has to meet the microstamp qualifications.
I did read on another site that someone said that if no more than two gun
makers can produce a pistol that can meet the microstamp requirements by a certain date that the law is void. Can anyone confirm or deny this. If so it would seem that the gun makers could kill this by not conforming to the stupid
law

 

[Librarian]

I did read on another site that someone said that if no more than two gun
makers can produce a pistol that can meet the microstamp requirements by a certain date that the law is void.

Deny. That sounds like a scrambling of this part of the law:

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 primary manufacturer of this technology, Todd Lizotte, "promised that the Microstamping technology would be provided royalty-free to firearms manufacturers with gunmaking facilities in the United States" link, so that part of the law is already satisfied.

UPDATE: There is some theorizing over at Calguns that this provision might be problematic. I'm not lawyer enough to judge, being no lawyer at all.

Actually being able to deliver guns with this stuff implemented is not a gating factor, just that the technology is available.

 

[SoCalShooter]

As long as the manufacturers pay the extortion fees, but its a fee per model of gun so it basically means that any new models have to have these features which means we will probably never get any new models of guns.

 

[Junkyard Dog]

Librarian
Thanks for making things clear. I didn't think that it would be that easy.
As always it looks like someone is out to make some money somewhere
down the line.

 

[gbran]

IMHO one thing is for certain. Once this law is on the books, we can expect changes to it. This law will be tweaked and probably in ways we're not gonna like.

The true intent of this law is to infringe.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

IMHO one thing is for certain. Once this law is on the books, we can expect changes to it. This law will be tweaked and probably in ways we're not gonna like.

The true intent of this law is to infringe.

Obviously. This is a gun ban / gun registration law.

Long before 2010, the gun banners will point out that guns currently on the Roster are exempt. They will characterize this as a "loophole", and their leftist media buddies will say that this "loophole" will prevent the law from being an effective crime fighting tool.

So then the drums will start beating to "close" the loophole by amending the law.

To the gun banners, your rights are just "loopholes" that need to be closed.

All of them.

 

[Phelptwan]

Is there any chance this will come under fire of the interstate commerce stuff?

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Is there any chance this will come under fire of the interstate commerce stuff?

Nope. Nobody is forcing anyone to sell guns in CA, and CA isn't forcing anyone selling guns in other states to conform to their requirements.

 

[TexasRifleman]

After all the ranting is done, and reality settles in, what this will do in the end is merely stifle innovation I think.

Firearm companies will just stick with the models already on the CA DOJ list, pay the renewal for that, and stop developing new products.

The more I think about it the more I think that gun companies won't want to make a microstamp gun due to the costs, but they won't want to rock the California boat either, so they just leave it status quo and sell what they have, fire their R&D departments, and continue on......

If I was running a gun company that's what I would do anyway. Hunker down, cut my costs, and sell the same old already approved junk.

Sad huh. Hope I'm wrong about that one.

 

[Grey54956]

Is there any legal wrangling that could be done to argue against the expansion definition of the term "unsafe handgun". All other criteria for an unsafe handgun involve mechanical safety devices which prevent unintentional firing of the weapon or a indicator that a round is chambered. The microstamping does nothing to make the firearm more mechanically sound, prevent unintentional discharge, or indicate a loaded chamber. The inherent safety of the gun is completely unaffected by the presence or lack of microstamping technology.

 

[TexasRifleman]

The inherent safety of the gun is completely unaffected by the presence or lack of microstamping technology.

The legislature has defined the term to mean:

As used in this chapter, "unsafe handgun" means any
pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon
the person, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 12001, for which
any of the following is true:

Hard to argue the definition when the people that write the definition want it to be a certain way.

 

[Librarian]

Is there any legal wrangling that could be done to argue against the expansion definition of the term "unsafe handgun".

No. Legal definitions, as noted by TexasRifleman, do not have to map onto reality. Can't find the reference just now, but I believe people have sued based on a law failing to match the legislative "findings"; complainant lost.

Please remember that political motivations are seldom expressed openly; the 'safety' issue in California is not about 'safety' as reasonable people might use the word.

 

[Zundfolge]

It seems to me that the best strategy for California gun owners and Republicans is to push to close the "police loophole" and make all California law enforcement subject to the same laws as the proles.

This will put law enforcement in the PRK on the side of gun owners when new anti gun crap is proposed.


Seems to me that police should be the FIRST to receive microstamping guns, and frankly shouldn't have the option to carry non microstamping guns on duty for the same reason they have cameras on the dash of their cruiser.

 

[gunsmith]

stupid stupid stupid

This law will do nothing but drive up the price of guns and ammo. Precisely what the demican/republicrats want. In CA gun ownership is supposed to be for the white wealthy elite. (the AG office has said CA gun law is based on cruikshank V united states) ....Progressives try to imagine themselves as anti racist but fill the jails with black people for the "crime" of gun ownership. The founders of the KKK (also Democrats) must be very proud of their offspring.

 

[Owens]

Possibly overlooked this further back, but...
If a gun on the list stays on the list, maybe all it will mean is that any new guns are not for sale in CA?

 

[Librarian]

Possibly overlooked this further back, but...
If a gun on the list stays on the list, maybe all it will mean is that any new guns are not for sale in CA?

I think this is a decent possibility. I can't imagine what could motivate a manufacturer to go along with California on this.

In the last couple of years (2000-2004) sales data shows California buys about 10-11% of guns manufactured/imported; we bought, respectively, 16%, 16%, 16%, 18%, 14% of handguns with the models available on the Roster. So long as the manufacturers choose to keep paying the fee and keep making the same models, I would expect similar sales. I suppose there must be a saturation point, but I haven't reached it!

 

[BlackBearME]

If a gun on the list stays on the list, maybe all it will mean is that any new guns are not for sale in CA?

....for now.

But it's a step. THey can't just step up and ban all guns...least not right away.

Now that this bill has passed, there's nothing stopping them from amending the law regarding the Roster to say that all guns have to be resubmitted every 2/5/10/X years for approval. And what happens when the guns don't have the microstamping? No longer approved for sale.

So at that point either a) All guns will have to have microstamping in Kali, or b) none of the manufacturers will sell there.

I lean toward (b) just because I doubt the manufacturers will want to jump through the hoops (both legal and fiscal), but not being a firearms manufacturer representative...couldn't tell you.

 

[ArmedBear]

Although the Roster is supposed to be guns 'not unsafe', that's a sham. We know it, the DOJ knows it, the Legislature knows it, the Governor knows it.

Is there a chance that a court case could kill this because it doesn't fit the wording/intent of the original law, which clearly addresses safety features and drop testing?

 

[ArmedBear]

Seems to me that police should be the FIRST to receive microstamping guns, and frankly shouldn't have the option to carry non microstamping guns on duty for the same reason they have cameras on the dash of their cruiser.

Exactly. What justification is there for NOT requiring police guns to stamp their casings?

 

[ArmedBear]

WRT gun sales...

Yes, California does account for a lot of gun sales. However, I for one won't buy a microstamp gun ever, if I can help it. I don't want my serial number on brass, and I don't care to reload for occasional HD practice -- I shoot my other guns a good deal more often. So I want to be able to dump my brass in the club recycling barrel without my #$%^ serial number on it, without concern.

So, while California may account for a lot of gun sales, I'm betting that the first microstamped pistol sold in the state will not sell worth a hill of dog crap. Would you buy one? That will mean that other manufacturers will not be motivated to do this.

Of course, before 2010, the process may be shown to be unworkable in production. It's never been tried except in test labs.

That said, if this gets axed somehow, there will be more laws, more taxes, more moonbattery here. Businesses will be taxed and punished out of the state. Silliness like Arnie's newfound enviro-wackiness will drive out more. "Light rail" costing billions plus interest, instead of roads we need, will lower the standard of living further. The state where I was born is no more. It's a different place, and its future is not as bright as it was, by many measures.

It's a bummer, but I just don't see this place getting better. Arnold's first term actually offered hope, though I would have preferred McClintock. Now, Arnold has not only given up the fight; he's joined the other side.

Sorry for the rant.