Bonta Finds Firearm Microstamping Technology Viable - Wasting our tax dollars

[USMC06RET]

Judge Carney's reading of the Second Amendment was that it "enshrines a fundamental constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense" which includes the "constitutional right to acquire and use state-of-the-art handguns to protect themselves." The microstamp requirement when combined with the other challenged provisions of the UHA, effectively restricts Californians to buying handguns "from over sixteen years ago."

Link to Source: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.858747/gov.uscourts.cacd.858747.60.0_1.pdf

Honestly, I don't get this. Why would microstamping only be possible on weapons designed sixteen years ago? Why would it not be possible to microstamp every firing pin manufactured?

 

[Jimi Jah]

I won't ever pay 8.5% sales tax, 11% 2nd amendment tax plus DROS fees for a micro stamp handgun.
I will PPT or buy out of state before I ever do that.

 

[1911-CV]

The second case where a Preliminary Injunction was granted against microstamping is a broad challenge to the roster, Renna v Becerra (now Bonta) PI Text. The PI only covers the chamber load indicator, magazine disconnect mechanism, and microstamping requirements. The second federal judge is Hon. Dana M. Sabraw.

As in Boland, requiring technology that precludes the sale of current firearms fails the constitutionality test. That the technology may or may not work, or whether the technology exists in a commercially viable form, is not the concern. "Rather, to justify its regulation, the State must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical traditions of firearm regulations. Under this newly formulated standard, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ desire to commercially purchase newer models of semiautomatic handguns in common use is covered by the Second Amendment and presumptively protected". As a hypothetical example, the state could require that all new firearms sold in CA be constructed with ironwood grips (a specific type of very tough wood). But if no manufacturer sold firearms with ironwood grips and all newer models were effectively blocked, the statute could be similarly enjoined due to the deference to the Second Amendment required under Bruen.

 

[adrkwan]

The second case where a Preliminary Injunction was granted against microstamping is a broad challenge to the roster, Renna v Becerra (now Bonta) PI Text. The PI only covers the chamber load indicator, magazine disconnect mechanism, and microstamping requirements. The second federal judge is Hon. Dana M. Sabraw.

As in Boland, requiring technology that precludes the sale of current firearms fails the constitutionality test. That the technology may or may not work, or whether the technology exists in a commercially viable form, is not the concern. "Rather, to justify its regulation, the State must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical traditions of firearm regulations. Under this newly formulated standard, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ desire to commercially purchase newer models of semiautomatic handguns in common use is covered by the Second Amendment and presumptively protected". As a hypothetical example, the state could require that all new firearms sold in CA be constructed with ironwood grips (a specific type of very tough wood). But if no manufacturer sold firearms with ironwood grips and all newer models were effectively blocked, the statute could be similarly enjoined due to the deference to the Second Amendment required under Bruen.

This. From what I recall, it was a two factor analysis: "technological[] feasib[ility] and commercial[] practical[ity]." The CA DOJ could not show either at the time. The most recent report from the CA DOJ hits technological feasibility but not commercial practicality. There are still arguments on the cost of implementing microstamping: industry said around $200 per gun while the company pushing its microstamping technology says its $3-5 per (striker fired?) gun.

 

[1911-CV]

This. From what I recall, it was a two factor analysis: "technological[] feasib[ility] and commercial[] practical[ity]." The CA DOJ could not show either at the time. The most recent report from the CA DOJ hits technological feasibility but not commercial practicality. There are still arguments on the cost of implementing microstamping: industry said around $200 per gun while the company pushing its microstamping technology says its $3-5 per (striker fired?) gun.

All that (can it be done, is it commercially viable) went away with Bruen. Now the questions are: 1) consistency with the historical record of restriction; 2) impact on the rights of the individual under the second amendment.

 

[adrkwan]

Vacating the submission of a case is different from vacating the decision of the lower Court. The Ninth Circuit asked for supplemental briefing on the effect of Duncan on the current appeal and whether remand would be appropriate. The parties are still seeking a decision (affirm/reversal) of the preliminary injunction.

 

[Sloat]

Honestly, I don't get this. Why would microstamping only be possible on weapons designed sixteen years ago? Why would it not be possible to microstamp every firing pin manufactured?

I believe the argument is that the microstamping requirement (effective in 2013) caused 0 firearms to be eligible, because nobody could or would do it. So we could only buy granfathered-in on-roster pistols that had been added prior to the microstamping law. In other words, the argument is not that the microstamping requirement was only possible on older pistols, but it was a de-facto ban on any "state of the art" pistols. With the removal of microstamping, we've seen basically all the major companies introduce models to the CA roster that comply with the other two elements of the law - magazine disconnect + loaded chamber indicator.

 

[adrkwan]

I believe the argument is that the microstamping requirement (effective in 2013) caused 0 firearms to be eligible, because nobody could or would do it. So we could only buy granfathered-in on-roster pistols that had been added prior to the microstamping law. In other words, the argument is not that the microstamping requirement was only possible on older pistols, but it was a de-facto ban on any "state of the art" pistols. With the removal of microstamping, we've seen basically all the major companies introduce models to the CA roster that comply with the other two elements of the law - magazine disconnect + loaded chamber indicator.

Yeah, I read it the same way. Microstamping is effectively a ban to adding new pistols to the roster because there are no pistols that currently meet that requirement.

 

[USMC06RET]

I believe the argument is that the microstamping requirement (effective in 2013) caused 0 firearms to be eligible, because nobody could or would do it. So we could only buy granfathered-in on-roster pistols that had been added prior to the microstamping law. In other words, the argument is not that the microstamping requirement was only possible on older pistols, but it was a de-facto ban on any "state of the art" pistols. With the removal of microstamping, we've seen basically all the major companies introduce models to the CA roster that comply with the other two elements of the law - magazine disconnect + loaded chamber indicator.

OK, but what makes you think that any sidearm on the roster today will still be on the roster after the microstamping requirement goes into effect?

As I understand it, the roster is dynamic and can change. Certainly, weapons that have already been legally sold in CA prior to the 2028 date would be exempt from being microstamp capable.

I could be wrong but it reads to me like even the semi-auto sidearms (strange, why not revolvers?) currently on the roster would have to add microstamping to remain on the roster, no? In effect, it seems like it would effectively wipe the roster clean unless the manufacturers add acceptable microstamping prior to the deadline? What am I missing?

 

[Sloat]

I'm not intimately familiar with the way everything works but the way I understand it is that once a pistol is on the roster, it's good to go, unless 1) the company voluntarily pulls it off the roster / declines to renew, or 2) something changes with the manufacturing process (see CZs recently, HK USPs a few years ago)

We had "non-state-of-the-art" pistols before the lawsuit was won because it was a requirement for NEW pistols to be added to the roster.

Can CA change its mind and say ALL pistols have to have microstamping? Certainly they could try, and they will probably try to do it at some point, but without any companies being able to make pistols with microstamping firing pins, that would effectively be a total pistol ban. If they do have a total pistol ban, that would likely raise a bunch of immediate 2a challenges and it's likely that the law would be struck down.

At the end of the day, CA just wants to discourage gun ownership as much as it can with regulations that will actually stick and stay in place. It knows it likely can't get away with a total ban, but it wants to get as close to it as possible. In terms of having laws stick, there's a lot of gradations in the state having the full right to regulate dangerous goods on one end of the spectrum to a total free-for-all on the other end. In the middle of that line is stuff like magazine limits, drop-safety, the cruciform trigger bar glock issue that's out there right now, etc. Courts will likely see "reasonable" regulations as OK and total bans as not OK. What us gun owners see as reasonable of course is not generally what non-owners think is reasonable, but even non-owners would have to agree that "no new pistols ever" does seem like it goes against the 2a.

 

[adrkwan]

OK, but what makes you think that any sidearm on the roster today will still be on the roster after the microstamping requirement goes into effect?

As I understand it, the roster is dynamic and can change. Certainly, weapons that have already been legally sold in CA prior to the 2028 date would be exempt from being microstamp capable.

I could be wrong but it reads to me like even the semi-auto sidearms (strange, why not revolvers?) currently on the roster would have to add microstamping to remain on the roster, no? In effect, it seems like it would effectively wipe the roster clean unless the manufacturers add acceptable microstamping prior to the deadline? What am I missing?

Currently, CA allows you to renew an on-roster semi-automatic pistol by paying maintenance fees. I am unaware of any changes to 11 CCR § 4071 and 4072 which govern the renewal process. Manufacturers can certainly let their weapons lapse from the roster, but they only need to qualify once.

There is no requirement I am aware of for existing guns on the roster to add microstamping. You could remain on-roster in perpetuity if you meet your renewal requirements. The proposed legislation for removing on-roster non-microstamp guns was the three-for-one removal requirement which is up on appeal in Renna v. Bonta. There, Bonta conceded that "the Legislature could have taken a more aggressive approach by requiring all commercially available semiautomatic pistols to have these three features, which would have immediately removed noncompliant weapons from the retail market. Instead, the Legislature took a gradual approach, through which some unsafe handguns are removed from the market as handguns with these public safety features become available."

 

[USMC06RET]

Currently, CA allows you to renew an on-roster semi-automatic pistol by paying maintenance fees. I am unaware of any changes to 11 CCR § 4071 and 4072 which govern the renewal process. Manufacturers can certainly let their weapons lapse from the roster, but they only need to qualify once.

There is no requirement I am aware of for existing guns on the roster to add microstamping. You could remain on-roster in perpetuity if you meet your renewal requirements. The proposed legislation for removing on-roster non-microstamp guns was the three-for-one removal requirement which is up on appeal in Renna v. Bonta. There, Bonta conceded that "the Legislature could have taken a more aggressive approach by requiring all commercially available semiautomatic pistols to have these three features, which would have immediately removed noncompliant weapons from the retail market. Instead, the Legislature took a gradual approach, through which some unsafe handguns are removed from the market as handguns with these public safety features become available."

I will find the time to re-read the microstamping law, I thought I read that ALL semi-automatic sidearms sold after such and such date 2028 had to incorporate microstamping but, I will re-read it to be sure. Honestly, it would make no sense to exempt weapons already on the roster but, I will re-read it later.

 

[adrkwan]

I think you are correct. The current bill as passed says any semi auto made after 1/1/2028 would need to be micro stamped enabled if all the pre-requisites were met. Not sure how they expect to get this passed when they failed to push through the prior micro stamping requirement. The future dating is probably to dodge additional injunctions since the issue won’t be ripe until closer to 2028.

The bill is also future dated to give the DOJ some time to fund studies and to pressure gun manufacturers into implementing the microstamping. Otherwise, they’ll force the LGS to swap parts with micro stamps or presumably stop selling semi auto pistols. All in all, a horrible piece of legislation.

 

[ZeroFoxGiven]

Bonta can eat a bowl of . So tired of their BS.

 

[USMC06RET]

I think you are correct. The current bill as passed says any semi auto made after 1/1/2028 would need to be micro stamped enabled if all the pre-requisites were met. Not sure how they expect to get this passed when they failed to push through the prior micro stamping requirement. The future dating is probably to dodge additional injunctions since the issue won’t be ripe until closer to 2028.

The bill is also future dated to give the DOJ some time to fund studies and to pressure gun manufacturers into implementing the microstamping. Otherwise, they’ll force the LGS to swap parts with micro stamps or presumably stop selling semi auto pistols. All in all, a horrible piece of legislation.

Actually, the bill is now law. Below are some highlighted screen captures. It is a very onerous law and I wonder if the word "transfer" applies to PPT through an FFL? I fear it might. (correction) 27533 (e)(1) exempts all semi-automatic sidearms sold in the state prior to 1 January 2028 so, this will serve to drive up the value / cost of previously owned sidearms transferred via PPT or sold by a dealer as previously owned or even "new, old stock".

It's also interesting that the study published by the DOJ was literally required by law. I also believe that the preliminary injunction issued by Carney in Borland v. Bonta was vacated by the ninth circuit, but I am not 100% positive. I fear this is going to be a knock-down, drag-out fight in California.

There are one hell of a lot of "If"s in these parts of the penal code.





More below

 

[USMC06RET]

 

[USMC06RET]

 

[USMC06RET]

Bonta can eat a bowl of . So tired of their BS.

You can direct your ire at anyone you wish however, SB452 was introduced / sponsored by Senator Catherine Blakespear of Encinitas, representing the 38th district. The vote in the senate was 31 - 9 in favor and in the assembly it passed it 55 - 18, it was then signed into law by Governor Newsom but sure, be pissed off at Bonta.

We 2nd amendment advocates should be expending a lot more effort communicating with and educating our representatives and showing them how our desires serve the people of the state better than the desires of the majority. Sure, it's easier to piss and moan but, that's doesn't really bring home the bacon, does it?

At this moment in history, I would be pointing out to the politicians just how important the 2nd amendment could be in warding off the authoritarianism of the federal government and even though the second amendment has proven to be an abysmal failure in this regard so far, it could end up being one of our last lines of defense against the s. I am certain that such an argument properly presented will not fall on deaf ears in California.

 

[ZeroFoxGiven]

You can direct your ire at anyone you wish however, SB452 was introduced / sponsored by Senator Catherine Blakespear of Encinitas, representing the 38th district. The vote in the senate was 31 - 9 in favor and in the assembly it passed it 55 - 18, it was then signed into law by Governor Newsom but sure, be pissed off at Bonta.

We 2nd amendment advocates should be expending a lot more effort communicating with and educating our representatives and showing them how our desires serve the people of the state better than the desires of the majority. Sure, it's easier to piss and moan but, that's doesn't really bring home the bacon, does it?

At this moment in history, I would be pointing out to the politicians just how important the 2nd amendment could be in warding off the authoritarianism of the federal government and even though the second amendment has proven to be an abysmal failure in this regard so far, it could end up being one of our last lines of defense against the s. I am certain that such an argument properly presented will not fall on deaf ears in California.

Pissed at all of them, but Bonta is all to happy to be a fledgling gun grabber until his day when he runs for office.

 

[USMC06RET]

Pissed at all of them, but Bonta is all to happy to be a fledgling gun grabber until his day when he runs for office.

Well, considering how persuasive you appear to be, I urge to you communicate with Bonta which is something I wager you have never tried to do. I understand that he is very good about answering letters as is Newsom. My wife and I wrote to the Governor and he responded personally, addressing each point we raised in our letter. It's really easy to demonize people you have never personally communicated with.