all semiautomatic pistols sold in California to have microstamping technology.
That means each bullet would have a unique marking making it easier for law enforcement to trace the gun it was fired from back to its owner.
Nice end-run around the Constitution. This technology does not exist, and cannot exist. Anyone wanting to argue that needs to stop watching stupid cop shows.
Perhaps they’re talking about stamping the firing pin, somehow. Are you aware of the forces at work at the tip of a firing pin? A “micro” stamp won’t survive 2 shots.
each bullet would have a unique marking
Yeah, stamped in lead. The material that flattens, deforms, shatters on impact. This is as dumb as the Batman scene where he extracts shards from the wall and magically reconstructs the bullet.
Or maybe they don’t know what a bullet is and they meant the shell/casing? And we’re going to micro stamp the billions of shells produced annually? And what does that get us? Doesn’t tell you anything about the exact gun that fired it. Aaaand we’re back to stamping the firing pin.
Let’s ignore physics and pretend this is still technically feasible. Stamping any sort of unique ID on a firing pin, bullet or shell is going to be wildly cost prohibitive. Which is the exact point.
Legislate impossible tech, or in a magical world where possible, make it so no one but the rich can afford it. This bill would effectively make every gun and shell illegal in CA.
NYSRPA vs Bruen decision by the Supreme Court will invalidate this law just as it recently did to their magazine capacity law. They are literally wasting the citizens tax dollars with this legislative performance because any lawyer knows that it will get overturned after seeing the many recent rulings on the topic. A couple of federal district courts even ruled that you can be an illegal drug user and retain 2A rights based on Bruen this year, because that restriction does not fit the historical context of gun control laws. Microstamping obviously fails that test even harder.
Could be that this train was already in motion before the Bruen decision. Not a good look for us folks interested in increasing gun safety while also respecting the bill of rights’ intent.
Don’t forget the other part, “in order to protect security of the state…”
It literally says right in it that the purpose is not self defense. Reading an individual right into it goes beyond the express purpose.
And contrary to the poster above, yes, we are going to consider ignoring the Bruen decision because It is so obviously founded upon historical lies that anyone can verify if they were even making a half of an attempt to be unbiased.
Rogue Federal judges appointed by Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan keep exciting the decision to strike down gun laws that have existed in some cases for hundreds of years. It will be reversed in due course. A lot of people will die in the meantime.
Well I was paraphrasing from memory but let’s parse it.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Contrary to your prior posts, well-regulated means regimented. It means they’ve practiced and had training. That there are officers leading the men. This is simply based on the language used at the time the words were written. There is no dispute about this in academics or anywhere else.
The second clause tells us the purpose of the entire amendment: security of a free state. State security is another word that has changed meaning over the years. Today we understand it as “national security.” Back then, in context, these words specifically meant the freedom of a state to perpetuate itself, within nonconsentual interferrwnce by a repressive federal government. Nothing to do with freedom of individuals from any government, only the freedom.of a state government from a federal one.
Bear arms, again, prior to 1776 there are zero documented uses of the term that refer clearly to an individual right to carry guns. Rather 95% of the usage refers expressly to formal warfare, the other 5% is ambiguous, 0% refer clearly to an individual right.
Oh, and also, there is zero dispute that the bill of rights was not meant to expand any rights that the colonists did not already have as a matter of natural law and traditions of western jurisprudence, i.e. English common law. England regulated guns. So does every other western country. So have we in America for almost three hundred years, until Heller.
And then there is infringe. There is no dispute that narrowly tailored restrictions on time, place, and manner, do not infringe enumerated rights.
The framers considered a version of the amendment that would have included an express individual right, but it was soundly defeated at the convention. You would note also that zero original state constitutions went on to an express individual right.
So you see it is your opinions that are abhorrent to reality. You are revising history to suit your lies. I’m sorry you got tricked but you did. Maybe you didn’t go far enough in school. Maybe you were just a gullible person. Maybe you’re just scared and you cling to anything you think might make you safer without actually thinking about it.
I do know also that people are getting fucking tired of burying their kids and if you don’t get on board with some reasonable restrictions, the tide will turn against you overwhelmingly.
To infringe is to encroach upon. Any restrictions that come close to preventing the people (everywhere in the Bill of Rights referring to the general population of the United States) from keeping and bearing arms encroach upon that right, and therefore infringe upon it.
What right does the Second Amendment prevent from being infringed upon? Not the right of the militia to keep and bear arms. Not the right of the military to keep and bear arms. It is the right of the people. I am a people. You are a people. Let’s look at everywhere else a right is protected from government interference:
1st Amendment: “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Are you saying that this is not an individual right?
4th Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”. Is due process not an individual right?
9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This one is conveniently forgotten by authoritarians and statists who don’t realize that the Bill of Rights protects the rights of the people, rather than granting them.
10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Again, one of the most important amendments that is conveniently forgotten or ignored by those wishing to deprive the people of their rights.
It is nonsensical to think that “the people” in the Second Amendment would be a generalized right (whatever that means) and that it would refer to individuals everywhere else. What a ridiculous and indefensible position to take.
Yeah except for the express language of the actual amendment.
Bear arms.
Well regulated militia.
State security.
General language from unrelated text can hardly overcome what is actually written on the paper. And textualists and originalists know that, that’s why they have to lie about what those three terms meant to the people who wrote them.
Nice end-run around the Constitution. This technology does not exist, and cannot exist. Anyone wanting to argue that needs to stop watching stupid cop shows.
Well agree it doesn’t exist but to say it can’t exist is silly
Perhaps they’re talking about stamping the firing pin, somehow. Are you aware of the forces at work at the tip of a firing pin? A “micro” stamp won’t survive 2 shots.
Yeah, stamped in lead. The material that flattens, deforms, shatters on impact. This is as dumb as the Batman scene where he extracts shards from the wall and magically reconstructs the bullet.
Or maybe they don’t know what a bullet is and they meant the shell/casing? And we’re going to micro stamp the billions of shells produced annually? And what does that get us? Doesn’t tell you anything about the exact gun that fired it. Aaaand we’re back to stamping the firing pin.
Let’s ignore physics and pretend this is still technically feasible. Stamping any sort of unique ID on a firing pin, bullet or shell is going to be wildly cost prohibitive. Which is the exact point.
Legislate impossible tech, or in a magical world where possible, make it so no one but the rich can afford it. This bill would effectively make every gun and shell illegal in CA.
NYSRPA vs Bruen decision by the Supreme Court will invalidate this law just as it recently did to their magazine capacity law. They are literally wasting the citizens tax dollars with this legislative performance because any lawyer knows that it will get overturned after seeing the many recent rulings on the topic. A couple of federal district courts even ruled that you can be an illegal drug user and retain 2A rights based on Bruen this year, because that restriction does not fit the historical context of gun control laws. Microstamping obviously fails that test even harder.
Could be that this train was already in motion before the Bruen decision. Not a good look for us folks interested in increasing gun safety while also respecting the bill of rights’ intent.
Well-regulated militia? The thing we did away with when we created a standing army? That intent?
Don’t forget the other part, “in order to protect security of the state…”
It literally says right in it that the purpose is not self defense. Reading an individual right into it goes beyond the express purpose.
And contrary to the poster above, yes, we are going to consider ignoring the Bruen decision because It is so obviously founded upon historical lies that anyone can verify if they were even making a half of an attempt to be unbiased.
Rogue Federal judges appointed by Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan keep exciting the decision to strike down gun laws that have existed in some cases for hundreds of years. It will be reversed in due course. A lot of people will die in the meantime.
And it wasn’t considered an individual right until Scalia showed his true colors with the Heller decision.
My guy can’t even quote the Second Amendment correctly.
Well I was paraphrasing from memory but let’s parse it.
Contrary to your prior posts, well-regulated means regimented. It means they’ve practiced and had training. That there are officers leading the men. This is simply based on the language used at the time the words were written. There is no dispute about this in academics or anywhere else.
The second clause tells us the purpose of the entire amendment: security of a free state. State security is another word that has changed meaning over the years. Today we understand it as “national security.” Back then, in context, these words specifically meant the freedom of a state to perpetuate itself, within nonconsentual interferrwnce by a repressive federal government. Nothing to do with freedom of individuals from any government, only the freedom.of a state government from a federal one.
Bear arms, again, prior to 1776 there are zero documented uses of the term that refer clearly to an individual right to carry guns. Rather 95% of the usage refers expressly to formal warfare, the other 5% is ambiguous, 0% refer clearly to an individual right.
Oh, and also, there is zero dispute that the bill of rights was not meant to expand any rights that the colonists did not already have as a matter of natural law and traditions of western jurisprudence, i.e. English common law. England regulated guns. So does every other western country. So have we in America for almost three hundred years, until Heller.
And then there is infringe. There is no dispute that narrowly tailored restrictions on time, place, and manner, do not infringe enumerated rights.
The framers considered a version of the amendment that would have included an express individual right, but it was soundly defeated at the convention. You would note also that zero original state constitutions went on to an express individual right.
So you see it is your opinions that are abhorrent to reality. You are revising history to suit your lies. I’m sorry you got tricked but you did. Maybe you didn’t go far enough in school. Maybe you were just a gullible person. Maybe you’re just scared and you cling to anything you think might make you safer without actually thinking about it.
I do know also that people are getting fucking tired of burying their kids and if you don’t get on board with some reasonable restrictions, the tide will turn against you overwhelmingly.
To infringe is to encroach upon. Any restrictions that come close to preventing the people (everywhere in the Bill of Rights referring to the general population of the United States) from keeping and bearing arms encroach upon that right, and therefore infringe upon it.
What right does the Second Amendment prevent from being infringed upon? Not the right of the militia to keep and bear arms. Not the right of the military to keep and bear arms. It is the right of the people. I am a people. You are a people. Let’s look at everywhere else a right is protected from government interference:
1st Amendment: “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Are you saying that this is not an individual right?
4th Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”. Is due process not an individual right?
9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This one is conveniently forgotten by authoritarians and statists who don’t realize that the Bill of Rights protects the rights of the people, rather than granting them.
10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Again, one of the most important amendments that is conveniently forgotten or ignored by those wishing to deprive the people of their rights.
It is nonsensical to think that “the people” in the Second Amendment would be a generalized right (whatever that means) and that it would refer to individuals everywhere else. What a ridiculous and indefensible position to take.
Yeah except for the express language of the actual amendment.
Bear arms.
Well regulated militia.
State security.
General language from unrelated text can hardly overcome what is actually written on the paper. And textualists and originalists know that, that’s why they have to lie about what those three terms meant to the people who wrote them.
They e been lying about it for a long time.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
The technology to “make it easier” to trace the gun exists.
Simple patterns can tell you the make of the weapon, for example.