Local news
A
federal court has rejected a challenge to California's gun safety law,
possibly paving the way for a requirement that new guns mark the bullets
they fire so they can be traced.
The ruling on Wednesday was a defeat for two gun rights groups
that argued the Unsafe Handgun Act violated the constitutional right to
bear arms.
The law prohibits the manufacture or sale in California of any gun
that doesn't meet certain safety requirements.
It was aimed at
outlawing cheap "Saturday Night Specials" that were disproportionally
used in crimes.
A 2007 amendment added a requirement that new or modified
semi-automatic handguns include technology that microstamps a bullet
casing with a code identifying the gun's make, model and serial number.
That requirement was held up by concerns about patent issues on
the technology but took effect in 2013. However, the federal challenge
continued.
This week's ruling "means that more gun crimes will be solved,
more lives will be saved and California communities will be safer," said
a Friday statement from Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer, who
authored the 2007 amendment when he was a state Assembly member.
Obviously this means the whole country is backing stricter gun laws.
ReplyDeleteThis has the potential for some interesting direct action. Several manufacturers have already come out making statements saying they weren't going to make California compliant guns with microstamping.
ReplyDeleteI would personally like them to go the route Barrett Arms did ans refuse sales to law enforcement. I have heard that there is an exemption for law enforcement on the microstamping requirement. Though if the boycott goes through, maybe they'll have to go retro and revert back to general issue revolvers....
An abomination.
ReplyDeleteThe solution will be difficult, but perhaps doable. What is needed now is a brass-catcher for pistols, that folds up to a compact size when the pistol is holstered, and springs back open when drawn.
With such a device, the uselessness of this law would hopefully become apparent even to those idiotic enough to have supported the law in the first place.
Kurt: "With such a device, the uselessness of this law would hopefully become apparent even to those idiotic enough to have supported the law in the first place."
DeleteNo, because the intended purpose (as opposed to the publicly claimed purpose) of the law would still be in effect.
No, because the intended purpose (as opposed to the publicly claimed purpose) of the law would still be in effect.
DeleteQuite right, TS. My mistake.
Still, it would help expose the falsity of their claim of the law's purpose.
Oh brother. TS with his conspiracies again. "The claimed purpose" is exactly what they say it is, to better solve crimes. It may be unwieldy or ineffectual but there's no conspiracy here.
Delete"This week's ruling "means that more gun crimes will be solved, more lives will be saved and California communities will be safer," said a Friday statement from Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer, who authored the 2007 amendment when he was a state Assembly member."
ReplyDeleteIs he lying?
He's talking about improving public safety, which is one duty of an elected official.