Changes To California Gun Laws: Will Smith & Wesson Continue To Sell To Law Enforcement?
BY Herschel Smith
10 years, 4 months ago
I ran across this fairly informative podcast late last week. If you want to listen to it I encourage you to do so. It is just short of twenty minutes. If not, I will summarize for you.
The law passed several years ago in California forced all new firearms to be microstamped with laser etching right at the time of firing, with spent cartridge casings showing the serial number of the firearm used – ridiculous technology that no professional engineer would seal (this is my judgment, not that of the podcast). It would be too expensive, it wouldn’t last, and it would be subject to removal by anyone.
The law stipulated that the law becomes effective when the attorney general deems that the technology exists. The attorney general of California is a liar because she deems the technology to exist even though it doesn’t. Therefore, all new firearms sold in California must include this technology which doesn’t exist.
Here is the operative phrase: new firearm. Gun makers can continue to sell existing firearms if they have previously been approved by California, including the silly limited capacity magazine. But because a new firearms is defined as any firearm that has had any change at all made (part tolerance, alloy specification, gun color, etc.), and because even small changes routinely made by manufacturers would be included in that list and necessarily involve approval which included microstamping (which doesn’t exist), gun manufacturers are no longer selling guns in California.
We’ve discussed this before in slightly less detail, and noted that Smith & Wesson will continue to sell to law enforcement (or at least, they won’t commit to me that they won’t), thus providing weapons to LEOs that other citizens can’t have.
You can let Smith & Wesson know how you feel about this. I have. At the same time, remind them that it is way past time to remove themselves from the communist state in which they are ensconced and come South like most other gun manufacturers.
Their customer base is watching – carefully.
Ms. Elizabeth Sharp, VP of Investor Relations (Lsharp@smith-wesson.com)
|
|
On August 25, 2014 at 11:56 am, pkill said:
I own a S&W rifle. I’m in the market for another AR and several pistols. I’m watching too. I remember the bad 90s when S&W betrayed gun owners. I gave them a second chance.
THERE WILL BE NO THIRD CHANCE!
On August 25, 2014 at 12:17 pm, David Miller said:
I think that there will have to be more significant public pressure brought to bear against Smit & Wesson before they take this step.
On August 25, 2014 at 1:58 pm, Seerightthere! said:
I’ve been waiting for them to cut ties to the .gov. once they do I will buy a nice .357 revolver, until then they don’t get my $$$$
On August 25, 2014 at 4:32 pm, TexTopCat said:
Since, the justification for a police officer to use force is exactly the same as the justification required for a citizen to use force, why would police have access to tools that citizens do not?
On August 29, 2014 at 9:08 pm, Christopher de Vidal said:
“The law passed several years ago in California forced all new firearms to be microstamped with laser etching right at the time of firing”
That’s not how it works.
“The process involves the use of laser technology to engrave a microscopic marking onto the tip of the firing pin and onto the breech face of a firearm. When the firearm is fired, these etchings are transferred to the primer by the firing pin and to thecartridge case head by the breech face, using the pressure created when a round is fired. After the spent cartridges are ejected, these microscopic markings which have been imprinted on the cartridges can then be recovered by police and examined by forensic ballistics experts to obtain information to trace the firearm to the registered owner.”
Source: http://www.csgv.org/atf/cf/%7B23E96A35-4C75-41EE-BDDD-4BD3A3B59010%7D/FINAL%20report.pdf
Sincerely,
A pro-2nd Amendment Supporter
On September 3, 2014 at 8:26 am, TimeHasCome said:
A black market will form in communist California for guns . The cops can’t stop drugs, illegal aliens or crime . So there will be a black market for firearms . The prices will go up , but guns will be plentiful.
On February 20, 2015 at 3:28 pm, kingsugar78 said:
Reagan wasn’t exactly what you might call a communist, but he signed the law. Get over it.
On September 6, 2014 at 5:12 pm, matt a said:
Responding to Christopher de Vidal….how well would this technology work with the revolvers that California has placed on its list of guns no longer available for sale? Over 20 revolvers were placed on this list as of August 2014. You do realize that revolvers don’t eject the casings when fired right? And what is to prevent someone from gathering spent(used) micro-stamped casings from shooting ranges and providing them to gangs and criminals to disperse at a crime scene to muddy the investigation and possibly implicate an innocent person?
On September 6, 2014 at 5:24 pm, Christopher de Vidal said:
First, I didn’t say anywhere in my comment that I am in agreement with these laws. That’s why I closed my comment “A pro-2nd Amendment Supporter.” I didn’t write these laws. I didn’t vote for these laws. I don’t agree with them. I didn’t invent the technology. Heck, I didn’t even spend more than 15 minutes reading about it. I was only fact-checking the Captain’s claim.
“how well would this technology work with the revolvers”
I don’t know. If it’s only set in the firing pin and pressed upon the primer, it probably would work just fine.
“You do realize that revolvers don’t eject the casings when fired right?”
Yes I do.
“And what is to prevent someone from gathering spent(used) micro-stamped casings from shooting ranges and providing them to gangs and criminals to disperse at a crime scene to muddy the investigation and possibly implicate an innocent person?”
Nothing. That is one of the technology’s flaws. It’s a problem called “salting.”
Salting isn’t the only problem with the technology. My number one problem is it’s an intrusion in privacy and an increase in tyranny. So I’m not in agreement with these laws or using the technology. So don’t shoot the messenger.
But if you do shoot him, don’t use microstamped firearms :-D
Sincerely,
A pro-2nd Amendment Supporter
On September 6, 2014 at 5:41 pm, matt a said:
@ Christopher de Vidal….Then please accept my apology, I misinterpreted your post since the link at the end of your comment was directed to an anti-gun website.
I don’t agree with the the microstamping requirement either primarily since it can be rendered useless by anybody with ill will and a piece of sandpaper and the potential black market for used casings.
On September 6, 2014 at 6:11 pm, Christopher de Vidal said:
Apology accepted. Thanks for apologizing, it’s rare on the Internet :-)
On September 6, 2014 at 11:13 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Your description is more in line with the classical understanding (and my understanding) of microstamping. I was a bit puzzled at the explanation given over the audio, but I tried to faithfully reproduce what I heard. In either case, I doubt this exists, at least in mass production, by any manufacturer. Said gun maker would be driven out of business.
On September 7, 2014 at 6:46 am, Christopher de Vidal said:
Sorry, it was the podcast’s claim, not yours.
I couldn’t find anyone making it at present. The technology does exist, but best I can tell, only in the labs.