The Hill:

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a case challenging the constitutionality of California’s concealed carry laws, which give locally elected sheriffs discretion over issuing licenses for good cause.

Sacramento County residents James Rothery and Andrea Hoffman, who were denied licenses more than 10 years ago, argue the law deprives them of their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for protection outside the home and violated the clause of the Constitution that affords everyone equal protection under the law.

The law allows each city and county the power to issue a written policy setting forth the procedures for obtaining a concealed-carry license for good cause. It also allows retired police officers to obtain concealed carry permits without having to show “good cause.”

The residents argued the Sacramento County sheriff was issuing permits to friends, donors and supporters but excluding others.

But state officials said Rothery now has a concealed carry permit thanks to a new sheriff, who changed the definition of good cause after taking office in 2010. That definition required only a stated desire to have the ability to carry a weapon for purposes of self-defense, or defense of a family, to obtain a license. Hoffman has not reapplied for a permit since being denied in 2008.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss the case. The court held the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the carrying of concealed firearms by members of the general public.

The decision by the Supreme Court not to hear the case keeps that ruling in place.

So the decision the SCOTUS made pertained to Mr. Rothery and that Ms. Hoffman could have ameliorated this situation with a simple re-application.  Easy, right?

Not so fast.  This doesn’t change the rest of California, nor does it ensure that their rights will be honored in perpetuity.  That would require a SCOTUS decision, and they weren’t willing to give it.  Do not entrust your rights to black-robed tyrants.  You’ll be disappointed.

As I’ve said many times before, rights come from the Almighty and thus are as immutable as He is.  The constitution is a covenant and contract (remember those classes in covenants and contracts, lawyers?).  It means only that the state (county, state or FedGov) is or is not honoring the duly constituted covenant under which we’ve all agreed to live.

Thus it means that the state has declared war on its people.  Broken covenants means being cursed by God.  It’s that simple.  You don’t break covenants without consequences.

CBS Sacramento:

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.

The gun safety law initially was challenged in 2009 by the nonprofit Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation, Inc.

Their lawsuit argued that the state law unconstitutionally prevented some members from buying certain types of handguns that were not on the state’s roster of permitted weapons.

The judge in the federal case rejected the argument that the law was onerous, saying that the commercial sale of firearms in the state “proceeds robustly,” with about 1.5 million handgun transactions since the lawsuit was filed.

The ruling also noted that the state’s roster of permitted handguns includes 795 models.

More from Orange County Register:

The law doesn’t violate the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment because gun owners don’t have a right to specific types of firearms, U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller in Sacramento said in her ruling.

“Plaintiffs insist they have the right to determine the precise way in which they would exercise their Second Amendment rights,” Mueller said. The insistence upon particular handguns falls “outside the scope of the right to bear arms,” she said.

Several observations are in order at this point.  First of all, Ms. Kimberly Mueller was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 2010.  So much for gun rights being important to the GOP.

Next, it bears noting that while Ms. Mueller ruled that “[t]he insistence upon particular handguns falls “outside the scope of the right to bear arms,” she should have ruled that the constitution contains the phrase “shall not be infringed,” and that infringing is exactly what this law does.

Third, as to the notion that “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,” it means nothing of the sort and Mr. Feuer is a liar.

Peaceable citizens purchase handguns from FFLs who follow the law.  Such people do not commit crimes where cartridges can be used to trace back to the particular person and weapon used to commit the crime.  That’s all a smokescreen to hide the real intent of the law.

They will no doubt argue that in order for this to work, they must implement the necessary corollary to the microstamping law, which is universal gun registration.  No, not just universal background checks, which effects sales going forward, but universal gun registration where the authorities have a record of all guns and who owns them.  The German Nazis wanted to know this sort of information too.  Of course, none of this has any effect on guns owned by criminals who will not register them.  It only applies to peaceable citizens.

Finally, the entire issue with the number of guns on the approved list today is yet another ruse.  The guns will fall off the list very soon.  The problem is that the list includes guns that do not include microstamping technology, and this is okay as long as no modifications are made.  Modifications might include melonite coating, different grips, safety improvements, match grade barrels, or anything else.  Since manufacturers do make routine minor (or major) modifications involving retooling the assembly line and machinery, that means that any new gun must include microstamping technology.

Gun manufacturers know exactly what will happen to their customer base if they produce weapons that are microstamped.  It will disappear from the face of the earth, and California politicians likely know this and are using it to rid California of legally sold guns.  In other words, they know that the “robust” sale of guns in California is a lie as it pertains to future sales.

I have interacted with Smith & Wesson, and to my dismay they won’t go on record and indicate to me that will refuse to sell to law enforcement if they cannot sell to other citizens.  This is a shame and a travesty of justice.  They will sell guns to law enforcement, while other citizens will see their list of potential guns dry up.  But to be fair to Smith & Wesson, the same is true of Glock, H&K and other manufacturers.  I just have more respect for the quality of S&W products and believe that they could be a beacon of liberty in California if they chose to.  They have not chosen to.  They have chosen money over freedom.

The NSSF has also weighed in.

… as several independent, peer-reviewed studies have shown, this nascent technology is flawed. It is incapable of reliably, consistently and legibly imprinting the required identifying information in two locations on an expended cartridge casing. Even the patent holder in a 2012 study he co-authored acknowledged the problems with this technology and called for further study rather than mandating its use. A National Academy of Science review, forensic firearms examiners and a UC Davis study reached similar conclusions. Because of the technology’s inherent limitations, no manufacturer can comply with this new law.

What the Legislature actually did was ban the innovation and stop the continuous improvement of today’s manufacturing processes that would otherwise enhance firearms safety and other functionality.

Compounding the problem is the state attorney general’s overreaching definition of what constitutes a “new model,” thus triggering the microstamping requirement. According to the attorney general, the slightest modification or design enhancement done as part of the normal manufacturing process for any product, such as changing the way a part is made or its dimensions to make it stronger and more durable, is a “new model,” which would now require microstamping. As a result, pistol models deemed as “not unsafe” by California are rapidly falling off the approved-for-sale roster.

And that’s what I just told you.  But notice the way Lawrence Keane broaches the subject.  He says, “What the Legislature actually did was ban the innovation and stop the continuous improvement of today’s manufacturing processes that would otherwise enhance firearms safety and other functionality.”

He means that the technology could otherwise be good and wholesome and improve safety and functionality.  He doesn’t mention that its corollary is universal gun registration and that we will not cross that line.  Ever.  Ever.

The NSSF is not your friend.  Their argument is wrongheaded because they have crafted it according to their wrongheaded views.  These measures in California are totalitarian in nature and the time has come and gone for peaceable folk to negotiate and befriend the process.  The black robes of the Supreme Court will not overrule Ms. Mueller.  It sounds to me like one of two things is in order.  Either civil disobedience, or relocation because the war for California is lost.  I do not begrudge either choice, and I don’t know which is best.

But as for me and my house, we will treat guns designed with microstamping as I do so-called “smart guns.  I will never have one.

David Codrea:

In a related development, this column has been following up on what should be a larger concern for gun owners, and that is how the Armatix pistol made it on to California’s “safe handgun roster” without incorporating microstamping technology months after the state certified it was a requirement for all new semi-automatic handguns listed.

Because laws are for little people.  I suspect that regardless of what the law says, gun haters in California were able to slip this one in because they consider it a good trade.  They give up microstamping, and in return they get the ability to control forevermore the ability to sell or gift a firearm.  David will eventually find out and tell us.

Also see David’s article for the information on Armatix support for global disarmament efforts.  You should never purchase anything from this company.  They are in bed with the totalitarians.

Finally concerning California, I am reminding you that I still haven’t heard anything back from Smith & Wesson on whether they will continue to supply handguns that have not been microstamped to California LEOs while they don’t sell at all to California residents.

It gripes my ass that this double standard exists.  Laws aren’t for the little people.  Smith & Wesson shouldn’t sell at all in California, including to LEOs.

Speaking of double standards, were you aware that LEOs are exempt in Connecticut from its newest gun bans, and can have AR-15s along with standard capacity magazines – for their personal use?  No, not for on-duty use, but for personal use and protection?

Well, you know now.  This was the bribe that the Connecticut legislature made to the LEOs to get their cooperation in enforcing the law.

Prior: Smart Guns Tag

Concerning the shooting of a thirteen year old boy carrying a toy by Police in Sonoma County, I said:

… tell me if a single cop tells the truth or holds anyone accountable.  Tell me if a judge or jury finds these men guilty of anything?  No, the strongest response will be from totalitarian lawmakers who want to make it illegal to have or sell toy guns.

From NBC Bay Area:

The death of a Bay Area boy and the paralysis of a Los Angeles teen — both shot by law enforcement while carrying replica rifles — are the human faces behind state legislation being introduced on Friday that would crack down on the classification and color-coding of toy guns.

California State Senators Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa) and Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) introduced their “Imitation Firearm Safety Act,” which they hope will prevent any heat-of-the-moment confusion over fake guns by reclassifying BB guns and force manufacturers to paint them a bright color.

“If officers would have seen a gun painted in pink, purple or orange, Andy might still be alive,” Evans said. “This was a huge tragedy for our entire community.”

[ … ]

Critics have long argued that regulating “look-alike” guns do little to protect the public and that bad guys will simply paint their guns in a rainbow of hues to fake cops out.

“That is just a red herring,” she said. New York, Chicago and Los Angeles all have similar toy gun color rules and there is no evidence to support that theory, she said.

I can see how the idea of painting a gun to fool the cops wouldn’t occur to a criminal.  That idea is too obtuse.

It’s all proceeding just as I had foreseen.  But here is a better idea.  Cops stop people carrying toys and inquire as to their intentions and the nature of the item they’re carrying while they maintain at least a modicum of self control .  Or better yet, make California an open carry state and the cops don’t have to stop any one at all unless it’s a valid “Terry Stop.”

Reason:

California Gov. Jerry Brown will soon decide whether to sign a bill that expands his state’s “assault weapon” ban to cover any centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine. That’s a very broad category, the National Rifle Association notes, since “millions of semi-automatic rifles have magazines that can be removed with the push of a button,” including “classic hunting rifles like the Remington Woodsmaster, Browning BAR, and the Ruger 99/44, among many others.” The actual language of the bill, S.B. 374, refers rather confusingly to “a semiautomatic centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept no more than 10 rounds.” The NRA argues that the bill’s definition of a fixed magazine—”an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action”—is ambiguous, since “‘disassembly of the firearm action’ is undefined and nobody (least of all the legislators who voted for it) knows what it means, or for that matter even what a firearm ‘action’ actually is.” But the intended target seems to be any rifle with a detachable magazine that fires rounds of a caliber bigger than .22 (generally the upper limit these days for cheaper, flimsier rimfire cartridges). Hence Fox News says the bill “exempts .22-caliber rim fire rifles,” although the legislation does not directly address caliber.

The author, Jacob Sullum, isn’t kidding.  Read the sentence lifted directly out of the bill.

A semiautomatic centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept no more than 10 rounds.

They’ve put a double-negative into the sentence.  What this sentence means is anyone’s guess, and yours is as good as mine.  Farther into the bill, they’ve outlawed pistol grips on shotguns.

But back to the issue of hunting rifles, presumably (since the bill is a mass of confusion and no one knows for sure), bolt action rifles are “assault weapons” if they have a detachable magazine (and some do).

Hey.  No one said totalitarians were smart people.  They’re just control freaks.