Microstamping passes in California (Trees And Things)

3fingerspointback: Re: Microstamping passes in California

Tue, 23 Oct 2007 03:45:19 EST

Thanks for the overview of microstamping. I'm just curious about a couple of points:

Is it possible for a user to modify an existing microstamp to smudge or change digits, e.g. a 'C' into a 'O', etc.?
&nb

pO157: Re: Microstamping passes in California

Mon, 22 Oct 2007 07:00:02 EST

Mr. Lizotte,

Thanks for taking the time to register and post here. I appreciate your informative discussion of the issue. We need more inventive proposals to reduce gun crime in this country these days.

Quick question based on your post above (and I

telizotte: Re: Microstamping passes in California

Sun, 21 Oct 2007 22:05:47 EST

Hello my name is Todd Lizotte and I am the co-inventor of microstamping.

I am bias, but I figured I could give some insight into the technology.

First, the technique is simple. A firearm currently has small microstructures which are formed onto

zyxwvutsr: Re: I'm in agreement with your questions.

Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:58:56 EST

No, of course not: both manufacturers are being treated equally under the law. By way of another example, suppose there were two firms manufacturing firearms for the California market, the first was California-based and manufactured shotguns and the second

Steve Urkel: Re: I'm in agreement with your questions.

Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:06:05 EST

Now I'm even more confused. Couldn't smaller manufacturers of guns sue on the basis the law discriminates against them because the costs of implementing the design changes are a greater burden for smaller manufacturers compared to larger ones?

DEMachina: Re: I'm in agreement with your questions.

Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:51:37 EST

I'm not sure that's that far off. Basically the idea is that one state can't tariff or otherwise discriminate against goods produced in another state. If Congress wants to, on the other hand, that's a whole 'nother thing.

Steve Urkel: Re: I'm in agreement with your questions.

Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:53:00 EST

I'd always thought it was sort of like NAFTA only between states.

What was the basis for the mail order wine ruling, then? Maybe I should look it myself.

Lou: Microstamp this

Fri, 19 Oct 2007 07:53:04 EST

Could this be the time for a new (old, really) kind of weapon?

DEMachina: Re: I'm in agreement with your questions.

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 20:33:03 EST

The Commerce Clause just says that Congress can regulate interstate commerce. This has been given a very wide interpretation in order to uphold the constitutionality of Congressional acts. IIRC, it wasn't really expanded until the 1920s and 193

Steve Urkel: Re: I'm in agreement with your questions.

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:30:41 EST

I seem to have confused notions regarding the commerce clause. But what about the dormant commerce clause? I don't get that either.

DEMachina: Re: I'm in agreement with your questions.

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:20:53 EST

And finally the law also seems to be something plainly at odds with the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution.

I don't think so. The interstate commerce clause restricts interstate commerce regulation to Congress, yes, but there's

DEMachina: Re: Microstamping passes in California

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:04:10 EST

Most of my concerns with this are practical ones.

1. How much will this just limit the sale of guns in California? The last gun show I went to, a large portion of the handguns on any given table had big "illegal in California" stickers on th

gerrymander: Re: I'm in agreement with your questions.

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:29:36 EST

If the stamps stop working after a few hundred rounds fired would not that require purchasing a new pistol every few months/years, assuming you practice with it frequently at a range?

Guns are pretty simple machines, so in theory there's no troub

pO157: Re: I'm in agreement with your questions.

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:36:59 EST

It's funny how such a clause is used to justify federal action in criminal prosecutions but it doesn't seem to come up to protect civil and other rights.

thefadd: Re: I'm in agreement with your questions.

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:30:21 EST

And finally the law also seems to be something plainly at odds with the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution.

What isn't these days?

keta: Re: I'm in agreement with your questions.

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:02:54 EST

Yeah, smart criminals abound.

uncarved block: Thinking Out Loud

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:13:27 EST

Just some thoughts on the more practical objections you make:

If a criminal wants an untraceable firearm, they're already around, and are likely used for reasons that will be little affected by this law. Execution style killing

pO157: Re: I'm in agreement with your questions.

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:07:57 EST

Even though the law is not in force until 2010, I imagine it would need to be challenged and overturned ASAP to make any difference for the manufacturers. I am not an engineer, but I would imagine that designing and reforging the new models to comply with

Steve Urkel: I'm in agreement with your questions.

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:50:16 EST

"why wouldn't criminals switch to revolvers if they want an untraceable firearm?"

If this holds up, it will be interesting to see how many are smart enough to do that, as well as how often criminals will sprinkle shell casings they've collected at shoot

pO157: Hmm...

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:15:03 EST

I am sure the assemblymen, governor and those activist groups all have the best intentions in this case. However, I am not sure this is a good, workable idea. As somebody who does not own a gun, and knows little about the subject I already can think of a f