California microstamping bill
I was so busy on a case yesterday that I didn't mention that the Calif. "microstamping" gun bill was signed into law. There's already a lively debate at CalGuns on whether it will have any effect within our lifetimes because (1) the requirement doesn't activate until microstamping is outside of patent protection and (2) a company has a patent on it that runs until around 2023.
Hat tip to Paul Nelson...
UPDATE: see the comment by David Codrea. The patent holder says he will make it available to domestic mfrs without paying a royalty.
I expect this one to get eventually thrown out for being so stupid. Along with all the Dumbo-crats that pushed it.
The lead ban is the incremental step toward an eventual ban that has me worried. Just getting some Barnes Bullets recipes that my rifle(s) like won't be enough. The anti's are even discussing banning those due to their Parts Per Million lead content. Those leftoids won't stop until we acheive true democracy---i.e. knuckle under completely to every executive order that comes out of the UN!
Posted by: The Mechanic at October 16, 2007 04:43 PM
Schwarzenegger signed the anti-lead-ammo and microstamping bills under the influence of that a**hole Ted Kennedy.
Kennedy wanted Schwarzenegger to sign both of them as a trial run for what he intends to introduce at the federal level.
I'll bet a dozen doughnuts that Kennedy introduces a federal microstamping bill within 6 months.
Posted by: Tarn Helm at October 16, 2007 09:41 PM
David, Paul copied me on that email too--per Gun Week, the patent owner has "promised that the Microstamping technology would be provided royalty-free to firearms manufacturers with gunmaking facilities in the United States."
So as much as I wish there was a loophole, unless I am missing something, this is not it.
Posted by: David Codrea at October 17, 2007 08:09 AM
I think the language of the statute explicitly requires the CA DOJ to certify that the tech is "available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions" - there's the rub for its implementation - it needs a finding re: encumbrance, as well as an administrative rulemaking before going into effect, and a lot of very smart people on the pro-2A side of the issue are gearing up for that battle.
Posted by: Affe at October 17, 2007 08:33 AM
My reading of this bill leads me to believe that:
1) Only certified technologies will be acceptable
2) That currently no technology continues to work effectively for more than on or two hundred rounds
3) Thus all these technologies can be listed as non-certified (because they do not survive normal use of the firearm)
4) This creates an effective ban on semi-autos
I hope I missed something in the legislation, but I perceive the bill as a back-door ban.
Posted by: Guy Smith at October 17, 2007 11:50 AM
Thus all these technologies can be listed as non-certified (because they do not survive normal use of the firearm)
The only certification required is that the technology is available, not that it works or that any manufacturer chooses to use it.
Of course, I'd also like it if the law were to be invalidated because it can't possibly work the way its supporters claim, but it seems laws generally are not subject to successful attack on those grounds.
4) This creates an effective ban on semi-autos
Failure to comply would merely prevent adding a pistol to the Roster; however, that's only how the law is today. There are more legislative sessions between now and 2010 for more mischief.
I believe AFFE has the right of it; follow the Calguns link for more detail.
Posted by: JohnS at October 17, 2007 12:18 PM
To the extent that Lizotte grants a royalty free license in the United States for the technology to imprint the stamps on pins and chambers there are still a host of problems.
1. Is the United States a large enough domain to make the technology "unencumbered by any patent restrictions?"
2. Even if Lizotte broadly and freely licenses, does he have the right to license some of the underlying core IP and Patents that he sold to Hitachi in such a broad way?
3. Is Lizotte the only patent holder with core claims to IP Microstamping firearms?
My initial review of all of these items is that the answer is not clear and one of these will end up being an Achilles heel. The APA/OAL process uses the legal standards of the California Court System in interpreting Administrative Rulemakings and as such, these are going to be tall hurdles to cross. That's before you factor in the decided lack of IP expertise in the CA DOJ Bureau of Firearms and the decided specialty of experience in these types of IP challenges from libertarian Silicon Valley.
Come join the discussion on Calguns where we spend a whole lot of time using the LCAV's laws against them...
Posted by: Gene Hoffman at October 17, 2007 11:58 PM
The microstamping bill has effectively shut down gun sales in California. STI International has halted all shipments of firearms to California. SIGARMS and Smith & Wesson are no longer selling firearms to anyone, including law enforcement, in California because they are NOT going to go through the expense of tooling microstamping for a very limited market.
As a result of the .50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act of 2004, the Barrett Firearms Company announced it would no longer sell to or service any of its rifles in the possession of any California government agency.
Posted by: Aaron Daniels at April 6, 2009 04:13 PM