Microstamping Guns in California and Signing on with UN Arms Trade Treaty


Many of us knew this would happen. Our government has realized that fighting the 2nd Amendment directly is likely a losing proposition. Because of that, they have decided that doing whatever they can to make it hard to impossible to obtain weapons and ammo is the next best thing. After all, if ammo is next to impossible to purchase, what good is a gun? By the same token, if parts of the government keep adding more restrictions to gun manufacturers, that also makes it difficult to obtain guns. In all of this, the 2nd Amendment is technically, left alone.

When I lived in California (for 25 years) prior to relocating to the United States of America (Georgia) a couple of years ago, the laws, rules, and regulations were asinine to say the least. California is the only state I know of that has what is called the "DOJ Approved Handgun" list. Only guns on that list can be legally purchased.

How does a gun not make the list? Several ways, but one of the easiest ways for a gun to not make the list is to fail the "drop test." This is where the gun manufacturers send a bunch of free guns (of the same model) to the "rocket scientists" in California. These "scientists" load the gun with live ammo and then drop the gun on the ground. They do this until they either get tired or the gun accidentally fires a round. If it goes off, scratch it. It doesn't make the list of approved handguns. If it doesn't go off accidentally, it's on its way. In many cases, it's just easier for the manufacturers to give up and not deal with it.

Page 1 of 3 from CA DOJ

Page 1 of 3 from CA DOJ

California is never tired of making it tough for law abiding citizens to have access to guns. According to Calgunlaws.net, "this past May 17, 2013, California Attorney General Kamala Harris certified that microstamping is available to firearm manufacturers." What does that mean? In a nutshell, in order for guns to now "to be sold in California all new semi-automatic pistol models must now have microstamping incorporated into their design in order to be approved for sale in California." If you live in California, you may wish to read that again. It's pretty sad.

Essentially, any new gun models manufactured after May 17th must have microstamping in order to be sold by dealers in California to legal residents. This stems from a law that was passed in 2007 - AB1471 and takes effect now that the microstamping technology is "available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions."

The microstamping places "a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched or otherwise imprinted in two or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired."

This is merely another means of tracking weapons and ammo in the "golden" state of California. Of course, this will mean nothing for criminals because if they steal or illegally purchase a weapon with this technology in it, it will never be traced back to them. Moreover, it is also very unlikely (as Calgunlaws indicates) that gun manufacturers will move to adopt this technology for new gun models solely for California when they cannot even keep up with the demand for guns in other states. If true, then this means that Californian law abiding gun owners will not be purchasing these new weapons. If manufacturers never begin using this microstamping technology, their guns will never get into California (to legal residents) and eventually, all the older models will sell out. Whoops. No more handguns being sold in California.

Both the NRA and NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation) "are exploring all legal avenues for challenging this action in court, and a lawsuit is very likely.".

But not to be outdone, even though it appeared as though the Obama administration was not going to sign onto the UN Arms Trade Treaty, there is a strong likelihood that Obama will sign the treaty sooner than later (possibly by August). The majority in Congress are opposed to the treaty.

Again, for those who are not aware of how things work, even though Obama may sign the treaty, the senate would have to ratify it. There are probably not enough votes to ratify it and if not, then Obama's signature would be largely ceremonial.

Even though numerous individuals in Congress and from within the Obama administration state unequivocally that "Nothing in this treaty could ever infringe on the rights of American citizens under our domestic law or the Constitution, including the Second Amendment," (as stated recently by John Kerry), the truth is a bit different. It all depends upon meaning and nuance.

While this treaty does not directly touch the 2nd Amendment now, future amendments to the treaty could (and likely would) become the problem. There is nothing to keep the treaty from granting complete and total power to the UN over America's 2nd Amendment rights with future changes. The way the treaty is currently written, once a country becomes part of it (after our senate's ratification), then that senate is out of the picture for all future amendments related to the treaty. All changes and/or amendments would come from the voting members of the UN. The U.S. would have nothing more to do with it.

Beyond this, it calls for a national control list, which would open the door to a national database of guns and gun owners (except criminals, of course). This could eventually be used as California (and New York) is now using it - for gun confiscation. But that wouldn't happen, right? Our government would never take our guns, right?

Could an amendment be added to ban personal ownership of weapons? Of course and that's what basically happened in the UK. If so, would that become binding for all member countries? Yes. There is absolutely no reason for the US to be involved in any treaty with the UN. Doing so means giving up sovereignty. The UN should not have that kind of power. If you're read my book on the UN, then you know what the UN is all about.

The attacks on the right to keep and bear arms continue unabated. The federal government will not stop until it knows who has guns and then during a national emergency (when martial law needs to be put in place), government will illegally come and take guns (like they did illegally in New Orleans after Katrina).

One thing is very clear about this current administration and much of the government associated with it. The corruption appears to run deep. They are very willing to do things that are illegal first, then stonewall Congress after the fact. It doesn't bother them at all.

In spite of the IRS scandal and the rest, it was recently reported by Tim Brown that Washington DC police are now starting to harass Tea Party groups who have applied for permits to have a gathering in which peaceful protest would be done. The Constitution says nothing about having to obtain a permit for such a gathering. Peaceful protests are one of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution/Bill of Rights.

The government has no shame at all. They seem willing to do anything at all to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. They act first and deal with repercussions later. It shouldn't be happening. It is because few in Congress and throughout the federal government abide by the rule of law created by the Constitution.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.


Print Friendly





Comments

comments

About Fred DeRuvo
Fred DeRuvo is the author of numerous articles and a growing number of Name Your Linkbooks related to conservative theology and politics. Fred received his Bachelor's degree from Philadelphia College of Bible and his Masters from Tyndale Theological Seminary. Fred received his Th.D from Northwestern Theological Seminary in Florida. Listen to Fred’s program and on MPR 105.3 FM in the Philippines. Fred began Study-Grow-Know Ministries several years ago where he fights the scourge of Leftist politics and policies that seem to be gaining a foothold in America. His blogs include Study, Grow, Know and Politically Correct Morass.
  • eddyjames

    Every one should have their firing pins micro engraved with "This gun belongs to Moon-Beam Brown, or Kamala Harris"

  • John Patriot

    OK, the next stop will be Calacolorado I presume.

  • Paladin

    This just out... criminal enterprises are now using 'brass catchers' to capture and retain all spent brass when firing a semiautomatic firearm.

    Those criminals who cannot afford the $9.99 plastic device are reverting to using revolvers to commit robbery, rape and murder because the revolver does not eject spent casings after firing 6 rounds into the face of their victims.

  • Jonny Angel

    I'm so screwed up, I forgot what the definition of 'infringement' is.......

  • lostdutchman

    Read that information epistle from the Cali-LEO's again ! Not only must a weapon be marked with a micro ID, but it also has to imprint that ID on the CARTRIDGE CASE when fired '!!!!!
    That should slow down guns for Cali something considerable !

  • Wayne

    This goes against the constitution on so many levels that it is ridiculous. Every politician who signs onto this bill in the affirmative is guilty of treason and violating their oath of office making them eligible for impeachment and criminal prosecution as well.

  • Undettered

    I am Sofa King glad I left California for one the "Free States"

    • W_R_Monger

      Sofa King... Took me a couple of read throughs but I got it. Thanks for putting a smile on my face, I needed that.

      Btw can I steal that from you?

      To the subject at hand. Apparently one can make/create their own firearms as long as there is no intent to sell or transfer said firearms. Right now the "loophole" is 80% complete & the individual finishes the rest. Along with that right to create a self defense weapon there is another means to acquire a firearm that this state of Kommiepornia wishes to close & that is black powder firearms. Get what you can now, stock up your ammo, use only fire range ammo for practice & keep your ears & eyes open for "the Day" when the second shot heard 'round the world reverberates through history. It is coming, be prepared...

  • A. Levy

    The clear solution here is, that (all) gun manufacturers stop (all) gun sales to the state of Mexifornia, including to their law enforcement agencies. They obviously want a gun-less society, so give it to them. Then, when the Crips, Bloods, MS-13, Latin Kings, Mexican Mafia, and the thousands of other violent gangs that control major parts of Mexifornia catch on and start going wild, the people of Mexifornia can ask their elected officials to perhaps sit down and have a conversation with the gangs, or maybe write a report on how many innocent people have been murdered (after) guns were stopped from coming into the state.

    There's nothing like a dose of reality to turn even the most radical liberal into a conservative.

    • A. Levy

      BTW, what many Americans don't know is, under our legal system, a ratified treaty has more force in law than a Constitutional amendment.

    • bull57

      That's where there is a rub. The constitution states that we cannot enter into any treaty that would supersede the constitution.

  • Modres

    I agree Old Wolf. However, as we know, the left ignores the rule of law in favor of their agenda. They do what they do because they can and it's up to the rest of us to stop them. The corruption stinks.

  • Old Wolf

    However, the states are not at liberty to eliminate anything appertaining to the use of the right. The right is specifically keeping, and bearing of arms, reserved to the people. It is not 'the keeping and bearing of useless talismans', but arms themselves, and in order to be a useful arm, it must have ammunition. Those things which the states, or federal government may not do directly, they may not do indirectly. (Cummings v. Missouri, Miranda v. arizona), and they cannot get around the prohibition by 'civil' law. Specifically, this right is one of the 'immunities' spoken of under article 4's prohibition against the abridgement of the privileges and immunties of citizenship, recognized as early as Prudence Crandall, held up through dred scott, and only attempted to be eliminated when it was made criminal to deprive them under the Civil Rights act of 1866, re-established in 1871 and 1875, after numerous challenges, and the placement of the 14th amendment.

    An attempt was made under Cruikshanks to claim that it wasn't protected by the constitution because it predated the constitution, a stretched idea, considering the civil rights act explicitly declared the protection under the constitution of those rights, and a deliberate overturning of Dred Scott to preserve the privileges and immunities that were the reason that the Taney court felt that Dred Scott must remain a slave. It preserved them for every person, regardless of color, nation of origin, or citizenship, and made it a felony to deprive them, or by action or inaction to cause them to be deprived.

    The prohibition is simple: This you shall not do, lest you come under the aegis of the law'. Under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, in any state, territory, district, or possession, the willful deprivation of rights is a felony act, subject to imprisonment, or if someone dies due to the deprivation, potentially the offender is subject to the death penalty. It applies to everyone who enforces the law, or adjudicates the law. All officers are thereby bound, and there are no exceptions. It also speaks of customs, and thereby expands the definition substantially.

    If the second amendment is an individual right, the states themselves are subject to it. McDonald v. Chicago declared it an individual right, a fundamental right, one of self-protection, including self-protection against those governments.

    Attempting to end-run around those rights is itself a felony. The states have no power, no jurisdiction, and jurisdiction may be challenged upon facts of those laws, and the nature of judicial integrity, upon the 9th and 10th amendments, under Bond v US, even without the consent of the states.

    Nor may the states, collectively, band together to revoke the right. If it is forbidden for one state, the states may not collectively act, including through their senate representation, to do those things which they are forbidden individually. It is the same as if I am forbidden to murder, it is no less murder if I get a band together to commit it, it just becomes conspiracy, as well as murder in the first degree.