Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

California recently passed a law that all guns must have ID info laser etched onto the firing pin. This is causing big problems for law makers (they have temporarily suspended the law) and gun manufacturers. Details in the article below. What I'm wondering is that if gun makers employ this for California will we all pay the price? I'm guessing so unless they run two assembly lines for firing pins: 1 for California and 1 for the rest of us. Probably not a good idea for their business model? I have no idea.

http://blog.nssf.org/2010/01/questions- ... g-law.html

January 05, 2010
Questions Mount About California's Microstamping Law

First, the state's new law requiring firearms manufacturers to laser engrave identification numbers on a gun's firing pin did not go into effect January 1 because the technology remains encumbered by patents. And now the California Police Chiefs Association raises further questions about microstamping, saying the technology needs more study and is too costly, reversing its original position of support for the legislation.

In a letter sent to state Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, CPCA Acting President Susan E. Manheimer wrote, “There are too many unanswered questions with microstamping in its current iteration” and raised concerns that "statements about the capabilities of microstamping may have been technologically premature."

Several independent, peer-reviewed studies have indicated the technology is flawed and can be easily circumvented using simple household tools. Even wear and tear caused by normal use of a firearm requires owners to replace parts such as firing pins from time to time. For these and other reasons, NSSF opposed the legislation.

Manufacturers have indicated the new law would force them to raise prices of guns significantly, or even abandon the California market rather than go through a costly reconfiguring of manufacturing and assembly processes. Estimated price increases could go as high as $200 per gun.

Read NSSF's news release on the CPCA letter and the release about why the technology must be certified as patent-free by the California Department of Justice before the law can go into effect.

zephyp wrote: Manufacturers have indicated the new law would force them to raise prices of guns significantly, or even abandon the California market rather than go through a costly reconfiguring of manufacturing and assembly processes. Estimated price increases could go as high as $200 per gun.

Several manufacturers and distributors have already said they are abandoning the California market. Barrett told them to take a hike a couple of years ago, and Cheaper Than Dirt just announced that they will no longer ship to California. I find it interesting that the California Police Chiefs Association is now reversing itself on these gun issues. They've suddenly realized that all these crazy laws will impact their budget and will impact the amount of practice their officer will be able to afford, especially while it won't impact criminals one iota.

LFS wrote:

zephyp wrote: Manufacturers have indicated the new law would force them to raise prices of guns significantly, or even abandon the California market rather than go through a costly reconfiguring of manufacturing and assembly processes. Estimated price increases could go as high as $200 per gun.

Several manufacturers and distributors have already said they are abandoning the California market. Barrett told them to take a hike a couple of years ago, and Cheaper Than Dirt just announced that they will no longer ship to California. I find it interesting that the California Police Chiefs Association is now reversing itself on these gun issues. They've suddenly realized that all these crazy laws will impact their budget and will impact the amount of practice their officer will be able to afford, especially while it won't impact criminals one iota.

Exactly what needs to happen. Take a look at this:

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5674

I for one have had enough of this nonsense. Past transgressions I can forgive, but from now on I just won't buy their stuff. I took a good look at a custom Kimber last year, but choose a different 1911 manufacturer partially because of things like this...

I don't see the connection between Kimber, the LAPD and California politicians who want to impose more gun control laws. Does the author think that the LAPD is responsible for passing laws in the CA legislature?. Where's the outrage towards Glock, who also sells handguns to the police in CA?. I guess no one has ever bragged about carrying a Glock on duty.

Im pretty sure only SWAT gets to carry 1911's. Carry pistols are Glocks, Berettas, and S&W's. Im with OakRidge, I don't see why Kimber making a tribute pistol for a California police department is such a bad thing.

Kimber made a 1911, called the SIS, based on the recommendations and feedback of the LAPD Special Investigative Section (SIS). I believe it was discontinued last month. The point the author is trying to make is that Kimber has gone out of its way to make a handgun in the name of a and for a police department led by a Chief who doesn't much care for the Second Amendment and who has lent his credibility and sway to curtailing the rights of the citizens of California.

I own a Kimber and didnt know this, but have to agree. It would be similar to a gun manufacturer making a special one gun only for bloomberg the twit just for the bucks.

LFS wrote:Kimber made a 1911, called the SIS, based on the recommendations and feedback of the LAPD Special Investigative Section (SIS). I believe it was discontinued last month. The point the author is trying to make is that Kimber has gone out of its way to make a handgun in the name of a and for a police department led by a Chief who doesn't much care for the Second Amendment and who has lent his credibility and sway to curtailing the rights of the citizens of California.

Exactly. The LAPD is well known to assist the antigunners in CA...long before Kimber would have started on a special model. E.g. when they were showing off that Barrett as an "assault weapon." http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2727

zephyp wrote:I own a Kimber and didnt know this, but have to agree. It would be similar to a gun manufacturer making a special one gun only for bloomberg the twit just for the bucks.

I wouldn't sell a gun I already own because of it, but I won't be buying a new one.