CA Bullet-Microstamping Law Upheld By 9th Circuit, Even Though Technology Doesn't Exist


A California "microstamping" law that requires new semi-automatic handguns automatically imprint bullet casings with identifying information has been upheld by the 9th circuit court of appeals in a 2:1 split decision - despite the fact that the technology doesn't exist, reports ABC News.

The Associated Press summed up the court’s ruling: “The California Supreme Court says state laws cannot be invalidated on the grounds that complying with them is impossible.”

Comments

  • Fuck the 9th circuit
  • edited August 7
    DC is looking at doing something similar.

    All this does is make it more difficult (or impossible) to purchase a firearm.


  • Wow.

    NSSF has not brought a constitutional challenge to the statute, nor has it petitioned for a writ of mandate against the Department of Justice for improperly certifying the availability of dual placement microstamping technology (and we express no view on the merits of those possibilities).  Instead, NSSF has invoked the impossibility of compliance as a basis for voiding the statute.  But Civil Code section 3531’s maxim that “[t]he law never requires impossibilities” is an interpretive aid that occasionally authorizes an exception to a statutory mandate in accordance with the Legislature’s intent behind the mandate.  The maxim has never been recognized, and we do not recognize it today, as a ground for invalidating a statutory mandate altogether.
    https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2018/s239397.html


    I find that amazing, since they wrote only a few pages earlier,
    NSSF cites three out-of-state cases to support its expansive reading of Civil Code section 3531.  In Gigliotti v. New York, Chicago & St. Louis R. Co. (Ohio Ct.App. 1958) 157 N.E.2d 447, 452 (Gigliotti), the court observed that “[i]t is well settled that the law is not so unreasonable as to require the performance of impossibilities as a condition to the assertion of acknowledged rights . . . ; and, when Legislatures use language so broad as to lead to such results, courts may properly say that the Legislature did not intend to include those cases in which a literal obedience has become impossible.
    The Plaintiff's didn't dwell on the obvious constitutional implications, but they did argue that this statute creates an impossible condition to the assertion of acknowledged rights.  ... I can't wrap my head around someone signing such an absurd decision.  I thought they were going to say, "the lower court error was invalidating the statute (so that it wouldn't affect people once this tech was available) as opposed to finding that it was temporarily inoperative, until such tech became available.  And then remand it for the factual question, instead of presuming the Plaintiff's factual assertions for the motion to dismiss stage of litigation.  But I was wrong.  CA and the 9th Cir. are amazing.  They misconstrued the text of the statute to remove the availability requirement and misapplied the impossibility AND absurdity doctrines.  Just amazing.
  • Next comes a ban on firearms with the bag thing that goes down.
  • dgmdgm
    edited August 8
    Next comes a ban on firearms with the bag thing that goes down.
    A nutsack?
  • I thought he meant Ocasio-Cortez.
  • ^

    All week.
  • Seabird said:

    I thought he meant Ocasio-Cortez.

    Socialist Barbie cannot objectivity be referred to as a “Bag” so he clearly didn’t mean her. Perhaps he meant Maxine Waters?
  • Like Maxine Waters would ever have sex with any of you.
  • 2.FOH. said:

    Like Maxine Waters would ever have sex with any of you.

    image
  • I’m sick and tired of having my fuckability questioned around here.
  • Seabird said:

    I’m sick and tired of having my fuckability questioned around here.

    Nobody is questioning it; we’re flat out denying it.
  • edited August 8
    Woyzeck said:

    Next comes a ban on firearms with the bag thing that goes down.

    No no, next is a ban on firearms that don't have the bag thing that goes down.  That gun you have, yeah it doesn't comply.  Yeah, neither does that one.  Oh look at that, we've banned all guns.

    Its shameful deception posing as law.  Its worst than Prohibition, in its capacity to drive the public (apart from Leftist cheerleaders) to hold our legal system in contempt.
  • This is all so amazing. 
  • MC Escher said:

    Seabird said:

    I’m sick and tired of having my fuckability questioned around here.

    Nobody is questioning it; we’re flat out denying it.
    Well, you're no Amy Schumer either, so...
  • I cannot refute that statement.
  • They never can.
Sign In or Register to comment.