Judicial Quackery by the California Supreme Court: Bullet Stamping Case
source: AP
Insanity in California worsens, as even at the highest level of the State’s judiciary, the ability or willingness to think or act in terms of reality, have been suspended. In a recent ruling the court concluded that “state laws cannot be invalidated on the grounds that complying with them is impossible.” Incredibly, the ruling by the court was unanimous.
One has to carefully think through the implications of this. According to the highest court in California, the state can make a law that cannot be complied with, and by extension, penalties associated with that law enforced.
The issue at hand is the lawsuit filed by gun rights groups that wanted a draconian California law thrown out that required compliance to a demand that is impossible to meet, because the technology doesn’t exist to do so.
The law requires bullet casings from new models of semi-automatic handguns to be stamped with a marker that is affixed to firing pins so a unique fingerprint is left on each spent shell casing.
Supposedly, the purpose of the law was to give law enforcement a means of knowing who the owner of the gun was from the markings on the shell casings, after removing them from a crime scene.
As usual with firearms-related laws, it’s the law-abiding owners that are going to comply, and in the case of the stamping of the firing pins, it would be a simple thing for someone to easily scratch off in order to hide their identity. Another obvious response would be to use a different type of gun, such as a revolver.
Also, a criminal could easily pick up the casings and take them with him, removing the ability to use the casings as an identifying factor in the crime. This would be more realistic in a pre-medicated crime, where the perpetrator wouldn’t be in a hurry to leave the scene.
Finally, anyone that understands firearms knows that each time it is shot there will be wear and tear on the stamp, which would rapidly be unrecognizable.
Since is obvious, the question has to be asked as to why the law was upheld.
State attorneys argued that it’s not unusual for laws to be put in place in order to force certain industries to innovate. They argued if the court ruled against them, it was possible the state would have that power removed from it.
In other words, they’re once again attempting an end-run around the 2nd Amendment by using an argument unassociated with guns themselves. By positioning it as a general rule that the state has used, it provided cover for the state, and the judges on the California Supreme Court, to retain a law that chips away at the 2nd Amendment.
So how does it do this? By making it much more expensive to make a gun, generate a profit, and for gunowners to afford them.
Make no mistake about this. It’s a brutal attack on the freedoms of the people of California, and the gunmakers supplying firearms to the responsible gun owners there. It’s a stealth attack on the 2nd Amendment.
