Now what is really interesting is the line "provided that the Department of Justice certifies that the technology used to create the imprint is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions." Right now one company (ID Dynamics) claims the patents (7111423 and 6886284 amongst others) to microstamping spent shells in firearms and subsequently reading them. Those patents are valid until about 2023 and I'm quite sure that Mr. Lizotte and Mr. Ohar claim that they are patent that occupy the entire field of firearm microstamping - kind of how NTP claims all of the space of push email against RIM/Blackberry and others. Since the legislature required that the technology be avialable from more than one provider and not encumbered by patent I'm quite confident that DOJ can not complete an OAL rulemaking that conforms with the legislation and Patent Law before the expiration of ID Dynamic's patents in 2023.I'm not sure what bearing that really has, because the patent owner has "promised that the Microstamping technology would be provided royalty-free to firearms manufacturers with gunmaking facilities in the United States."
That said, I just don't seen an "out." Anybody with a different read on this?
[CalGuns link via Paul Nelson]
Yeah, here's my read on this: see how he then says he wonders who put those words in the bill, implying this is some great gun lobby strategy to defeat things through brilliant political maneuvering?
ReplyDeleteThese guys are NRA polesmokers. They're trying to cover for the ineptitude and impotence of their heroes. And the Kalguns Koolaid Klique is lining up to fill their cups.
Is there an analog to eminent domain that could be cited to seize the intellectual property embodied in the patent?
ReplyDeleteI probably shouldn't have said that....[/hagrid]
Oldsmoblogger: Yeah, don't--because I've wondered if they could seize guns under eminent domain with the pretext that it's for the public good...:(
ReplyDeleteAnon: I truly wish I had an informed rebuttal. My experience with CalGuns is somewhat tainted, so I can't pretend to offer objectivity, but as always, they are welcome to post their side of things here.
"12126(b)(7) Commencing January 1, 2010, for all semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster..."
ReplyDeleteDoes the above mean that pistols that are currently on the roster will not be required to have the microstamping feature?
the only "out" I see is planting police brass, either issue or personal weapons, at EVERY crime scene.
ReplyDeleteOk, not true. The other way would be for the manufacturers to pull a Barrett.
Or that fence could be rerouted and that hell hole ceded back to Mexico.
JR -
ReplyDeleteYep, that's the way I read it; all guns currently listed are exempt as long as they remain on the list (manufacs must pay annual extortion fees for each gun they want to reamin on the list).
So, semi-autos will still be available in KA.
After 2007, all new semis to be added to the list are required to have loaded chamber indics. and mag disconnects - useless features anyway, so this new law really doesn't change a thing as far as the availability of quality (read: guns sans the chamber indics./mag disconnect) semis.
How would this affect reloads? The brass could be imprinted each time it is used and then would you get arrested if brass was found with your "stamp" on it even if it had been reloaded?
ReplyDeleteKent. Good question.
ReplyDeleteAlso, what if some criminal decides to go to the local ranges and gather some brass and reload it or leave it around a crime scene to frame someone?
Don't matter tho, nothing short of an outright ban will get enough people to notice the encroachment on gun rights here in KA.
ReplyDeleteLizotte is a member of the National Rifle Association, and a self-described “Second Amendment guy and a Castle Doctrine guy; a conservative Republican from New Hampshire” who makes annual contributions to NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action.
Should we be surprised that the inventor of this technology is an NRA member, and apparently considers himself something of a "gun rights activist"?
I notified a family member who works for H&K about this and they were unaware of it. Their Law Enforcement sales manager at H&K contacted the CAL DOJ to confirm it. No response yet.
ReplyDeleteH&K does alot of testing in Cal. and of course has to pay the annual fees. It is now considering pulling their testing out and may decide not to bring in the new .45 semis.
Hope no one was planning on bying one over there. They're taking it very seriously. They do alot of business in Cal. Anyone who would like immediate info on H&K's decisions on this click on my name and go to my blog, my yahoo account is at the top.
I may post the info as well, might make it easier for all.
Spook, lemme know if you post on this and send me the link?
ReplyDeleteRoger that. Will do.
ReplyDeleteI bet the reasoning is to pass it now, when it can't be implemented til 2023, then when it all hits, they say, "Well, this law's been on the books for 16 years and no one's complained about it in all that time..."
ReplyDeleteI have posted some information on my blog about the response by H&K to the 'microstamping legislation' in California signed by the governor.
ReplyDeleteThis is only what I've heard so far, there will probably be more info later in regards to H&K's response to this legislation. They seem to be in agreement with Barrett.
But, it's not immediately uplifting for Cal. residents who are serious gun owners/collectors. Here is the
link:
http://firebaseamerica.blogspot.com/2007/10/new-h-45-and-californias-micro-stamping.html