CA Governor Signs Anti-2A Law Requiring Unworkable Microstamping Technology for New Guns, AB 2847

Published on October 2, 2020
Duration: 4:36

Colion Noir, an expert with a legal background, critically analyzes California's AB 2847, which mandates microstamping technology for new handguns. He highlights the law's ineffectiveness, citing Maryland's failed 'fingerprint' database, and explains how microstamping is easily circumvented by criminals. The law is presented as a backdoor gun control measure that will reduce firearm availability.

Quick Summary

California's AB 2847 mandates microstamping technology for new handguns on the state's Roster, a measure criticized as ineffective backdoor gun control. Experts note microstamping is easily bypassed by criminals and cite Maryland's $5 million, 15-year failed database as precedent. The law also reduces handgun options via a 'three-for-one' removal rule.

Chapters

  1. 00:00CA AB 2847 & Microstamping Explained
  2. 01:06The Three-for-One Provision
  3. 01:40Failure in Maryland
  4. 01:59Technical Flaws & Criminal Bypass
  5. 03:16Self Defense Insurance & Advocacy

Frequently Asked Questions

What is California's AB 2847 law regarding firearms?

California's AB 2847 mandates that new handguns added to the state's Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale must incorporate microstamping technology. This law is criticized for being ineffective and a form of backdoor gun control.

Why is microstamping technology considered unworkable?

Microstamping is considered unworkable because it can be easily circumvented by criminals. Methods include altering the firing pin with sandpaper or swapping parts. Additionally, spent casings can be planted at crime scenes to frame individuals.

What is the 'three-for-one' provision in California's AB 2847?

The 'three-for-one' provision requires that for every new microstamped handgun approved for the California Roster, three existing non-microstamped handguns must be removed. This significantly reduces the number of available handgun models.

What precedent exists for microstamping's ineffectiveness?

Maryland previously attempted a similar 'gun fingerprint' database for 15 years, costing $5 million, but it failed to solve any crimes. This suggests that microstamping technology is unlikely to be an effective crime-fighting tool.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from Colion Noir

View all →