MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Laws That Are 'Impossible' to Follow Can Still Be Constitutional, Says California Court

Just because you cannot comply doesn’t mean the law cannot exist.

ConfusedDaniil Peshkov / Dreamstime.comJust because a law is impossible to follow is not enough of a reason for a court to throw it out. So California's Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.

On the face the ruling sounds utterly absurd, but there's a deeper explanation that makes it a little less silly and much more deeply concerning about the deference granted to lawmakers.

Some context: California passed a law a decade ago that demanded gun manufacturers implement microstamping technology that would imprint identifying information on bullets as they were shot from semi-automatic weapons. Gun manufacturers say the technology hasn't advanced enough to comply with the law. Smith & Wesson announced in 2014 that they would be pulling some guns from the market in California rather than complying with the law (a cynic might theorize that this is the law's actual intent).

The National Shooting Sports Foundation sued to block the law. California's Civil Code contains a section that simply reads, "The law never requires impossibilities." So the question the state's Supreme Court was addressing was whether the courts can invalidate this law because it is impossible for people to comply with it.

Not only did the California Supreme Court rule that it cannot invalidate the law, but it ruled so unanimously. To be clear: The court does not suggest that people can face punishment for being unable to comply with impossible laws. Instead, the court says, "impossibility can occasionally excuse noncompliance with a statute, but in such circumstances, the excusal constitutes an interpretation of the statute in accordance with the Legislature's intent, not an invalidation of the law." Essentially, it's not unconstitutional to pass impossible laws, but the courts can exempt people from the consequences of those laws without overturning the laws themselves.

Strip away the absurdity, and it's essentially a very technical ruling. The court acknowledges its role in making sure that people are not punished for being unable to comply with a law because it's impossible—that would be an unconstitutional violation of a person's rights. It just can't use that basis for invalidating the law itself.

This is all of interest because California lawmakers regularly pass terrible laws that interfere with markets and individuals' choices for the expressed purpose of controlling how the state develops. Often the laws are impractical in the current environment and are designed to push technological development in certain directions that appeal to certain political (and politically connected) constituencies.

The most obvious example is California setting extremely high renewable energy goals by law in order to control how the market develops. It may be currently impossible for the state to get all its energy from renewable sources, but because these laws exist, it necessarily means that the state's public and private development is going to be deliberately focused in such a way that compliance eventually becomes possible, and then mandatory.

Indeed, Attorney General Xavier Becerra made it clear in his statement praising the ruling that this is entirely the point. Lawmakers pass laws that have currently "impossible" technological standards for the purpose of controlling what the private sector develops and how the private sector is regulated.

"Today's ruling confirms that California can create incentives for the gun industry to make products that serve the public's needs," Becerra said in a prepared response. "Innovation and technology will continue to drive California to be a leader. We will not go backwards. The California Department of Justice is committed to reducing gun violence and improving the ability of law enforcement to fight crime and hold accountable those who commit firearm murders and assaults."

California is far from alone in the attitude that technological development should be directed to serve political constituencies. The result is that various interests lobby the government to control how these goals are set so that they are likely able to meet them and cash in—and perhaps their competitors are not.

There are costs borne by the public due to these impossible laws. For example, California passed a law in 2006 calling for the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly by 2020. No, this isn't an "impossible" law on its face, but the result was a whole host of regulatory and policy changes implemented to make what was impossible in 2006 much more possible in the future. That goal was one of the ways the terrible high-speed rail boondoggle was sold to Californians. The state claimed it would reduce greenhouse gases. Those claims are very dubious, but Californians are still, at the moment, stuck with an expensive, unneeded train proposal that will cost more than $100 billion and won't be finished for decades. The state's citizens are getting bilked due to the costs of meeting this arbitrary goal.

And what if some companies are able to innovate to reach these "impossible" goals and others are not? That's what we're seeing in the European Union as it implements a vast, confusing data-privacy law that may well end up being impossible for some businesses to comply with. Big names like Google and Facebook—with all their money and lawyers—are able to comply. Smaller businesses are not, or at least it is much more difficult for them to do so. When the government sets impossible goals in order to force businesses to make the government's future agenda possible, some firms are going to be left behind. It's another way for the government to choose winners and losers.

Laws that are "impossible" to comply with do, in subtle ways, threaten the livelihoods of citizens as they struggle to adjust to these demands. They do challenge our freedom as citizens by attempting to force markets and innovators to dance to the government's tune—or the tune of the people with powerful government connections. There's a saying: "Nothing's impossible for the person who doesn't have to do it." Some of those people have the power to enshrine the impossible as law and leave the rest of us figuring out how to adapt.

Photo Credit: Daniil Peshkov / Dreamstime.com

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Just Say'n||

    #resist logic and decency

  • msimmons||

    "Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

  • jay||

    Someone probably passed a law making it illegal to respond to a post quoting atlas shrugged on a libertarian website

  • Longtobefree||

    "On the face the ruling sounds utterly absurd, but there's a deeper explanation that makes it a little less silly and much more deeply concerning about the deference granted to lawmakers."

    Bullshit. That 'deeper' explanation is just as absurd as the ruling itself.

    Next up: California repeals 60% of the law of gravity so that cars will be lighter and get better mileage. As a side effect, everyone will weigh less and the obesity problem will be solved. Win, win.

  • sarcasmic||

    Why not? They already repealed the laws of supply and demand.

  • Cy||

    They're even working on getting rid of international borders!

  • sarcasmic||

    Which has what exactly to do with being impossible? Borders are just lines on a map that are enforced by men with guns.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Sometimes national boundaries are rivers and oceans too.

  • ||

    Not unless someone draws a line through them on a map.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    West and East Coasts of USA are not a national boundary? There are no national boundary lines located there on any map that I have every seen.

  • ||

    The boundary line would run along the coast.

    Ocean lies between various islands in Indonesia, yet they're all the same country, right? Ocean lies between CA and HI, yet HI is still part of the USA, right? Rivers run through lots of places without forming de facto national boundaries, right?

  • Agammamon||

    No they are not.

    The US peters out *starting* at 3 nautical miles out to sea and doesn't fully end until 200 nautical miles out.

  • TxJack 112||

    If you look at a political map ( the kind that outline boundaries), you will typically see the national boundaries by combining all the states boundaries. Look at a map of Maryland or Massachusetts and you will see the state boundaries goes into the ocean.

  • Agammamon||

    Nope. The *border* is always just a line on a map. Sometimes that line is in the same place on the map as a natural feature and using that feature as a proxy for the border in real-world navigation is useful but its not the border.

    For example. Move the US' southern border 100 miles south and the Rio Grande will still be in the same place it is now.

  • Agammamon||

    Let's not forget that part of the US is unreachable by land without going through Canada.

  • Agammamon||

    Oh, and there's the part that's in the middle of the Pacific. Several different parts actually.

    And the Caribbean.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    boy, you two really have now idea what you're talking about.

    National boundaries end at the beach low tide waters. Territorial waters extend 12 miles out from that. From low tide waters the exclusive economic zone extends 200 miles out.

  • JFree||

    National boundaries end at the beach low tide waters. Territorial waters extend 12 miles out from that. From low tide waters the exclusive economic zone extends 200 miles out.

    Congrats. You've just described the directions for drawing lines on a map

  • TxJack 112||

    Sometimes they go through physical features like the great lakes. The actual state boundaries are in the middle of those lakes. The US does not end where the land ends. Same for the boundary that goes though the lakes of Minnesota. My son was on a canoe trip with the Boy Scout and due to a navigation mistake, they found themselves accidently in Canada.

  • BSL1||

    So, just like every other law...

  • Tony||

    Supply and demand still exist in the presence of government intervention. They just may be distorted relative to a previous state (when there was also a government present).

    The only people who say there's a law that supply and demand must be allowed to play out in the absence of government intervention are weirdos who don't understand that economies can't exist without governments.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yeah. Weirdos who recognize a role for government in protecting property, enforcing contracts, and providing means of resolving disputes don't want government to do anything. Because if someone sees a limited role for government, but doesn't want government distorting prices, choosing winners and losers, etc., wants no government at all. Yup. Yer so smaht.

  • ||

    Look, if you acknowledge one legitimate function of government, you acknowledge that government should control absolutely everything because markets are evil and fail constantly.

    It's like you don't even Tony.

  • Tony||

    Close but no banana. If you acknowledge one legitimate function of government, you don't get to claim that functions are illegitimate because they are of government. We have to sit down and have long, boring conversations about what functions are actually useful and which are not, minus all the fun of calling each other evil.

  • ||

    We have to sit down and have long, boring conversations about what functions are actually useful and which are not, minus all the fun of calling each other evil.

    Does that mean that you're going stop with the knee-jerk accusations of evil every time someone questions whether some function legitimately belongs to government?

    I have my doubts.

  • Tony||

    It would be stupid, not evil. But we never have that conversation. We never discuss the pros and cons of a policy. We can't get beyond "government's doing it, thus it's bad.*"

    *Does not apply to stuff libertarians want from government.

  • ||

    But we never have that conversation. We never discuss the pros and cons of a policy.

    Correction: you never do, because you're too busy calling people racist cousin-fuckers.

    *Does not apply to stuff libertarians want from government.

    Oooh, oooh, libertarians thinks some functions of government are necessary and proper and some aren't - they're sooo scary and hypocritical!

  • sarcasmic||

    If you acknowledge one legitimate function of government, you don't get to claim that functions are illegitimate because they are of government.

    As it has been stated a million times, government is force. So when you say you want government to do things, you are saying you want those things to be done by force. By violence. By killing people if necessary.

    We are saying that force is reasonable in reaction to force, or to prevent violence in the form of courts to enforce contracts and resolve disputes.

    You are saying that force, as in police with clubs and guns, is a reasonable means of getting economic outcomes that you like.

    With libertarians it has nothing to do with like and dislike. It has to do with what is a legitimate use of force. If force is a legitimate response to force, then the initiation of force to get what you want is not legitimate.

    You just can't understand because you can't comprehend the difference between initiation and reaction. They are the same thing to you.

  • Tony||

    What if I define starvation as a form of violence. Can government respond then? Or poverty wages as a form of violence. Apart from your argument being circular, its biggest problem is it suffers from lack of imagination. You're only talking about violence committed by human agents. But people can be harmed by all manner of things that aren't other humans acting, and they are perfectly entitled to want their government (a means of mobilizing resources on a large scale) to respond to those other things as well.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    Look at Tony here demanding a safe space from the entire universe.

    It's not a circular argument it's fairly straightforward until you wrap your desire to have everything you want provided to you by the labor of others over it.

  • MarcusMaximus||

    It's this particular bit that has made me question pure libertarianism. Violence/force is defined too narrowly, such that only (somewhat arbitrarily) direct consequence is needed, without concern for more indirect effects of an action.

    Shooting someone = bad
    Refusing to sell a person food = ok
    But what happens if every producer of food in a town comes together and they all agree to refuse to serve any person of, say, race X? The recourse available for any X person is to:
    1. Move(if possible)
    2. Steal food(considered an act of violence and, therefore, opening themselves legally to violence)
    3. Starve to death.

    I suppose, though, this is more a problem with any purist ideology: demanding purity in any relatively simple ideology will naturally lead to degenerate cases in a more complex environment.

  • ||

    4. Grow your own food and don't demand anything be done by coersion.

    FTFY

  • ||

    4. Grow your own food and don't demand anything be done by coersion.

    FTFY

  • ||

    4. Grow your own food and don't demand anything be done by coersion.

    FTFY

  • Tony||

    You've stumbled upon one of the original justifications for what is now called libertarianism. You know who benefits from strong property rights but no other rights? The ones who have property and can take the other stuff for themselves.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    You know who benefits from strong property rights but no other rights? The ones who have property and can take the other stuff for themselves.

    Which is why progressive neo-feudalism should be rejected and violently resisted.

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    Tony, you are a great argument for stamping out progressivism. Everything you right is either vile dreck, or shockingly non self aware nonsense that should highlight how awful progressivism really has become.

  • JFree||

    You've stumbled upon one of the original justifications for what is now called libertarianism. You know who benefits from strong property rights but no other rights? The ones who have property and can take the other stuff for themselves.

    Not an original justification. An original recognition of government power as it exists.

    Civil government, in so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all - Adam Smith

    That was NOT normative. Any govt instituted for any purpose (even eg liberty) will in reality try to further that purpose and prevent the opposite purpose. It will put its thumbs on the scale because that scale of justice IS government.

    What Smith (competitive market structure and self-interest) and later Hayek (pricing system and incorporation of knowledge) did so well was explain why the alternative institution will generate better results. Where modern libertarians go so wrong imo is conflating free markets with capitalism/property.

  • ||

    What if I define starvation as a form of violence. Can government respond then? Or poverty wages as a form of violence.

    Then you would have to admit that you need to resort to changing the meaning of words in order to salvage your argument. Violence is an action taken to harm someone else. Despite your attempted sophistry below, inaction is not violence, pretty much by definition. If I ask someone if he'll take out my trash for $1 and he agree to do so, that is not violence.

    But people can be harmed by all manner of things that aren't other humans acting

    And that's harm not violence. And wanting your government to mobilize resources on a large scale is not the same thing as government being capable of doing so in an effective and non-harmful way, which we have yet to really see in the actual world.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|6.29.18 @ 3:29PM|#
    "What if I define starvation as a form of violence."

    Been settled: The dog still has four legs, regardless of your imbecility.

  • jay||

    how can starvation be defined as a form of violence. If people can be harmed by things that are not caused by others, then it is not an issue of justice and not a requirement of government to intervene.

    If you want to "have the conversation" then you cannot say "they are perfectly entitled to want their govt...etc". That is what you say after you have the conversation and have proven your point. Saying it beforehand means -you are right, before the conversation YOU said you wanted, has even begun, and therefore makes the conversation impossible.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    How about as step one of those boring conversations that we agree that a function is not deemed useful unless people are willing to pay for it voluntarily.

    Get rid of the enforcement arm of the IRS and we might end up with a pretty legitimate, representative, government.

  • retiredfire||

    Well, Tony, there's your problem.
    It is not that government should only do what is "useful" but that it perform functions that only government can do.

    It is that kind of thinking that got government to reach into every aspect of our lives, because it is "useful" for it to have complete control of everything we do.

  • jay||

    Useful- to whom??

  • Tony||

    You might as well be arguing that we shouldn't use computers because they distort the hammer and chisel method of conveying information. Regulated markets are an innovation we made to make economies more efficient and disputes less frequent. What you're not offering evidence for is why a market that's purposefully "distorted" for some social end (say, subsidizing food production) is inherently bad. What's the actual virtue of a price that is as divorced as possible from signals from government? Sounds like OCD to me.

  • ||

    You might as well be arguing that we shouldn't use computers because they distort the hammer and chisel method of conveying information.

    That doesn't have anything to do with anything either sarcasmic or I said. You've been here long enough where you should be able to surmise a libertarian position regarding this, which would be "while computers are awesome and have revolutionized the world, the government shouldn't therefore force us to use them because there may still be value in using hammers and chisels in certain contexts which should be up to the parties involved rather than be subjected to a one-size-fits-all regulation formed by a committee very far removed from real-world contexts."

    Regulated markets are an innovation we made to make economies more efficient and disputes less frequent.

    Yet, ironically, regulation of markets has led to precisely the opposite outcome.

    What you're not offering evidence for is why a market that's purposefully "distorted" for some social end (say, subsidizing food production) is inherently bad.

    Because some of us know something of history and don't really consider that this point needs to be proven again and again.

  • ||

    What's the actual virtue of a price that is as divorced as possible from signals from government?

    Why would "signals" from the government have any relationship with what people want to buy and what people are willing to make at what prices?

  • Tony||

    Government intervention can change either supply or demand. Why is the relationship absent intervention automatically the best possible one? There are certainly many instances in which is most proper to let the unchained market sort things out, but distorting markets is pretty much what a government exists to do. We'd never have the firepower to win WWII if government hadn't decided to spend a lot of money on weapons. No market fairies died because government intervened by becoming a large buyer in the market.

  • ||

    Why is the relationship absent intervention automatically the best possible one?

    Because it leaves only the people involved in the transaction deciding its terms, rather than an un-involved party who, as you admit, is distorting the market by interfering.

    Because, as you say

    distorting markets is pretty much what a government exists to do

    If I want to buy something, and you want to sell something to me, there is nothing wrong with that. The government interfering in that and distorting it, all other things being equal, is a bad thing. You really can't see that?

    The government buying weapons is not market distortion. The government telling people what they are and are not allowed to buy and sell is. Do you see the difference?

  • sarcasmic||

    Do you see the difference?

    Tony is distinction-challenged. He doesn't understand the difference between action and inaction, between taking and giving, between light and dark, or up and down. It's all the same to him.

  • ||

    It seems like sometimes he even goes so far as to flip them completely upside down. He doesn't just not see a difference between market-driven price signals and "signals from government," he legitimately seems to think that "signals from government" are foundational to markets, and price-signals reflecting supply and demand are some frilly side-effect of markets that aren't that important, really, and only get in the way of government signalling.

  • Tony||

    There is no up or down in space, and there is no such thing as inaction without a referent action. Letting something happen isn't necessarily morally equivalent to causing it to happen (but it might be), but it's a choice nonetheless. There certainly is no inherent virtue to inaction, generally speaking.

  • ||

    There is no up or down in space, and there is no such thing as inaction without a referent action. Letting something happen isn't necessarily morally equivalent to causing it to happen (but it might be), but it's a choice nonetheless. There certainly is no inherent virtue to inaction, generally speaking.

    This doesn't respond to anything anyone here has said.

    And you're simultaneously claiming that there is no difference between action and inaction (which don't get me wrong is super heavy, and all) and that "inaction," which is what you've decided libertarians advocate (rather than non-interference by government) is somehow bad.

    Put down the pipe and pop-Buddhism book. They aren't doing you any favors.

  • Tony||

    This assumes that there is a kind of market that can exist without government telling people what to do--the job of government. It's right there in the name. We can both agree that prohibiting drugs is bad, but it's bad because it's bad for human well-being, not because it messes with price signals. There's likely a real wrench in the hitman market thanks to government prohibition of murder.

  • ||

    the job of government. It's right there in the name.

    So if I call myself "Tony's Overlord," you have to do whatever I say, right?

    Not to go all Godwin, but do you not see how you just rationalized the Holocaust?

    Part of the point of the American Revolution was that we got sick and tired of governments who saw their role as "telling us what to do." We want a government that provides defense from aggression and adjudicates disputes, not one that tells us what to buy and not buy.

    It's telling that you can't even conceive of a government that isn't totalitarian.

    We can both agree that prohibiting drugs is bad, but it's bad because it's bad for human well-being, not because it messes with price signals.

    It messing with price signals is part and parcel of how it's bad for human well-being. It's why there are hit-men involved. It's why there are bloodthirsty cartels involved. It's why drug-addiction ruins people's lives. The fucked up price signals are major part of the damage being done by the drug war.

    It's almost like you don't want to understand what other people are saying.

  • Tony||

    What I'm saying is there is really no such thing as a perfect price, especially as you define it, as there is always a government around. Cars would be cheaper without seatbelts. Without seatbelts, car deaths would go way up. It's simply a matter of priorities, and while accurate, pristine price signals may occasionally be the top priority, in many cases it's increasing human well-being that wins out.

    The problem is how far you want to go with your argument. To stick with my example, you'd have to claim that not mandating seatbelts is actually better for people. That, perhaps, carmakers would not only make seatbelts voluntarily due to customer demand, but they'd make super-special seatbelts that save even more lives. This to me seems dubious.

  • ||

    To stick with my example, you'd have to claim that not mandating seatbelts is actually better for people.

    No. You are once again 100% failing to see what anyone else is saying. What you're saying is that letting people choose whether or not they want seat-belts in their cars is bad because people won't make the choices you think they should make.

    If starvation and poverty are violence, why do you want to do violence to people who want to mitigate their current hunger and poverty by taking the risk of buying a cheaper car that doesn't have seat-belts?

    Why do you want to hurt children?

    A "perfect price" is what the buyer is willing to pay and what the seller is willing to accept. End of story. Government can make things more expensive and more inefficient, but those are the only impacts government can have on markets.

  • jay||

    better for "people". Values apart from valuers. Within the context of arguing about things government should not do, who the hell cares about what is better for "people", who are you to say?? Outside of that context, where there is no law, sure we can have that discussion, and the discussion might bring useful answers as it usually does without the threat of a gun hanging over everyone's head.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    We want a government that provides defense from aggression and adjudicates disputes, not one that tells us what to buy and not buy.

    A person who wants a government that doesn't require car seats and education for children, or non-lead paint in residential construction, or cars with adequate brakes, is a disaffected crackpot.

  • ||

    A person who wants a government that doesn't require car seats and education for children, or non-lead paint in residential construction, or cars with adequate brakes, is a disaffected crackpot.

    Thank you for your valuable contribution to the discussion.

  • Sevo||

    "A person who wants a government that doesn't require car seats and education for children, or non-lead paint in residential construction, or cars with adequate brakes, is a disaffected crackpot"

    A fucking idiot who posts this is a fucking idiot.

  • ||

    You have mental issues. Why do you think paying good money for a hitman is a thing? Murder being legal has little price involved. I can just go ahead and kill you. The reason one hires a hitman is because one does not want to get caught with the crimen and you pay them to take the risk. You are so stupid that you cannot understand that the illegality of murder is the thing making hitmans be able to charge more and have a real risk that justifies higher price. Now sure murder needs to still be illegal to protect individuals. But you are so stupid you cannot understand that making murder illegal helps hitmans. Otherwise there would be none. Or very little just to not put yourself at risk of retaliation directly.

  • sarcasmic||

    Why is the relationship absent intervention automatically the best possible one?

    The burden of proof is on intervention, not liberty.

  • ||

    The burden of proof is on intervention, not liberty.

    ^ This. I don't get to stop you from doing what you want to do just because and claim that you have to prove that I have no right to.

  • Tony||

    I can be OK with that.

    There's proof that without government subsidy, lots of people can't get adequate nutrition. So I guess we're all good with food production subsidies (the ones that work correctly, at any rate).

    Oh no, you don't give the single slightest crap about evidence, and thus burden of proof, do you? Free-market dogma first and forever.

  • sarcasmic||

    There's proof that without government subsidy, lots of people can't get adequate nutrition.

    Just because a government program helps people doesn't mean that people won't have help without government. So no, you have no proof of that.

  • sarcasmic||

    Welfare wasn't created because charity didn't help people. Americans were not starving to death.

    It was created to take the shame out of asking for charity.

    Thing is, asking for charity is supposed to be a humbling experience, because people are choosing to help. But now that it is an entitlement, people demand it without shame.

  • ||

    the ones that work correctly, at any rate

    Ah, the emergency escape hatch for the Progressive who sees his argument falling apart. We just haven't come up with the right kind of subsidy yet that will solve all the problems. Pay no attention to damage being done - we're almost to the perfect set of regulations that will govern utopia forever!

    There's proof that without government subsidy, lots of people can't get adequate nutrition.

    There's not, really. But there is pretty solid evidence that feeding people via government subsidy is not a good long term plan.

  • Tony||

    So when is SNAP going to cause societal collapse in the US? Any day now?

  • ||

    So when is SNAP going to cause societal collapse in the US? Any day now?

    Again, you're doing what you do and making a point of not understanding what's being said to you.

    Is the reason Venezuela can't feed it's people anymore that they bankrupted themselves trying to feed everyone?

  • ||

    And seriously - have you ever seen someone using SNAP that wan't at least 300 lbs.?

  • jay||

    people need subsides in one area mostly because those people in need are forced by government to subsidize someone else, or because of some other government distortion or tax or tariff that has driven the price of goods so high that the food subsidies seemingly seem like a good solution. Since the basic idea is to make the subsidies useful, it is therefore necessary to impoverish people into believing in the subsidies you also approve of. So from the standpoint of my argument, the subsidies are extremely useful.

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    "distorting markets is pretty much what a government exists to do"

    No. No it doesn't. Not when government is restricted to constitutional limits. It's socialists like you that expand government into areas where it has no business. So once again, you're projecting.

  • ||

    Dammit. Apparently I'm the new SF.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    "You might as well be arguing that we shouldn't use computers because they distort the hammer and chisel method of conveying information."

    That sounds more like a guild or union argument. So to be union-friendly, we should prohibit (and tax) computers or require (and subsidize) hammers?

  • ||

    Yeah - interesting that his hypothetical is the kind of thing that really only would happen (and does happen, regularly) when the government interferes in markets to protect special interests.

  • BYODB||


    I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.

    -George Bernard Shaw

    Seems applicable to Tony.

  • JTP||

    "You might as well be arguing that we shouldn't be using Uber because it distorts the taxi's method of transport."

    "You might as well be arguing that we shouldn't be using refrigeration because it distorts the ice industry's method of cooling"

    "You might as well be arguing against the lightbulb because it distorts the candle making industry's method of lighting"

    Can someone explain Tony's analogy to me or give me another similar example that doesn't prove the exact opposite of his point? I originally lol'ed at his hammer and chisel bit but now I can't even figure out what the fuck he was trying to prove with it

  • Sevo||

    Tony|6.29.18 @ 2:48PM|#
    "You might as well be arguing that we shouldn't use computers because they distort the hammer and chisel method of conveying information."
    Bullshit and irrelevant claim.

    "Regulated markets are an innovation we made to make economies more efficient and disputes less frequent."
    Bullshit claim; facts not in evidence. One more illustration of our fucking lefty ignoramus assuming some idiotic assertion is an argument.

    "What you're not offering evidence for is why a market that's purposefully "distorted" for some social end (say, subsidizing food production) is inherently bad"
    No, fucking lefty ignoramus, you claiming it to be good has to provide that evidence.

    "What's the actual virtue of a price that is as divorced as possible from signals from government?"
    What is agreed between the buyer and the seller, and I know that is hard for a fucking lefty ignoramus to understand; being an ignoramus means you're really stupid.

    "Sounds like OCD to me."
    Sounds like idiocy to me.

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    I think Tony doesn't even understand what he's saying. Most likely, he is cut and lasting talking points from places like Media Matters. He also doesn't strike me as being terribly bright.

  • jay||

    No it is not an innovation. It is a desire to pretend everything up until 1776 didn't happen, and to regress back to the time before that.

  • JFree||

    What's the actual virtue of a price that is as divorced as possible from signals from government?

    The peculiar character of the problem of a rational economic order is determined precisely by the fact that the knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form, but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and even contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess. Friedrich Hayek

    There is most certainly - and Hayek agreed - and Smith before him - though not anarchos - a role for govt in being a channel for signals of knowledge/value that individuals possess but that cannot be incorporated into a pricing system as it currently exists. But that is more limited than you want to believe. Environmental impacts are the easiest to see.

    And the question then is HOW does govt introduce that knowledge into the pricing system without a)destroying it with its own easy/lazy coercion or b)distorting it with its grants of future privilege taken coercively from others.

  • JFree||

    Personally I think that blockchain currencies (NOT bitcoin or the current generation of those which are just rigged 'alpha' models) are going to be the best way for govts to incorporate new or currently unvalued knowledge into new pricing systems. Because right now the bankdebt-based currency - with its govt grant of privilege (it is the only currency the govt will accept as payment of taxes) - itself distorts and ossifies a pricing system.

    How to get from here to there - well that's tough.

  • ||

    "economies can't exist without governments."

    Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, heeeee...

    Economies exist despite governments. Believe it or not, simply not doing business with people who fail to fulfill agreements still incentivizes honesty absent coersion at the end of a gun.

    You would have made a great citizen of the British Empire. If the Chinese don't want your opium, you just bombard them with your long guns from offshore until they capitulate. A successful governmental economy hard at work for its citizens.

  • Agammamon||

    Despite all the evidence of economies that existed without government.

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    tony, your understanding of economics is extremely limited, and skewed. You would be far better served by listening instead of talking.

  • jph12||

    While California's gun restrictions are absurd, I don't have a problem with this ruling.

    The code section the plaintiff's tried to rely on is in a part of the Civil Code called Maxims of Jurisprudence. The first section of this part states that "[t]he maxims of jurisprudence hereinafter set forth are intended not to qualify any of the foregoing provisions of this code, but to aid in their just application." It includes other provisions like "[p]rivate transactions are fair and regular" and "[t]he law has been obeyed." Here is how Lexis describes one of the typical cases applying the provision: "A lessee under his covenant to repair was only bound to to that which it was in his power to do, and was released from performing impossibilities." It didn't invalidate the covenant to repair, it merely excused the lessee from having to repair things that couldn't be repaired.

    For whatever reason (and there could be a very good one), the plaintiff did not make a constitutional challenge to the statute or challenge the DOJ's certification. Instead it relied entirely on a provision of the law designated as a maxim of jurisprudence. What the plaintiff tried to do is kind of like someone charged with fraud arguing against the fraud law by claiming that fraud can't exist because under California law "[p]rivate transactions are fair and regular."

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I have a small problem with it.

    ""but in such circumstances, the excusal constitutes an interpretation of the statute in accordance with the Legislature's intent, not an invalidation of the law." Essentially, it's not unconstitutional to pass impossible laws, but the courts can exempt people from the consequences of those laws without overturning the laws themselves.""

    The consequences start at time of arrest, well before the adjudication of the charge.

  • jph12||

    This case wasn't really a constitutional challenge. The plaintiff tried to use a particular statute, in a way that it pretty clearly wasn't intended to be used, to argue that a different statute should be invalidated.

  • Sevo||

    jph12|6.29.18 @ 2:46PM|#
    "While California's gun restrictions are absurd, I don't have a problem with this ruling."

    So if you look real closely, you can find some pedantic cause to support gun-control laws?
    Can we presume you are a lefty?

  • JTP||

    It's like people can't see the flawed logic in agreeing with "yes, we realize that this law is impossible to follow, but don't worry, we [as superior humans] will decide who should be punished for not following an impossible law to follow."

  • jph12||

    You can presume whatever you want to. But a bad argument is a bad argument, regardless of whether I agree with the underlying cause.

  • croaker||

    pi = 3

  • Sevo||

    "pi = 3"
    Pretty sure it did happen, and if the guy in congress had his way, the population of Guam would be distributed such that it didn't capsize.

  • msimmons||

    "Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

  • Dysphoria||

    Thank you.

  • Rock Lobster||

    Only 60% of the law of gravity?

    Spineless shit-weasels! Gravity is just a tool of the white patriarchy to keep the black man down.

    #ResistPhysics

  • Rock Lobster||

    Only 60% of the law of gravity?

    Spineless shit-weasels! Gravity is just a tool of the white patriarchy to keep the black man down.

    #ResistPhysics

  • Cy||

    This is Judges "OKing" a blatant back door to 2nd amendment restrictions.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    And that, as they say, is a feature and not a bug.

    I assumed this would be one of those outrageous brickbat sort of stories until I saw it was about guns.

  • Cy||

    "And that, as they say, is a feature and not a bug."

    So you like government dick huh?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Bingo. You don't need a sophisticated explanation. Impossibility is OK here because if the legislature fails to act, "all" that happens is that people can't buy and sell guns. Which as far as the California judiciary are concerned, is no big deal.

  • retiredfire||

    The U.S. Constitution, for anyone who can read, says that states may not make any law, or take any action, that infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
    Unfortunately, we have a great many people, sitting on court benches, that apparently cannot perform the function of understanding the words written in our founding document.
    The Second Amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed - and it DOESN'T SAY that is specific to ANYONE - thus a universal prohibition, including the states.
    If you, then try to use that Tenth Amendment, which says powers not granted in the Constitution to the United States, and not prohibited by it to the states(see: above), are to be left to the states.
    But the Second Amendment IS a prohibition on the states.
    These fools seem to think that, because it is about those evil guns, they can just ignore plain language and logic.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Abortion should be legal, but only if performed by a leprechaun.

    Drugs are legal as long as they are taken by way of laser.

    Free speech is legal as long as it's spoken through your nose.

    See how easy this is!

  • Tony||

    Hm. Hmmm hm. Hm hmm hmm?

  • ||

    He is making a point that it is totally illogical to allow impposible laws to stand.

  • perlchpr||

    Drugs are legal as long as they are taken by way of laser.

    I bet you could make a laser diode driven vaporizer.

  • phenryinohio||

    The court is an ass.

    Also, the law is an ass. Usually, but in the case worse. Simple logic should exclude the impossible from being legislated into being. "All autos shall run with antigravity devices by 2025" Is not a law. It's a wish. A unicorn.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    A ass, goddammit! A ass!

  • nhrpolitic||

    "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." Const. Art. I, Sec. 9.

    My God: to think those bastards who wrote our Constitution would use the law to make what (was then) currently impossible more likely in the future.

    Honestly though, this piece is a pretty disjointed bit of writing that can't seem to figure out what it's really outraged about.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That Clause is about slaves and immigration. Slavery is now unconstitutional but Congress' restriction to regulate migrants ended in 1808.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Vague laws are unconstitutional and deprive Americans of their right to Due Process. That all laws shall be void if an average person cannot determine who is regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed by a law.

  • DajjaI||

    It's legal according to Jewish law (halacha). There is a famous statute in the Torah about a red heifer: To be clean, you must sacrifice a red heifer and wash in the ashes. But you must be clean to make the sacrifice. Here's the conundrum: there have been no red heifer sacrifices in the past 2000 years, and furthermore, there are no red heifers! However I'm not worried. The greatest halachic minds of the Jews are toiling night and day to resolve this. We'll figure it out and get into compliance!

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""To be clean, you must sacrifice a red heifer and wash in the ashes.""

    Ginger fat girl?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    This is a dopey article with a substandard headline.

    A law declaring it unlawful to 'sell or administer a cancer cure not certified as safe and effective' would and should be constitutional, regardless of whether any current cure could or has been certified yet.

    It is not impossible to follow the relevant California law. Don't sell a product until you develop one that is compliant.

  • Jordan||

    Cool story, bro. So your position is that regulation can be used to ban anything under the sun, then. Of course we all know you're full of shit. You wouldn't be so blase about a law targetting abortifacients, no doubt.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Do you believe abortion should be unlawful, or are you a libertarian?

  • ||

    It is not impossible to follow the relevant California law. Don't sell a product until you develop one that is compliant.

    Spoken like a true thug.

    You know, I think Venezuela is looking for a new president, if you don't mind hot and humid.

  • NashTiger||

    He better get used to hot and brimstoney

  • DaveSs||

    It is not impossible to follow the relevant California law

    Sure it is
    This law was specifically intended to ensure that California never has to allow the sale of newer model handguns ever.

    As the law doesn't spell out specifically things like how many rounds the markings should last before becoming illegible, the CA DoJ presumably gets to establish its own rules for that, so they can set the requirement and testing method impossibly high, like say half a million rounds of steel cased ammo.

    Given how small these markings are, the stamping tool will undoubtedly wear quickly, even with soft brass cased ammo.
    I also wouldn't doubt that CA would rig the test in their favor by finding ammo with the hardest steel casing possible to conduct their tests.

    Bottom line is this law is specifically intended as a ban on the sale of new handgun models.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Indeed it is. And that explains why the law isn't actually impossible to comply with: Trivially, you can comply with it by not attempting to market any new models of guns!

    The real problem with the law is that it's an intentional violation of the 2nd amendment. Something California courts don't mind.

  • retiredfire||

    Anything not permitted by legislation is prohibited?
    WOW! We don't want complete government control, at all, do we?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    (a cynic might theorize that this is the law's actual intent).

    By cynic, you mean an experienced realist?

  • BYODB||


    Indeed, Attorney General Xavier Becerra made it clear in his statement praising the ruling that this is entirely the point. Lawmakers pass laws that have currently "impossible" technological standards for the purpose of controlling what the private sector develops and how the private sector is regulated.


    So, yes, an explicit statement that they are fully aware that it's a command and control economy model. Full mask slip.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    It isn't so much a mask slip, as a mask rip off and stomp on. With secession or civil war on the horizon, they don't see the point in pretending anymore.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    So why not bullets that can make moral judgements and refuse to penetrate the skin of "innocents"? Then we can argue (and legislate) who the fuck they are.

  • Curly4||

    That sounds about correct. This will make anyone who cannot a violator of that law. This would be very good for one of their largest segments lawyers. Will creat much business for them.

  • IndependentTexan||

    Let California continue to destroy itself.

  • John B. Egan||

    "Microstamping is a ballistics identification technology. Microscopic markings are engraved onto the tip of the firing pin and onto the breech face of a firearm with a laser."

    In fact, the technology is already available and would add little cost to any gun purchase, while adding a valuable tool to our police department's arsenal of investigative tools:

    ** Laser Etching Machines | Industrial Etcher Technology - OR Laser
    ** Why the Industrial Market is Turning to Laser Engraving - Learn about Epilog's laser marking systems
    ** Laser Marking in Manufacturing and Its Benefits - AZoM
    ** Industrial Laser Marking Applications | LaserStar
    ** How are Lasers Being Used in the Defense Industry? | TYKMA Electrox

    Clearly the technology is available and already in use in many applications and at a reasonable cost. So where is the snag? Where else? The NRA and Gun Manufacturers:

    Mar 30, 2013: NRA Looks Into The Sham Of Microstamping - Everyday No Days Off
    Apr 30, 2016 Why the NRA hates smart guns | TechCrunch
    Jan 28, 2014 Ruger CEO: California Microstamping Law Being Used to Deny Gun Ownership.
    Jan 18, 2018 New York – The NRA is opposing microstamping handguns
    Jan 24, 2014 Smith & Wesson Does NOT & Will NOT Include Microstamping In Its gun line.

    That says it all. Just knee-jerk reactions from gun manufacturers and their paid marketing arm, the NRA.

  • ||

    And yet it is insane that people should be forced to pay for this technology when buying guns legally while the majority of crimes are done by illegal guns. What a retarded mongoloid. You can make an ar 15 out of an 80 porcent reciever. You have already lost. Guns cannot be regulated. Only attemped to by delusional idiots like you.

  • Violent Sociopath||

    In fact, the technology is already available and would add little cost to any gun purchase, while adding a valuable tool to our police department's arsenal of investigative tools:

    (a) The technology isn't widely available. No reputable manufacturer has brought production firearm to market that can comply with California's microstamping requirements.

    (b) You have no earthly idea how much or how little it would add to the cost of a gun purchase, and in any case it's not gun owners demanding this, so it's unclear why they should have to pay for it.

    (c) It adds less than nothing to the police's arsenal of investigative tools, because it's trivially easy to defeat simply by picking up one's spent brass. Or by removing the microstamping mechanism. Or by collecting a bunch of randomly-microstamped brass at a range and sprinkling it around the crime scene. Virtually every jurisdiction that has experimented with bullet serialization has discovered that it's an expensive waste of effort.

  • Sevo||

    "That says it all. Just knee-jerk reactions from gun manufacturers and their paid marketing arm, the NRA."

    This says it all. Just knee-jerk reaction from an ignoramus who does not know what A-2 means.

  • Mark22||

    That says it all. Just knee-jerk reactions from gun manufacturers and their paid marketing arm, the NRA.

    The NRA is a large grass-roots organization.

    Unlike whatever progressive astroturfing organization pays you.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    All gun control is unconstitutional.

  • retiredfire||

    One, minor problem:
    That technology applies to the shell casing being imprinted, NOT THE BULLET, which is the projectile that causes the damage.

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    Too many, perhaps most, of the people who favor restrictive gun laws have no idea that there is a difference between the projectile, a "bullet", and a cartridge, or the cartridge case.

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    Yes, this technology is so awesome that law enforcement won't use it. But it's so what wonderful the rest of us should have it forced on us through threat of fine and imprisonment.

  • Fat Hubie||

    Everyone on the jurisdiction of this law must report to prison immediately.

  • Barry Gold||

    I agree wholeheartedly that such laws are a bad idea. But I disagree with the notion that it is "impossible to comply with them."

    If the law says you must not sell a semi-auto rifle that does not uniquely identify the bullets fired from it, then you can comply by not selling semi-auto rifles at all in the state, as Smith & Wesson apparently plan to do. If the law says that all automobiles must meet certain emission or fuel economy standards, then you can comply by not selling automobiles.

    If the law says that electricity sold in California must contain a certain percentage of renewable sources, then utilities can stop selling electricity. I think the legislature would get the message pretty quickly. If not right away, then no later than the next election, as people try to cope with not having electricity.

    I'm not sure what logical fallacy Shackford is indulging in here. Perhaps False Dichotomy. But this article definitely lowers my opinion of Shackford and of Reason.com for carrying it.

  • retiredfire||

    It will come up in a few years, because Commiefornia has just passed a law that says no one may use more than 55 gallons of water, per day - to ratchet down to 50 gallons - when the average water use in the nation is 80-100 gallons, per person.
    They put it into the future - 2025 - but it will come to a head in the courts.

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    CA has become a rogue state

  • Longtobefree||

    S&W is following in the footsteps of Barrett:
    In response to California's ban of civilian ownership of .50 BMG rifles, Barrett suspended sales and service to all law enforcement agencies in California.
    The law was passed in 2004.

  • Barry Gold||

    If a law says you must not sleep on the street and you have no other place to sleep, you can comply by leaving the state. (Such laws have been held unconstitutional for other reasons, as being a "status crime", but it is only _impossible_ if you do not have enough money to take a bus to Nevada or Arizona.)

    This article also lowers my opinion of the California Supreme Court for not pointing out that you can _always_ comply with that sort of law. At least, if it's a negative law, a prohibition. If it says "you must sell X without Y" and Y is impossible, then you can comply by not selling X at all.

    NOTE: I'm also not advocating making homelessness illegal. Just pointing out that "impossible" is often misused, and is certainly misused in this article AND in the CSC opinion.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    There is nothing in the commifornia constitution that gives that state the power to ban people from sleeping on the street.

  • Longtobefree||

    The commerce clause - - - - - -

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Lawmakers pass laws that have currently "impossible" technological standards for the purpose of controlling what the private sector develops and how the private sector is regulated.

    Why follow them then? If the law says I can't make and sell a gun unless it's made from some imaginary material, but doesn't compel me to try to find or invent that imaginary material, I'll just make and sell them made from existing materials and point out that it's impossible to follow the law as written.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    And, yeah, there'll probably be some legal battle between A and B, but then a precedent has been set and Bob's your uncle. Fuck off, impossible law.

  • TxJack 112||

    Remember these are the same people who continue to insist a Glock is a plastic gun that is undetectable by a metal detector, an AR is weapon of war and you can buy a gun from an online retailer without a background check. In other words, they are liars.

  • qlangley||

    It is not impossible to comply with this law. Smith & Wesson has complied with it. The law makes it illegal to sell a particular category of gun unless it meets a particular condition. The fact that no gun complies with that condition simply means it is illegal to sell guns in that catgory.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    All gun control is unconstitutional. All gun regulation designed to effectively limit the right to keep and bear Arms is unconstitutional.

  • retiredfire||

    The Tenth Amendment says the states must comply with the Second, as the prohibition on infringement of that right extends to them, as well.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Much like all laws prohibiting child pornography are unconstitutional, you half-educated rube.

    Is that a Liberty law degree talking, or is it something you remember from an off-brand homeschooling text?

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    What a bizarre statement. Ref, you really shouldn't impugn anyone's education or knowledge. Most of your arguments are based on bad premises and supported with discredited facts.

  • qlangley||

    And it is perfectly sensible to challenge the constitutionality of this law on that basis, but to say the law is unconstitutional because it is impossible to comply with the law is patently absurd.

    I have visited California and never sold a gun there, so it is reasonable to say I did not breach this law.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its called void for vagueness doctrine. Look it up.

    Vague Laws are unconstitutional for violating Due Process relating to construction of statutes.

    If the law does no apply to you then you not breachin the law is irrelevant to the complaint from those that do fall under the laws jurisdiction.

  • Whorton||

    So, in theory, the California legislature may decree that all children born after Oct 1, 2018 are required to exhale 50% less Carbon Dioxide or face a tax of $10,000 a year.

    And Voila! their economic and environmental problems are solved. Irregardless of the impossibility, the law would stand.

    Or, perhaps, After Oct 1, 2018 no person may possess a firearm without a handwritten note from the governor.

    Or perhaps, Any judge who issues an opinion that is subsequently overturned in full or part, automatically forfeits his office and law license. . .

    Humm. . .

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Laws can only be written and voted on by the dead, who must vote yea or nay of their own volition when votes are tallied. No living person may provide any counsel or assistance whatsoever during the legislative process.

  • Rockabilly||

    Comrades, central committee rules, so be it!

    Comply!!!

  • Mark22||

    We have laws of this kind all the time, usually in some variant of "unless you can guarantee that product X kills fewer than 1:100000 people, you can't offer it for sale". It prevents all sorts of useful products from coming to market. It's not very libertarian, but it is hardly extraordinary.

  • Variant||

    Seems likely this will be overturned in federal court, but also sounds like as long as manufacturers demonstrate that they've tried to comply but are able to, enforcement of this law may not be possible.

  • ThomasD||

    "... technological development should be directed to serve political constituencies."

    What a frighteningly anodyne way to phrase the issue.

    As if 'technological development' is something that just happens. The use of the passive voice masking, or at least failing to recognize that those are the activities of actual people that are being 'directed.'

    So perhaps a more accurate way to note what California is doing is to state that the endeavors of private individuals are being hijacked, if not outright enslaves in service of political constituencies.

  • IceTrey||

    Does anyone in California realize how easy changing a firing pin is?

  • ThomasD||

    Or even to microscopically alter the existing one.

    Some garnet paste, and a buffing wheel is all you need.

  • Deplorable Victor||

    Mr. President... Make America Great Again! NUKE California!

  • Hank Phillips||

    So, does this lantern of stare decisis light the way for a decree that underwear shall henceforth be worn outside one's clothing?

  • TxJack 112||

    They knew when this law was passed it was impossible. The goal was not to force gun makers to innovate, but reduce the number of guns allowed to be legally sold in the state. Under the law, the only guns that can be sold in California are those which were on the market prior to the law taking effect. All the new models of gun which come out every year are banned from being sold in California. That is and always was the goal. The idea of micro stamping a shell casing with unique info for every gun in insane. The cost of tooling to create such guns would be so high, each gun would cost thousands, which of course is also the goal of the legislation because most people could not afford to buy a gun legally.

  • bandar togel terpercaya||

    i really like this blog. Thank you for sharing this article.
    bocoran togel sgp
    togel sydney online

  • Naaman Brown||

    Has anyone bothered to Google "DIY firearms"? Swedish Rattlers. Palestinian Carlos. Indian AK22. Aussie bikie workshop MAC10 submachineguns. British Home Office Report 298 on the market in illegal firearms in England and Wales? Guns of the American Underground? Illicit manufacturers don't even stamp Brand, Model, Serial number. Who expects them to comply with microstamping firing pin tips?

  • TxJack 112||

    Under the rules of the ATF, an 80% receiver is not a gun and therefore does not require any of the items you point out. In addition, the stupidity of micro stamping ignores the difference in materials used for cartridge cases. A micro stamp may work on a brass or aluminum case, but it wont on a steel case. Many brands of inexpensive Russian, East European and Asian ammo have steel cases. The law was intended to restrict the number of guns available and the ability of people to buy them, that's it. It was never about safety.

  • TxJack 112||

    The sole purpose of this law was to reduce the number of handguns available for sale in California. The law effectively bans any handgun made after the law went into effect because they are incapable of micro-stamping. To pretend the state government was attempting to encourage gun makers to innovate is not only ridiculous but insane. The last thing California politicians want is more guns. By passing this law, they found a way to ban guns without actually having to admit the are banning guns. In addition, by reducing the supply, you guarantee the price will increase making guns un affordable for more people so again, you are able to restrict the private ownership of guns without passing a law to accomplish your true intent. The fact the court upheld the law is no surprise because the courts in California are as anti-gun as the government.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online