Strangulation by Legislation
To put it simply, "microstamping" does not exist as a viable commercial technology. Therefore, a law requiring it be included in new firearms is essentially an attack on a person's right to keep and bear arms. Furthermore, this California legislation clearly demonstrates the attempts by that state to bully national gun policy through both legislative and market forces affected by their giant economy. In this case, the market has said, "No," and the Los Angeles Times editorial board is indignant about it. The law is still on California's books and it has effectively stopped new firearms sales in the state, so why is the Times upset? Because they have not been able to strangle the Second Amendment outside of California with this one... yet.
This is from an article, not an OpEd, in the Los Angeles Times:
Proposition 63 would enact the toughest gun controls in the United States. But it also would do something else: represent an astonishing historical milestone. And if passed as expected, the ballot measure would illustrate a textbook example of how public policy can be radically changed in a democracy laden with competing checks and balances. How is that? Through the long, slow process of taking incremental steps over decades. By pushing hard and steadily, but with patience.
Read that carefully. The ballot proposition is a "textbook example" of strangling the Bill of Rights with Legislation (in this case a ballot referendum). Read it again:
a democracy laden with competing checks and balances.
The author believes that the checks and balances in the American Republic are a burden to the whims of the mob rule of democracy.
You may like this result. You may smirk or wink at it because your "side" won something by it. Be assured, when the people who believe that the end justifies the means and that rights come from government are through with those you are against, they will come for you, too.
***
More classic strangulation by legislation. Require every single cartridge casing to be serialized, taxed and recorded at time of sale. This type of legislation claims to be "common sense" to reduce crime, but it is really intended to bankrupt businesses and punish law-abiding shooters.
***
Township board of supervisors passed a gun safety resolution in the hopes that other local governments will follow suit to bring this issue to the fore with state and federal officials.
While the township is not permitted under state law to establish gun regulations, Chairwoman Helen Tai, who introduced the resolution, stated that after the shooting in Dallas, she felt compelled to do something.
What more needs to be said? These are the same people who will take any of your rights to say they "did something."
***
Washington has laws against domestic violence, laws for restraining orders requiring individuals to stay away from certain people, and laws for court-ordered mental evaluation to prevent suicide or violence. Of course Washington State also has laws against the violent use of firearms other than in self-defense. However, none of these are sufficient for those who wish to strangle the Second Amendment through legislation, or in this case, ballot referendum.
Washington’s initiative i1491, the “Extreme Risk Protection Order Act,” goes far beyond these other laws, enabling, by a simple allegation, the often immediate confiscation of a person’s firearms and right to purchase or possess firearms, for a year or more.
The initiative is 21 pages long. Do “common sense” gun measures require 21 pages of legalese?