California Blocks All New Gun Sales with Microstamping Mandate

As of Jan 1, 2015 no Handgun Manufacturer will be allowed to sell any new model handgun in California; the reason being the new Microstamping mandate and the fact that no handgun manufacturer in the US uses the technology. While I'm sure that those that against the lawful ownership of handguns are cheering with delight, the end result is new and safer guns will not be available in California Microstamping is a process where identifying characters are engraved on the head  of the firing pin of a handgun, with the hope that it will leave an impression on the primer of a casing, so law enforcement can identify a handgun that was used in a crime. While the California Police Chiefs Association (CPCA) originally showed interest in the technology,  they now express concern over the "hasty implementation" as  "peer-reviewed studies conducted by independent research organizations conclude that the technology does not function reliably and that criminals can remove the markings easily in mere seconds". California Police Chiefs Association Calls for Firearms Microstamping Study

To date, Glock, Ruger, Smith and Wesson have already said they will not sell new handguns guns in California rather than invest in what is was deemed a faulty technology in 2007 that can be defeated by criminal in seconds (It should be noted that Law enforcement is exempted from the mandate as they are constantly upgrading their officers firearms, which these days are about 80% Glock; apparently civilians don't rank high enough to be able to purchase newer and safer firearms) and there has also been limited research and/or development of the technology. The only reason Microstamping has become mandatory is the patent has run out, while gun manufactures and law enforcement have serious reservations, the California Legislators apparently do not. Further even though that patent has run out, the proprietary machinery owned by the developer, NanoMark of Seattle, Washington, makes it still the only company from which the Microstamping technology can be purchased. "Two trade groups, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI), filed a lawsuit in 2014 seeking both declaratory and injunctive relief against what the groups perceive as an attempt to ban semi-automatic handguns in the state." The court issued a decision on May 21, 2014 that denied NSSF and SAAMI’s preliminary injunction request to stop the state from enforcing the new law. The court found that they failed to establish a reasonable probability that they will success on the merits of their case." However this was before the largest firearm manufactures declared they are not going to build a faulty system into their pistols and have been resigned to the fact that they will not be able to serve the California market with their new and often safer handguns; this may result in another attempt to force an injunction. Now this does not mean that Californians will not be able to purchase handguns, there are hundreds of models on California's Department of Justice (DOJ) gun list, it's just new models that have been made illegal by this law.

Finally it is worth noting that California has dozens of gun safety laws that the legislature simply refuses to fund. Included is a law that allows the California DOJ to track down gun owners that made legal purchases of handguns or assault rifles, but have since become ineligible from owning them due to mental illness or a criminal conviction. Unfortunately of the 20,000 illegal gun owners on the list, with some 40,000  illegally possessed firearms in California, only about 2000 have had their firearms confiscated; and around 3,000 are added to the list every year. California Unable to Disarm 19,700 felons and Mentally Ill People 

Covering California Exchange Director Tries to Hide the True cost of Obamacare

On Saturday, May 29th the Santa Cruz Sentinel ran the editorial piece, "Covering Californians: Lower costs than expected on Obamacare Exchange." The data was released by  Peter Lee, the Executive Director of Covering Californian, the state’s Obamacare  exchange: "While administrative confusion over the complicated health care law is inevitable, the fears over Obamacare don't seem justified based on the prices Covered California insurers will charge for people signing up...When Covered California announced last week the prices of policies that will be offered through the exchange next year, the prices came in higher than some may like, but lower than most predictions from Obamacare opponents."

However it is now being reported by Forbes the prices were purposely deceptive and Lee was making misleading comparison(s) to hide the real costs; Lee was only quoting group plans, but if a person wants to buy an individual plan, the stated purpose and reason for Obamacare, than the increase will be 46%-125%. This especially true of those under or over their 30's where the premiums will at a minimum double.

Under Obamacare, only people under the age of 30 can participate in the slightly cheaper catastrophic plan. So if you’re 40, your cheapest option is the bronze plan. In California, the median price of a bronze plan for a 40-year-old male non-smoker will be $261.
But on eHealthInsurance, the median cost of the five cheapest plans was $121. That is, Obamacare will increase individual-market premiums by an average of 116 percent.

Does anyone remember that Obamacare was supposed to lower prices? Anyone? So at this point would the Sentinel editorial board agree that maybe the fears over Obamacare are justified?

Another issue not brought up by Lee, is that the demands of  Obamacare even on employee provided healthcare. Because Obamacare has increased the minimum amount of coverage provided by employers to a Bronze level, many minimum wage service employers that traditionally only offered a cheaper catastrophic plan, have been forced to reduce their employees hours to less than 30, so they will not be required to pay for the higher priced plans demanded by Obamacare. The end result will be the end of full time employment in the US service industry and fewer employees being covered by heath plans.

Revisionist History, Mental Health Patients and Ronald Reagan

With the recent Arizona shootings by a mentally deranged person, the revisionist history of Ronald Reagan and his so called "closing down the mental health system" during his reign as governor in California has popped up again. The real story is Reagan had not turned from the dark side when he was governor, and instituted the changes in the mental health system at the behest of progressive reformers of the time. Deinstitutionalization of the Mentally Ill

The blaming of Ronald Reagan for the destruction the mental heath system is typical progressive revisionists history. By the late 1960s, the idea that the mentally ill were not so different from the rest of us, or perhaps were even a little bit more sane, became trendy. Reformers dreamed of taking the mentally ill out of the large institutions and housing them in smaller, community-based residences where they could live more productive and fulfilling lives. Another Voice-Mental Health Myths Simultaneously, the ACLU was pushing a mental health patients right agenda that resulted in O’Connor v. Donaldson (see below) In 1967, Gov. Ronald Reagan signed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS), which went into effect in 1969 and quickly became a national model. Among other things, it prohibited forced medication or extended hospital stays without a judicial hearing. The Governor signed a bill inspired by those who clamored for the "civil rights" of the mentally ill to be on the street and who claimed they'd be better off with community counseling.Califonia: Good Aims, Bad Results  
 
So no, Reagan, didn't close mental hospitals or put anyone on the street. Progressive views on mental health, a misguided ACLU, and politicians who "know better" did it. Then finally (the last year Reagan was governor), O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975), the Supreme Court found a constitutional right to liberty for mental health patients: "There is...no constitutional basis for confining such persons involuntarily if they are dangerous to no one." With this constitutional recognition, the practice of mental health law became a process of limiting and defining the power of the state to detain and treat. The result was a codification of mental health rights that have done away with non-voluntary commitment except in extreme cases. Politics and Mental Health

Oh, and what happened to the promised Mental Health clinics to aid mental health out patients? They built them and they did not come. Who would have thought  that unsupervised mental health patients would make poor life decisions and not utilize the support system that was built for them? Or, a better question is, who  in their right mind thought they would? The truth is is was Unfortunately this was known from the beginning and ignored.  HOW RELEASE OF MENTAL PATIENTS BEGAN