Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.


Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:


Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to

Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

California bans handguns

Fascist California: The California Supreme Court has upheld a handgun law that requires that each gun microstamp an identification on any bullets it fires, something that remains technologically impossible and has essentially banned the sale of new handguns in the state.

The gun law, passed in 2007, is supported by police organizations that say the stamps would help officers to determine the source of bullets found at crime scenes. It requires that new brands of semiautomatic pistols introduced for retail sale in California carry markings in two places that would imprint the gun’s model and serial number on each cartridge as it is fired.

The law didn’t take effect until 2013, when the state certified that there were no patent restrictions on the technology. But gun manufacturers have not sold any new models of semiautomatic handguns in California since then, and in 2014 a gun group sued to invalidate the law, saying its standards could never be met.

A state appellate court allowed the suit to proceed, relying on an 1872 California statute that declared, “The law never requires impossibilities.” On Thursday, however, the state’s high court dismissed the suit and said the law would remain on the books, even if it was difficult to enforce.

…The ruling effectively ends the case, but other gun organizations have sued in federal court, claiming the law is unconstitutional. Their case is pending before the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

For now, no new models of semiautomatic handguns will be marketed in California, said Larry Keane, general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which challenged the law in state court. He said the number of handgun models sold in California has dropped by about 50 percent since the state certified the micro-stamping law in 2013. “California will experience a slow-motion handgun ban,” Keane said. He said sales would “never go up because no new model can meet the impossible requirement.”

This entire story demonstrates perfectly why I call California fascist. While the law does not ban handguns, something that would likely be politically unacceptable, its succeeds in doing so by demanding gun-makers meet an impossible standard, thus forcing them to abandon sales in California.

The story also illustrates the fundamental dishonesty of the left. They want to ban guns, but they can’t do it in a straight-forward manner. So they create a dishonest law to do it for them. Expect more laws like this in Democratically-controlled states, nationwide.

Pioneer cover

From the press release: From the moment he is handed a possibility of making the first alien contact, Saunders Maxwell decides he will do it, even if doing so takes him through hell and back.

Unfortunately, that is exactly where that journey takes him.

The vision that Zimmerman paints of vibrant human colonies on the Moon, Mars, the asteroids, and beyond, indomitably fighting the harsh lifeless environment of space to build new societies, captures perfectly the emerging space race we see today.

He also captures in Pioneer the heart of the human spirit, willing to push forward no matter the odds, no matter the cost. It is that spirit that will make the exploration of the heavens possible, forever, into the never-ending future.

Available everywhere for $3.99 (before discount) at amazon, Barnes & Noble, all ebook vendors, or direct from the ebook publisher, ebookit. And if you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and I get a bigger cut much sooner.


  • pzatchok

    The supreme court will shut this down but California will then just implement a handgun safety device that can be implemented.
    Like a way the gun will not fire at cops or will not fire without the owners fingerprint.
    Both already developed but not practical or reliable.

  • Orion314

    I don’t fear all this yak going on about an upcoming civil war. The party of narcissism i.e , the Democrats, will fight to the last drop of republican blood , and of course the last drop of blood of their house maids, gardeners. orange pickers , etc. But dems themselves are completely incapable of self sacrifice.

  • Steve

    Given guns used in crimes are generally stolen, what good is this information, other than to link guns to crimes (but not necessarily perps). Some states in the past mandated fired cases from rounds to compile in databases, which helped to solve no crimes (or maybe a very small number, I don’t remember).

    Did they also make it illegal to tamper with the marking mechanisms? Because I’m sure no one would take a file to them to make them useless. And it doesn’t do anything for revolvers since they don’t spew cases like semi-autos. And if they think they can mark a lead bullet…

    But Robert is right, it’s not about safety or solving crimes. It’s about control.

  • Phill O

    I learned a new spelling of California; it is Canida. This is not a spelling mistake Bob.

    The long gun registry tried here did not work other than to funnel money to a province which voted liberal. This law makes it safer in California – for the criminals.

  • Edward

    You wrote: “Given guns used in crimes are generally stolen, what good is this information, other than to link guns to crimes (but not necessarily perps).

    You seem to have misunderstood the purpose of the law. It is not intended to help solve crimes or even to prevent crimes. It is intended to remove guns from the hands of the law abiding. As it becomes more difficult to arm ourselves (the reason why the law has a technically infeasible, impracticable requirement) in order to protect ourselves from the bad guys (criminals or tyrannical government, an example being the late King George), then as the criminals steal our guns, there will be fewer and fewer guns in the hands of the law abiding.

    The intention is that as the law abiding become disarmed, and as the government becomes sufficiently tyrannical (as exemplified by the passing and upholding of this law that violates the Second Amendment), with the party in power being the one that supports criminal activity, then the grateful criminals will continue to side with and vote for the pro-crime party. We the People become more and more dependent upon the government (police) for protection, with more and more erosion of our ability to protect ourselves from a criminal element that becomes more and more emboldened.

    What has been the result of decades of making it harder and harder to protect ourselves and the creation of more and more gun-free zones? More and more mass shootings.

    As we learned from the recent Capital Gazette shooting, when every second counts, the police are at least a minute away, and Parkland showed that they can take many minutes before taking action. As Charlie Hebdo demonstrated, the police can be the first victim. The Dubrovka Theater incident demonstrated that the whole thing can end in disaster despite the police coming to the rescue.

    California is pretty skilled at getting people killed:
    Remember San Bernardino? I bet you don’t remember the San Ysidro McDonald’s massacre.

    Rather than acknowledge that there are many, many times that armed civilians prevented shootings and massacres, and even stopped active ones, California falls back onto the philosophy that only the police should stop or prevent such crimes. Not because it is safer for We the People, but because it helps They the Government get away with tyranny and corruption.

    This law is only a power grab, in which the government gains more power from We the People.

  • Max

    Well said Edward, in your usual eloquent fashion. There is no way I could say it better so I’m not even going to try.

    State/City/county officers are allowed exemptions to most gun restrictions allowing law-enforcement best/baddest weapons available. Even though they are a civilian force, this is allowed if they train and are deputized by federal agencies they can essentially be part of the federal System if emergency orders override their local mandates.
    In Utah, the elected Sheriff only oversees the protection of the governor and transportation of prisoners to the courthouse. Only a figurehead for the highest law-enforcement in the state.
    The former sheriffs department now answer to a board who answers to the governor in a quasi-private company. The organization has been compared to mercenaries. They even rent their buildings/cars/hardware, that used to be owned by the sheriffs department, and pass the high jacked up cost on to the taxpayer.

    The latest second amendment restrictions.
    New Jersey
    And Oregon which went into effect January 2018

  • Max

    Edward said;
    “Rather than acknowledge that there are many, many times that armed civilians prevented shootings and massacres, and even stopped active ones, California falls back onto the philosophy that only the police should stop or prevent such crimes. Not because it is safer for We the People, but because it helps They the Government get away with tyranny and corruption.”

    So the country of Israel is taking the opposite approach making it legal for 40,000 residents to have weapons. Not to cause terrorism, but to prevent it.

  • Max: Good stuff, as Wayne would say. I have now posted a link to this story on the main page.

Readers: the rules for commenting!


No registration is required. I welcome all opinions, even those that strongly criticize my commentary.


However, name-calling and obscenities will not be tolerated. First time offenders who are new to the site will be warned. Second time offenders or first time offenders who have been here awhile will be suspended for a week. After that, I will ban you. Period.


Note also that first time commenters as well as any comment with more than one link will be placed in moderation for my approval. Be patient, I will get to it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *