Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN News

Mission Impossible: California Court Upholds Microstamping Law

Tuesday, July 3, 2018

Mission Impossible: California Court Upholds Microstamping Law

It is not surprising that gun control activists who harp endlessly about “common sense” gun restrictions and the need for ever more legislative reforms (here, here and here, for example) aren’t particularly interested in whether the various bans and other restrictions actually qualify as “common sense” or effective, so long as the end result is fewer guns. A decade after the Heller case was decided, though, many of our nation’s courts exhibit much the same mindset.   

In 2007, the California legislature approved a law, enacted as Cal. Penal Code § 31910 (b)(7)(A), on “unsafe handguns.” New models of semiautomatic handguns could not be sold unless the gun was equipped with “microstamping” technology that allowed the make, model, and serial number of the pistol to be imprinted in “two or more places” internally so that, theoretically, this information would imprinted on each cartridge case when the gun was fired. (The bill was amended to add the “two or more” requirement after it was pointed out that a single microstamp on the firing pin could be easily defeated by defacing or replacing the firing pin).  Any semiautomatic handgun without this “dual placement microstamping” capability not already on the state roster of handguns was automatically an “unsafe handgun,” which exposed manufacturers, importers, and dealers to criminal prosecution and imprisonment.

The law became effective as soon as the California Department of Justice certified that the technology used to create the imprint was available. When this certification occurred in 2013, the State clarified that the certification confirmed only “the lack of any patent restrictions on the imprinting technology, not the availability of the technology itself.”  In layman’s terms, the state was saying that nothing was stopping someone from developing the technology, so it was “available,” even though it wasn’t.

Once the California law took effect, Smith & Wesson, Ruger and other manufacturers opted to stop selling new models of handguns in the state. Referring to the law’s “so-called technology,” a Smith & Wesson press release confirmed that the company would not include microstamping in its firearms because “a number of studies have indicated that microstamping is unreliable, serves no safety purpose, is cost prohibitive and, most importantly, is not proven to aid in preventing or solving crimes.”

In addition, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI) filed a lawsuit seeking to have the provision invalidated and to enjoin enforcement of the law. Compliance with the law’s “dual placement microstamping” requirement was practically and legally “impossible” because no semiautomatic pistol could be designed and equipped as required by the 2007 law; microstamping the required characters on any part of a semiautomatic pistol other than the firing pin wasn’t possible. In support of their claim, they cited an existing provision of California law, Civil Code section 3531, which states “[t]he law never requires impossibilities.” 

Last year, California’s Court of Appeal rejected the State’s argument that stamping the characters in two places on the firing pin would comply with the statute. It directed that the plaintiffs could present evidence of impossibility of compliance and that the court could use Civil Code section 3531 to invalidate the 2007 law if compliance was shown to be impossible. 

Last week, however, a unanimous panel of the California Supreme Court reversed that ruling. Considering only the question of whether the 2007 law could be invalidated on the basis of Civil Code section 3531’s declaration that “[t]he law never requires impossibilities,” the court determined that impossibility “did not authorize a court to go beyond interpreting the statute and simply invalidate it altogether.” Section 3531 could be used to support an interpretation of the law which would excuse compliance, case by case, based on impossibility, but it could not be used to declare the law itself to be void.

The majority of the court went further, though, and eliminated the possibility that its own rule could be applied to make the law inoperative in this or any other case: “Neither the text nor the purpose of the Act contemplates that a showing of impossibility can excuse compliance with the statutory requirement once the statute goes into effect,” adding that Section 3531 did “not authorize courts to independently carve out exceptions for impossibility” once the certification had been made. 

Out of the seven judges on the panel, only one spotted the inherent irrationality of this conclusion. In his separate opinion, Justice Chin points out that the implication of the majority opinion was to “expressly prohibit any court from construing [the 2007 law] narrowly so as to ‘excuse compliance’ or recognize ‘exceptions’ based on impossibility.” This aspect of the majority opinion, he found, not only lacked “a sound basis in law” but was “not grounded in fact.”

In Chin’s view, the Court’s ruling appeared to rest on the 2013 certification, a certification that by its own terms dealt exclusively with patent restrictions and “had absolutely nothing to do with adjudicating the question of impossibility-based exceptions” to the law. Accordingly, the implied basis of the majority’s decision – that the Department of Justice was somehow responsible for deciding the question of impossibility-based exceptions to the law, to the exclusion of the courts – was mistaken. “The Department of Justice did not have authority to adjudicate that question, and it did not do so.” The upshot is not only that compliance with the mandated technology is not possible, but that future litigants are precluded from even arguing that compliance is impossible.

The evidence on microstamping suggests that this law, like previous “gun fingerprinting” laws, is destined for oblivion. The Maryland Integrated Ballistics Identification System (MD-IBIS) program was disbanded and the authorizing legislation repealed in 2015. The Maryland law required firearm manufacturers to test-fire every gun and have the spent bullet casing specially packaged and submitted to state authorities, allowing the state to create a database of “ballistic fingerprints” that could be used to link firearms with gun crimes. Fifteen years and a mountain of shell casings later, not a single crime had been solved through use of the database. At the time this “common sense” program was discontinued, a state lawmaker indicated that “[i]f there was any evidence whatsoever – any evidence – that this was helpful in solving crimes, we wouldn’t have touched it,” but the “police came in and said it was useless. No one contradicted that.” New York State’s Combined Ballistics Identification System (CoBIS) program, costing taxpayers upwards of a million dollars a year, was terminated because the statewide database didn’t “solve crimes or make our streets safe.”

A brief filed by gun control activists in the California litigation admits that “ballistic fingerprinting” databases in New York, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. were a total bust (“impractical, expensive, and ultimately ineffective”), but claims the impossibility argument is unfounded and that microstamping is a viable technology. Manufacturers can comply with the law by simply selling the “gun models currently for sale and not introducing new models in California.” In the meantime, taxpayers in California have to take it on faith that “microstamping laws will enhance the benefits to public safety that they already promise to provide.”

Of course, this “leap forward” in technology won’t include guns that aren’t handguns or don’t eject spent cartridges (or where the shooter is careful to collect the cartridges); likewise, it doesn’t apply to guns that predate the microstamping law, are on the state handgun roster, or are brought into the state from another jurisdiction. The gun control activists have a solution for that, too. Microstamping “legislation naturally will work even better if firearms equipped with this technology are sold in the other forty-nine states.” They claim others “are likely to follow California’s example” as soon as “litigation efforts to undermine it are resolved.”

The decision is National Shooting Sports Foundation Inc. v.  State of California.

 

TRENDING NOW
Legislation Introduced to Block Credit Card Gun Registry

News  

Wednesday, February 12, 2025

Legislation Introduced to Block Credit Card Gun Registry

U.S. Representatives Riley Moore (R-WV-02), Richard Hudson (R-NC-09), and Andy Barr (R-KY-06) have introduced H.R. 1181, the Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act. This crucial legislation would prohibit credit card companies from tracking constitutionally protected purchases ...

Defending the Indefensible: Court Strikes Illinois FOID Card Law

News  

Tuesday, February 18, 2025

Defending the Indefensible: Court Strikes Illinois FOID Card Law

Lawmakers in Illinois have a long track record of irrational gun bans and restrictions based on the idea that public safety is best served by disarming criminals and law-abiding citizens alike, even if that means ...

NRA Statement on President Trump’s Executive Order Protecting Second Amendment Rights

News  

Second Amendment  

Friday, February 7, 2025

NRA Statement on President Trump’s Executive Order Protecting Second Amendment Rights

Today, the White House announced a new Executive Order to protect and expand the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans. This is the first action taken by President Donald J. Trump to carry through ...

DNC Goes All-In on Gun Control

News  

Monday, February 10, 2025

DNC Goes All-In on Gun Control

A couple weeks ago, we wrote about anti-gun activist David Hogg campaigning to be a Vice Chair for the Democratic National Committee (DNC).  We (somewhat) jokingly endorsed his candidacy, as it would make abundantly clear that ...

Washington: Gun-Free Zone Bill Scheduled for a Hearing on Monday

Friday, February 21, 2025

Washington: Gun-Free Zone Bill Scheduled for a Hearing on Monday

On Monday, February 24th, the Senate Transportation Committee will hold a hearing on Senate Bill 5098, a vast expansion to "gun free" zones in Washington. 

The Hearing Protection Act Introduced in the 119th Congress

News  

Wednesday, February 5, 2025

The Hearing Protection Act Introduced in the 119th Congress

U.S. Representative Ben Cline (R-VA-06) and U.S. Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) recently reintroduced the Hearing Protection Act (H.R. 404/S. 364) in the 119th Congress. This commonsense legislation will give gun owners and hunters the opportunity to ...

Colorado: Final House Vote on Age Restriction Bill Imminent

Saturday, February 22, 2025

Colorado: Final House Vote on Age Restriction Bill Imminent

Late Friday night, House Bill 25-1133 passed its second reading on the House floor, and is expected to come up for a final vote on Monday, February 24th.

Good News, Bad News on ATF Director Dettelbach

News  

Monday, January 6, 2025

Good News, Bad News on ATF Director Dettelbach

It’s really just good news to report that Joe Biden’s director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Steven Dettelbach, has announced his resignation.  

Anti-Gun “Researchers” Face Harsh Reality

News  

Tuesday, February 18, 2025

Anti-Gun “Researchers” Face Harsh Reality

The reelection of President Trump is already paying great dividends for the Second Amendment, even at this early stage.  Beyond the obvious jettisoning of the most anti-gun administration to ever occupy the White House, we saw ...

Virginia: Gun Control Bills Pass General Assembly, Head to Youngkin's Desk

Friday, February 14, 2025

Virginia: Gun Control Bills Pass General Assembly, Head to Youngkin's Desk

It has been a busy week in Richmond, and not for the right reasons. The House has passed a slew of anti-gun legislation, and these bills will now be transmitted to Governor Youngkin's office

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -

More Like This From Around The NRA

NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.