Leatherneck Blogger

Industry Group Makes Statement On Microstamping

with 2 comments

By Tom Knighton
Bearing Arms
September 5, 2017

We get it. Hoplophobes don’t like guns.

They make it clear with everything they do. One of the more annoying things is a requirement to use microstamping technology on guns sold in the state of California.  I’ll admit it, this should have been on the list of dumb gun control laws, but I didn’t think about it. Why? Because it’s so impractical as to be unthinkable.

Yet, it’s the law.

As Guns.com reports, however, industry groups are taking issue with this law because of that impracticality.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation and Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute argued to the California Supreme Court in a filing last month that the state’s 2007 law requiring new semi-auto handguns sold in the state to have the capability to permanently mark shell casings fired through the gun with an identifying mark asks for something that cannot be done. As such, the state has whittled down the number of pistols certified for sale to the point that the industry has lost $183 million annually since 2013 in missed sales to California’s gun owners.

The groups point to the fact that the roster of approved handguns as of late July contained just 504 models of semi-auto pistols, compared to 867 in early 2014 when they first filed suit against the provision of the state’s Unsafe Handgun Act. As old designs are decertified, and no new ones are approved as they lack the capability to stamp their ejected shell casings, the roster contracts. Manufacturers such as Smith & Wesson have publicly stated they will not include microstamping in their firearms.

A key sticking point with the California doctrine is that it requires “dual placement” of the microstamp on the cartridge case, a concept that requires two separate internal parts of the pistol to apply stamps to the case in order to defeat the possibility that a firing pin could be filed down or swapped out for a different one in an attempt to spoof the system. The industry contends there is no expert that can be found “to show that dual placement microstamping technology can ever be developed for semi-automatic pistols.”

Of course, we all have a good idea that the reduction of “approved” handguns isn’t a bug of the law, but a feature. Hoplophobes gonna hoplophobe and all that.

Further, California’s requirement for dual placement is no better than a single placement scheme, even if it was possible. I guarantee you that someone, somewhere, will figure out how to defeat the second microstamp within days of the gun hitting the market. After all, if they can defeat the stamp on a firing pin–an essential piece for the operation of a firearm–then anything else can be beaten.

Instead, it merely restricts what the law abiding citizen can purchase. It’s an attempt to turn California into its own anti-gun fiefdom while trying to at least look like they’re adhering to the letter of the Second Amendment, if not the spirit.

Then again, it’s not like California is particularly known for even caring for the spirit of the Second Amendment.

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Reblogged this on .

    Brittius

    September 9, 2017 at 06:16

  2. […] Source: Industry Group Makes Statement On Microstamping […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: