California’s Microstamping Requirement Bans Sale of
Improved Pistols –
Dealers Face Shortage of Handguns Approved For Sale
Conscientious gun manufacturers often refine and improve their products so that consumers
get the best and most reliable and safest products available on the market. Even as the
manufacturer's model numbers remain unchanged, manufacturers continue to make minor
changes to their existing models as new technology or manufacturing processes become
available.
Now, ironically, California's “Unsafe Handgun Act” is making it impossible for licensed gun
retailers to sell these refined, improved and more reliable pistols. Even though the models
have passed the performance tests that California law imposes, the California regulators have
taken the position that even minor changes trigger the need for these guns to be retested and
re-certified for sale. Since last year, however, no gun can be certified for sale in California
unless it incorporates a “microstamping” process. None of these improved firearms do, and no
new guns from any major manufacturer will. To view NSSF’s background paper on
microstamping, please click HERE. As a result, a large number of handguns have been
delisted and can no longer be sold by retailers in California.
The California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) and its allies are taking action to stop this
hypocrisy of refusing to certify handguns that have been made better. CRPA members and
concerned gun owners have been asking about the situation. Here's the latest.
California’s "Unsafe Handgun" Scheme
Since January 1, 2001, California's so called “unsafe handgun” law has mandated that before a
handgun can be sold in California it must be listed on the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale
(the “Roster”). Originally, handguns needed to pass a drop test and other performance tests to
be listed. The legislator promoting the bill, anti-gun Senator Polanco, ridiculously claimed that
handguns could "blow up" so this law was necessary. Tellingly, no "blow up" test was ever
imposed, suggesting this bill wasn't really about safety in the first place.
Regardless, in 2006 the law was amended to require center fire semi-automatic pistols to have
a loaded chamber indicator, and a magazine disconnect safety by January 1, 2007. Firearms
that pass the tests and have the required features are deemed “not to be unsafe
handguns.” Pistols on the Roster before these requirements were added are “grandfathered,”
meaning they do not need to meet the new requirements to stay on the Roster.
In 2007, notoriously anti-gun-owner Assembly Member Mike Feuer (now Los Angeles City
Attorney) pushed a law adding a new requirement for pistols to make it onto the Roster -microstamping. Although microstamping has nothing to do with making a firearm safer, Mr.
Feuer touted his scheme as a cheap law enforcement tool. In fact, it is nothing of the kind.
Nonetheless, the law passed.
Implementation of the microstamping requirement was postponed subject to the required
certification by the California Attorney General that the microstamping process technology was
available to manufacturers and was not encumbered by a patent. Attorney General (now
Governor) Jerry Brown did not certify that microstamping was available during his tenure. But
on May 17, 2013 Attorney General Kamala Harris certified that microstamping was
available. The DOJ alert and certification can be read HERE. Again, pistols that were already
on the Roster were “grandfathered” and did not need to meet the microstamping
requirement. But any new pistol seeking to be certified or re-certified, for sale now needs to
have microstamping.
The problem is that California interprets the Unsafe Handgun Act as requiring that any change
to a handgun, unless purely cosmetic, means that the handgun must be retested as if it was
just invented before it can be certified for sale. So if a manufacturer makes a minor change to
a part, how a part is made, what a part is made out of, or any non-cosmetic change, then the
firearm is considered a “new” firearm and needs to be certified separately to be listed on the
Roster.
So as of May 17, 2013, if a change is made to a pistol it cannot remain on the Roster, and to
get back on the Roster it must incorporate the microstamping process.
As a practical matter, this means that manufacturers cannot modify and improve their pistols in
any way. They cannot even make their current models more reliable and safer, more durable,
less expensive, or more advanced, unless they include the microstamping technology - a
flawed technology that manufacturers cannot comply with because it does not work nor does it
exist. So, ironically, the law forces California retailers to sell less refined and potentially less
safe firearms--all supposedly in the name of safety.
The Microstamping Fraud
Proponents of the microstamping bill falsely claimed that the additional cost of microstamping
“would be $0.50 to $2 a gun.” You can read the history of this bill and information presented to
the Legislature at the California Legislative Information website HERE. But while the actual
microscopic etching process may itself be cheap, the real cost of incorporating microstamping
into the manufacturing process is not.
Firearms are typically manufactured on a type of modern assembly line, with specific parts
largely interchangeable. Microstamped firing pins or other microstamped parts require a special
batch production. These special microstamped parts must be segregated from the rest of the
firearm parts of the same kind. The special batch parts need to be matched to the specific
firearm that each part is individually made for. All of this time-intensive work requires
supervision and manufacturing technology that doesn't exist, to say nothing of the added
complexity in the planning, procurement, logistics, and warehousing aspects of the
manufacturing process.
Additionally, the microstamping process itself is not a viable technology. A U.C. Davis study
shows the flaws with this process. NSSF’s summary of the study may be found HERE and the
full study can be found HERE. Even the patent holder has acknowledged in a 2012 study that
the concept of microstamping requires further study and should not be mandated. Click HERE
to view the 2012 AFTE Journal article.
Taking Action
The consequences of California’s microstamping mandate are already being felt. Ruger has
confirmed that it is being largely forced out of the California market as a result. The statement
from Ruger CEO can be found HERE. Smith & Wesson has made a similar announcement. An
article on that announcement can be read HERE. Since the microstamping mandate kicked in
last May, over 100 handguns have fallen off the Roster. The list of De-Certified Handgun
Models can be found HERE. Even more disturbing, the list of “Newly Added Handgun Models”
has been blank for over a month, which can be reviewed HERE.
The microstamping scheme has now resulted in two costly law suits that will cost California tax
dollars to defend. CRPA’s lawyers are monitoring these suits. More updates will be sent to the
membership as information is available.
Thank you to our members for your continued support of CRPA!