If the micro stamping requirement ever comes back?

[badsushi]

So, all the new roster additions that have been added since the micro stamping requirement was put to rest now have an asterisk. Does that asterisk imply that if they win the micro stamping argument, the additions with an asterisk will be removed? What is the point in the asterisk if not for that purpose? And, yes I’m hoping the entire roster gets defeated, but thinking worst case scenario.

 

[star.3d]

Yes, it's slated to return on 1/1/2028 under SB452 (2023). Earlier this year, the OAG (Bonta) released a report - as required by the same bill - which concluded that microstamping is technically feasible (report here). Next step is for Bonta to decide whether it's commercially viable at a "reasonable cost". Expect a lawsuit and injunction as soon as this goes into effect. And yes, it could mean all pistol sales/transfers could stop and * models be purged from the roster.

 

[badsushi]

Yes, it's slated to return on 1/1/2028 under SB452 (2023). Earlier this year, the OAG (Bonta) released a report - as required by the same bill - which concluded that microstamping is technically feasible (report here). Next step is for Bonta to decide whether it's commercially viable at a "reasonable cost". Expect a lawsuit and injunction as soon as this goes into law. And yes, it could mean all pistol sales/transfers could stop and * models be purged from the roster.

Thanks for the excellent reply, at least we have until 2028 to start panic buying.

 

[star.3d]

I'm not really sure whether the OAG is taking this seriously. TacLabs Inc is the sole patent holder and manufacturer of microstamp firing pins (to my knowledge). In February, CA OAG reps visited their site in NH and test fired 10 (ten!) rounds through a 1911 and G34 gen5 (unsafe handgun! lol), from which they determined the technology is feasible despite that most of the stamps from the 1911 were not fully legible.

One thing I'm confused on is that the OAG was supposed to issue performance standards for microstamping tech by 8/1/25, but this doesn't seem to have happened. Next step is the OAG will issue grant funding to manufacturers (i.e. TacLabs) by 7/1/26 to evaluate commercial viability and whether they meet as yet undefined performance metrics.

fyi, it'd be a misdemeanor to intentionally defeat the microstamp under PEN § 27534.

 

[badsushi]

I'm not really sure whether the OAG is taking this seriously. TacLabs Inc is the sole patent holder and manufacturer of microstamp firing pins (to my knowledge). In February, CA OAG reps visited their site in NH and test fired 10 (ten!) rounds through a 1911 and G34 gen5 (unsafe handgun! lol), from which they determined the technology is feasible despite that most of the stamps from the 1911 were not fully legible.

One thing I'm confused on is that the OAG was supposed to issue performance standards for microstamping tech by 8/1/25, but this doesn't seem to have happened. Next step is the OAG will issue grant funding to manufacturers (i.e. TacLabs) by 7/1/26 to evaluate commercial viability and whether they meet as yet undefined performance metrics.

fyi, it'd be a misdemeanor to intentionally defeat the microstamp under PEN § 27534.

Yes, sounds like they did about as much research on this micro stamping as they do on all California antigun laws.
A misdemeanor? My firing pins broke and I had to order new ones.

 

[star.3d]

I'm definitely not defending microstamping - just relaying what I know. But I think the law expects that a licensed gunsmith would install a new microstamped firing pin and update info with the DOJ somehow.

I do not know whether this applies to PPT. This law and SB704 (2025) restrict FFL "transfers" - I don't know what that encompasses. An FFL isn't equipped to verify that a microstamp firing pin is in working order, so I think microstamping is foremost a roster restriction.

 

[Route66ShootingSportsPark]

I'm definitely not defending microstamping - just relaying what I know. But I think the law expects that a licensed gunsmith would install a new microstamped firing pin and update info with the DOJ somehow.

I do not know whether this applies to PPT. This law and SB704 (2025) restrict FFL "transfers" - I don't know what that encompasses. An FFL isn't equipped to verify that a microstamp firing pin is in working order, so I think microstamping is foremost a roster restriction.

Most of the Staccato dealers were in Vegas this week, and they’re having a tough time keeping them in stock.

 

[star.3d]

tough time keeping them in stock

firing pins?! that's surprising

 

[nubsors]

Yes, it's slated to return on 1/1/2028 under SB452 (2023). Earlier this year, the OAG (Bonta) released a report - as required by the same bill - which concluded that microstamping is technically feasible (report here). Next step is for Bonta to decide whether it's commercially viable at a "reasonable cost". Expect a lawsuit and injunction as soon as this goes into effect. And yes, it could mean all pistol sales/transfers could stop and * models be purged from the roster.

This doesn't sound right. This aspect was already struck down and they (CADOJ) didn't fight the decision.

 

[Route66ShootingSportsPark]

This doesn't sound right. This aspect was already struck down and they (CADOJ) didn't fight the decision.

It was passed again after it was struck down.

 

[Pythonfan]

This doesn't sound right. This aspect was already struck down and they (CADOJ) didn't fight the decision.

Yup, that's California. Instead of fighting it or backing off, they opted to write and pass more overreaching legislation in regards to microstamping.

 

[ar15robert]

Yup, that's California. Instead of fighting it or backing off, they opted to write and pass more overreaching legislation in regards to microstamping.

Ca is very good with using the courts to keep their bans going. If they do lose a court case they will just make a similar law and repeat. They seem to get the laws to stay which favor them during appeals and drag them.

 

[Robdog1]

Ca is very good with using the courts to keep their bans going. If they do lose a court case they will just make a similar law and repeat. They seem to get the laws to stay which favor them during appeals and drag them.

Well yeah, when you have the 9th circus in your pocket, they’re going to do what you want. Iirc, the 9th is the most liberal court in the nation, even after Trump has appointed several new judges, so it stands to reason they’re going to play along, even without getting their palms greased.

 

[star.3d]

Correct. The microstamping requirement was enjoined under Boland v Bonta, and the state did not seek a stay on this requirement. The state did seek, and was granted, a stay on CLI and mag disconnect, hence those are currently required for handguns sold in CA. The microstamping provision was subsequently repealed and re-issued as SB452 (2023) - this tactic is aptly called "repeal and re-issue".

IANAL - but here's my understanding: Microstamping v2 under SB452 is separate from the UHA roster, and there is no grandfather clause, so all handguns manufactured and delivered to dealers after 1/1/2028 would be required to implement microstamping, includinge pre- and post-Boland roster additions. C&R guns are necessarily exempt due to their manufacture date. PPT sales are also exempt.

 

[ar15robert]

Well yeah, when you have the 9th circus in your pocket, they’re going to do what you want. Iirc, the 9th is the most liberal court in the nation, even after Trump has appointed several new judges, so it stands to reason they’re going to play along, even without getting their palms greased.

Yup and they know that.

 

[BillSmith]

Can't we all just write a round?

Couldn't we just require all firearms owners to self-label their ammo. Pre-stamp, so to speak, each round. You could write something like,

Pro Slurpee

...on each shell casing.