Micro Stamping out opened the door

[DB>)>]

Now that so many new guns are on roster, the average prospective gun buyer is most likely going to walk into a retail store rather than wade through tons of overpriced "I know what I got" listings... They already probably know what they want, and all the new options make for easy CC purchases even with the sin tax.

Whether intentional or via the law of unintended consequences, dropping the microstamping requirement SLAMMED the door open for retail sales, and the 11% grift was bonus points for the evil overlords....

 

[USMC06RET]

Now that so many new guns are on roster, the average prospective gun buyer is most likely going to walk into a retail store rather than wade through tons of overpriced "I know what I got" listings... They already probably know what they want, and all the new options make for easy CC purchases even with the sin tax.

Whether intentional or via the law of unintended consequences, dropping the microstamping requirement SLAMMED the door open for retail sales, and the 11% grift was bonus points for the evil overlords....

I'm a little confused, why do you say the microstamping requirements in California have been dropped? SB 452 has been passed and enacted. The bill makes it unlawful for licensed firearms dealers to sell, offer for sale, exchange, give, transfer, or deliver any semiautomatic pistol unless it has been certified as a microstamping-enabled pistol.

I could be wrong, but it sounds like this bill will basically kill the private handgun resale market as licensed dealers will no longer be able to "transfer" handguns that are not microstamping-enabled.

 

[Dvrjon]

I'm a little confused, why do you say the microstamping requirements in California have been dropped? SB 452 has been passed and enacted. The bill makes it unlawful for licensed firearms dealers to sell, offer for sale, exchange, give, transfer, or deliver any semiautomatic pistol unless it has been certified as a microstamping-enabled pistol.

I could be wrong, but it sounds like this bill will basically kill the private handgun resale market as licensed dealers will no longer be able to "transfer" handguns that are not microstamping-enabled.

There’s a whole research, determination and phase-in process. Then:

SB 452, Section 3; 27533.​

(a) Commencing on January 1, 2028, if the department has determined that microstamping components, microstamping-enabled semi-automatic firearms, or both microstamping components and microstamping-enabled firearms are available pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 27532, it shall be unlawful for a firearms dealer licensed pursuant to Sections 26700 to 26915, inclusive, to sell, offer for sale, exchange, give, transfer, or deliver any semiautomatic pistol unless the pistol has been certified as a microstamping-enabled pistol as defined in Section 27531.

Until then, microstamping is out.

 

[USMC06RET]

There’s a whole research, determination and phase-in process. Then:

Until then, microstamping is out.

If I'm not mistaken the CA DOJ has finished their assessment and AG Bonta has deemed the technology viable.

Here is the CADOJ press release on the subject:

Attorney General Bonta Releases Report, Finds Firearm Microstamping Technology Viable

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today released a report finding that firearm microstamping technology is technologically viable and has demonstrated the capacity to imprint a unique microscopic array of characters, referred to as a microstamp, on spent cartridge cases discharged...

oag.ca.gov

And here is a link to the final report:

https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/Microstamping%20Technological%20Viability%20Report%202025_final.pdf

 

[Dvrjon]

~Threadjacked~
Really off topic, but:

If I'm not mistaken the CA DOJ has finished their assessment and AG Bonta has deemed the technology viable.

Here is the CADOJ press release on the subject:

Attorney General Bonta Releases Report, Finds Firearm Microstamping Technology Viable

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today released a report finding that firearm microstamping technology is technologically viable and has demonstrated the capacity to imprint a unique microscopic array of characters, referred to as a microstamp, on spent cartridge cases discharged...

oag.ca.gov

And here is a link to the final report:

https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/Microstamping%20Technological%20Viability%20Report%202025_final.pdf

From the AG notice you posted, (4th para, bottom):

Beginning January 1st, 2028, state law will mandate that semiautomatic handguns sold by licensed dealers must be verified as microstamping enabled, if DOJ determines that microstamping components are available at commericially reasonable prices or that microstamping-enabled firearms are otherwise readily available for purchase.

From the report you posted (Page 2; 2d para):

SB 452 establishes an increasing sequence of activities which DOJ has to falsify undertake before microstamping comes back:

-On or before March 1, 2025, the Department of Justice shall engage in an investigation
-on or before September 1, 2025, provide written guidance on performance standards
-on or before January 1, 2026, commence accepting applications
-on or before July 1, 2026, provide grants or enter into contracts
-on or before July 1, 2027, determine if either, or both, of the following are true:
(1) Microstamping components at commercially reasonable prices are available from licensees operating pursuant to subdivision (c) or subdivision (d).
(2) Options of microstamping-enabled firearms are readily available for purchase in the State of California.
-Commencing on January 1, 2028, if…it shall be unlawful….

~/Threadjacked~

 

[USMC06RET]

~Threadjacked~
Really off topic, but:

From the AG notice you posted, (4th para, bottom):

From the report you posted (Page 2; 2d para):
View attachment 86100
SB 452 establishes an increasing sequence of activities which DOJ has to falsify undertake before microstamping comes back:

-On or before March 1, 2025, the Department of Justice shall engage in an investigation
-on or before September 1, 2025, provide written guidance on performance standards
-on or before January 1, 2026, commence accepting applications
-on or before July 1, 2026, provide grants or enter into contracts
-on or before July 1, 2027, determine if either, or both, of the following are true:
(1) Microstamping components at commercially reasonable prices are available from licensees operating pursuant to subdivision (c) or subdivision (d).
(2) Options of microstamping-enabled firearms are readily available for purchase in the State of California.
-Commencing on January 1, 2028, if…it shall be unlawful….

~/Threadjacked~

Yes, that is what it says. Far from being out, it would appear microstamping is well on the way to becoming a reality per the SB 452 timeline, unfortunately. All the more reason for everyone to be hammering their elected state representatives.

 

[treelogger]

(I know it's partly off-topic for this thread ...)

Far from being out, it would appear microstamping is well on the way to becoming a reality per the SB 452 timeline, unfortunately.

I'm not so pessimistic. If microstamping leads to no new guns being added to the roster, because no manufacturer implements it (or can't), then the courts will throw it out again. They already did once. On the other hand, if a large fraction of manufacturers actually manage to ship it (whether it works or not, I don't care), then we have an interesting situation ... sort of a problem (only recent models on the roster), but also sort of not a problem (lots of things on the roster).

All the more reason for everyone to be hammering their elected state representatives.

Absolutely. But not "hammering", that just gets them mad. The right tactic is to convince them. That takes longer, but works better.

 

[1911-CV]

Way off topic (perhaps the mods should move these posts to another thread)...

I just do not see this being met in any way, and certainly not in a way that a federal court would see as consistent with Bruen:
"on or before July 1, 2027, determine if either, or both, of the following are true:
(1) Microstamping components at commercially reasonable prices are available from licensees operating pursuant to subdivision (c) or subdivision (d).
(2) Options of microstamping-enabled firearms are readily available for purchase in the State of California."

Makes the whole bill a waste of taxpayer money...

 

[OlderThanDirt]

Just remember, in 1990 California set quotas for electric vehicles. We passed the original 100% mandate long ago. They just keep kicking the can down the road.

 

[1911-CV]

There is no constitutional right to own an automobile...

 

[rfgCA]

Now that so many new guns are on roster, the average prospective gun buyer is most likely going to walk into a retail store rather than wade through tons of overpriced "I know what I got" listings... They already probably know what they want, and all the new options make for easy CC purchases even with the sin tax.

Whether intentional or via the law of unintended consequences, dropping the microstamping requirement SLAMMED the door open for retail sales, and the 11% grift was bonus points for the evil overlords....

About the 11% --- That was immediately what came to mind when I first heard of it. That they punished us all with a tax for challenging them, while bringing in money to the State coffers. Money probably to be used to perpetuate this political scam.

This is about an extremely selfish need to be right, to be popular, to remain in power for the next election. Has absolutely nothing to do with safety.

To a certain degree, we ourselves were part of the problem. When the walls started to come down on us 20-30 years ago, we didn't push back enough. I hope we learned our lessons. I know I certainly have. I'd rather give 11% of everything I spend on guns and ammo to our defenders than be forced to pay it to these animals.
.

 

[Jimi Jah]

Those that would have pushed back gave up and voted with their feet.

 

[Ro-bo]

Now that so many new guns are on roster, the average prospective gun buyer is most likely going to walk into a retail store rather than wade through tons of overpriced "I know what I got" listings...

For that particular segment of the market, you're maybe right. Probably right. But the roster is still under 1k models total, which in reality (to those who aren't average new prospective gun buyers) is a really, really small pool of guns. I don't recall the low point, it's maybe mentioned in one of the lawsuits, but the roster hasn't grown that much since its inception, pre or post-microstamping language.

 

[Ro-bo]

On the other hand, if a large fraction of manufacturers actually manage to ship it (whether it works or not, I don't care), then we have an interesting situation ... sort of a problem (only recent models on the roster), but also sort of not a problem (lots of things on the roster).

The last part is the most likely scenario, regardless of how "lots" is defined since part of the argument from the other side is there's enough options that nobody is outright denied their 2A right. And with so many courts accepting for Bruen's second step, peripheral historical evidence that shows merely a will to regulate weapons (in some cases not even guns), I think the roster will continue to be a thorn in our side.

A lot can happen in three years though.

 

[bbp00]

There is no constitutional right to own an automobile...

A bit off topic, but Constitution protects right to own property. Automobile is a property.

 

[adrkwan]

A bit off topic, but Constitution protects right to own property. Automobile is a property.

Yup, "... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ...."

 

[1911-CV]

A bit off topic, but Constitution protects right to own property. Automobile is a property.

Ummm.... Yes, the constitution protects the right to own property but not autos in particular. You can't go out and purchase lots of particular things (think of various types of paint, insecticides, the list of things you can't buy, particularly here in CA, is lengthy) and the constitution won't provide a helpful legal argument. Firearms are different, there is a specific constitutional right to own firearms.

adrkwan raises a point that I don't really understand myself. The constitution would seem to protect your rights in property that you already own "... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ...." but the magazine ban litigation failed on that point and would have allowed the state to take away pre-existing ownership of standard capacity magazines without compensation. Subsequent litigation tying the magazines to the right to own and bear arms is our last hope on that one.

 

[adrkwan]

Due Process is broken down into Procedural and Substantive Due Process. Procedural Due Process is having the right to challenge the deprivation of any rights. An example would be the right to sue CA in a Federal Court to overturn the magazine ban.

Substantive Due Process relates to fundamental rights both listed and unlisted in the Constitution. For example, the Second Amendment states our right to bear arms. The Ninth Amendment also makes clear that the Constitution does not contain a complete list nor does it limit our fundamental rights. Courts generally recognize additional fundamental rights not found in the Constitution like the right to privacy or interstate travel. Substantive Due Process is a balancing act between infringement on your fundamental rights and the governments' reasons for doing so.

The magazine ban allowed for due process since we were able to challenge it in Court, and the Court made a determination whether the right to own standard capacity magazines was guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, and, if so, whether or not the government had a legitimate reason for regulating said capacity.

The rights themselves are no absolute. There is a balancing act when determining what and how the government can limit those rights.