Firearm Requirements and Impossibility of Compliance

On June 28th , the California Supreme Court issued an interesting (albeit not worth briefing) decision, reversing the Fifth District Court of Appeal where the lower court had invoked Civil Code § 3531 to invalidate a statute that mandates what’s referred to as “dual placement microstamping,” per P.C. § 31910(b)(7)(A). (National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. State of California (2018) 5 Cal.5th 428.) “Dual placement microstamping” is a process whereby semiautomatic pistols are “designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched or otherwise imprinted in two or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired . . . .” Failure to be so equipped requires that the pistol be placed on a statutorily mandated list of “unsafe handguns” (See P.C. §§ 31900-32110); a violation of which is a misdemeanor. (P.C. § 32000(a)) It has been determined, however, at least in the opinion of the experts, that equipping semiautomatic pistols in such a manner is simply impossible to do; the validity of that expert opinion being an issue—if it is an issue—not ruled upon by the California Supreme Court. As a result, an organization named the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) filed a lawsuit invoking Civ. Code § 3531, attempting to invalidate P.C. § 31910(b)(7)(A) ....