The Wages of Microstamping

If a manufacturer wants to sell a handgun in California, there’s a process. Samples have to be submitted to the state Department of Justice for testing and approval. Certain state-specific limits and safety devices are required. Even then, only that particular model and iteration is permitted. The manufacturer must periodically resubmit guns for the same process, or they fall off the list.

In 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger signed off on a bill that added microstamping to the list of required safety features. At the time, there was no workable method, so the bill stated that the process would be required whenever it became viable.

That happened last year. From this point forward, any handgun sold in California must have those little engravings on the firing pin and breech face. Who pays for it? The manufacturer. AB 1471 precludes the state from having to reimburse them.

Several smaller manufacturers have registered their displeasure with the whole shebang, but the big news has come over the last couple of weeks. Ruger announced at the SHOT Show that they will not be submitting any new semiautomatic pistols for approval, and Smith & Wesson appears to feel the same. I can’t imagine Glock putting up with this either.

Where does that leave things? Consumers in California are soon going to have very few choices in pistols. As the largest brands become unavailable, only a few smaller manufacturers will fill the gap, and we can expect to see a corresponding rise in prices.

To the people who pushed this initiative, this is the best kind of regulation. It’s not an explicit ban, but the effect is the same nonetheless.