On Thursday, California’s Fifth District Court of Appeals revived a lawsuit against California’s micro-stamping requirement by observing that the requirement cannot be enforced if the technology to micro-stamp does not exist.
Breitbart News previously reported that micro-stamping is a type of ballistic fingerprinting that leftists and gun control groups have long dreamed of mandating. A gun with micro-stamping technology theoretically makes a mark on a bullet casing, and when said casing is left behind at a crime scene, police will hypothetically find it, see the markings, and trace the gun to its owner — that is, if micro-stamping is possible.
But micro-stamping is not practical for many reasons — chiefly because the technology to micro-stamp dependably does not exist. Even if the technology did exist, the ease with which micro-stamping can be defeated is elementary.
For example, if the technology existed, a stamp could be placed on the end of the firing pin of every new semi-automatic 9mm handgun, and that stamp would place a mark on every shell casing. But defeating the stamp would only entail putting an after-marking firing pin in the gun as soon as it was bought. Or, more easily, only shooting revolvers would evade the technology, as micro-stamping is not an option for revolvers, which do not eject a shell casing.
On and on, the list of ways to defeat micro-stamping continues. Yet Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a micro-stamping requirement into law in 2007. That requirement was supposed to go into effect in 2010, but the technology to do it was not in place, and the Fifth District Court wonders if said technology even exists in 2016.
According to ABC News, the 5th District ruled, “It would be illogical to uphold a requirement that is currently impossible to accomplish.” The ruling overturns a lower court decision that upheld the requirement, and remands the case “to the lower court for further consideration.”
The National Shooting Sports Foundation responded to the Fifth District ruling by saying, “We are pleased by today’s ruling because it means we will now be able to prove in court that this ill-considered law must be enjoined because it is literally impossible to comply with its requirements, and the law never requires the impossible.”
AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host of “Bullets with AWR Hawkins,” a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.