Although the [California Unsafe Handgun Act]’s stated goal is safety, Biofire asserts that the UHA stifles innovation in firearm safety in two ways. First, by mandating a specific, novel, never-before-commercialized microstamping technology, the UHA requires emerging companies like Biofire to spend limited financial, research, and development resources to attempting (sic) implementation of the government’s specifically and arbitrarily designated technology.
It is worth noting that no company has implemented microstamping in a commercial firearm in the more than 15 years since the microstamping concept was first introduced by California lawmakers.
This requirement comes at the expense of developing and implementing other safety innovations, like biometric authentication, that may have a more meaningful impact on safety. Further, because many pre-existing manufacturers’ products were admitted to California’s handgun roster and continue to be available to sale in California, this requirement places an unfair burden on new, innovative market entrants like Biofire that existing manufacturers are not required to meet. This double standard makes it more difficult for companies like Biofire to bring innovations in firearm safety technology to California consumers.
Second, by requiring that three pistols be removed from the handgun roster for every one that is added, the UHA creates a zero-sum game that puts emerging companies like Biofire in the position of being the catalyst for removal of a consumer’s preferred firearm, with no discernible safety benefit. California gun owners value the ability to choose which handgun is appropriate for their use case, and restrictions on this choice are generally unwelcome.
Requiring innovators to be the source of these restrictions hurts their brand reputation with the very customers who may otherwise be enthusiastic adopters of these innovative and safer firearms. Based on strong early demand from California residents, Biofire believes that many California gun owners have and will determine that the Smart Gun will be the best choice for them. However, to the extent that gun owners believe that introduction of the Smart Gun comes at the expense of options available to the gun community, such gun owners will choose to vote with their purchasing power. If gun owners refuse to purchase the Biofire Smart Gun, the technology is not able to save lives.
In sum, the UHA’s requirements make it harder to bring innovative, safe firearms to market and, by eroding gun owners’ freedom of choice, the UHA makes firearms less likely to be adopted by gun owners who otherwise would purchase them. …
In reviewing the State’s opening brief on appeal, Biofire notes the State’s claim that striking down the challenged provisions would allow the retail sale of a “significantly expanded pool of semiautomatic pistols lacking safety features that can save lives”. Appellant’s Opening Brief, at 3. In practice, the opposite has happened: the UHA’s arbitrary requirements have limited safety options and only stand in the way of allowing Californians access to a more secure handgun.
— Biofire’s Amicus Letter in Boland v. Bonta
