California's handgun roster.
Previous Post
Next Post

From the NSSF . . .

NSSF, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, praises the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division’s order granting a preliminary injunction for the plaintiffs blocking enforcement of California’s Unsafe Handgun Act. The case, Boland v. Bonta, was filed shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. The court issued the preliminary injunction today.

“This order is a victory for lawful gun ownership in California. For too long, the Second Amendment has been significantly infringed upon by elected officials who have taken every opportunity to put roadblocks in front of law-abiding citizens seeking to exercise their Second Amendment rights,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “The order is the first step in what will be a protracted legal battle, but it is a significant win. NSSF has long contended that California’s Unsafe Handgun Act is an unconstitutional infringement denying Californians their ability to legally purchase the handguns that would best suit their needs. The court is correctly applying the holdings of the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision that the Second Amendment is the only test when it comes to lawful firearm ownership and the holdings of Heller that firearms in common use are protected by the Second Amendment.”

Boland v. Bonta, brought also by California Rifle & Pistol Association and Chuck Michel of Michel & Associates, challenged the California’s Unsafe Handgun Act that requires all new models of pistols sold in the state to be equipped with a chamber-loaded indicator, a magazine disconnect mechanism and be capable of imparting a microstamp from the handgun’s firing pin on the primer of an expended cartridge case. That final requirement is technologically impossible.

Microstamping firing pin
Image of a .45 caliber firing pin after 1000 rounds fired (courtesy Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners Journal)

NSSF testified when it was debated in California’s legislature that it was impossible to meet such a requirement. The patent-holder on microstamping technology, Todd Lizotte, admitted that microstamping is unreliable, stating, “…legitimate questions exist related to both the technical aspects, production costs, and database management associated with microstamping that should be addressed before wide scale implementation is legislatively mandated.” NSSF also provided important testimony at the hearing that the court relied upon in rendering its decision.

“The microstamping provision requires handguns to have a particular feature that is simply not commercially available or even feasible to implement on a mass scale,” the court’s order reads. This is a fact that NSSF has long maintained, and all peer-reviewed studies have reached the same conclusion.

Microstamping can be easily defeated by dragging a nail file over the tip of a firing pin or replacing the firing pin. However, the requirement was certified by then-Attorney General Kamala Harris.

Since its certification, California’s list of handguns certified for sale has dwindled. No new models have been added to California’s approved list since 2013, and models available for sale have fallen 75 percent, from 976 handgun models to under 250 in 2022, when models with similar paint schemes are taken into consideration.

Previous Post
Next Post

31 COMMENTS

      • In some Mexico towns, CHILDREN AS YOUNG AS FIVE are being armed by their parents to protect the town from joe biden funded drug cartels.
        ==
        YES, AS YOUNG AS FIVE (5) KIDS IN MEXICO ARE BEING ARMED TO PROTECT THE TOWNS AGAINST THE DRUG CARTELS.
        =
        I wonder if this means they will bring back the CADET CORP of armed students in every high school in the USA?
        MILLIONS OF 12 TO 16 YEAR OLDS UNDER ARMS IN EVERY HIGH SCHOOL AND EVEN INTO COLLEGE, WERE THE CADET CORP OF ARMED STUDENTS.
        THEN EVERY JUNE THEY WOULD MARCH UNDER ARMS FROM SCHOOL TO REVIEWING AREA TO BE INSPECTED AND GIVEN AWARDS FOR THEIR EXCELLENCE IN TRAINING.
        OH TO DREAM ……………….

    • Didn’t King George III say the same thing about the flintlocks used by the Patriots and so because the Patriots used “unsafe flintlocks”, WE ARE NOT A LEGITIMATE NATION???
      =
      Further, the Patriots did not have “flintlock” licenses nor “revolt” license which also make the actions of the Patriots illegal.
      =
      We are not a legal nation then.
      =
      I ONLY BRING THIS UP IN SARCASM FOR WHEN THE “NO LICENSE NECESSARY – REVOLUTIONARY CARRY”………….. CEASE TO EXIST???
      =
      WHEN DID THE NEED FOR A LICENSE NULLIFIY WHAT THE PATRIOTS DID?
      WHEN??

  1. Good to see the 9th circuit area challenges move forward. 3rd 4th and 1st will be interesting to see what gets taken up.

  2. imo…Trump has done indirectly more for the POTG and the rest of the gun owning American public than any other president in modern history. Perhaps period.

      • you are jive talking…Bump Stocks were sacrificed which kept other much more desirable products off the congressional chopping block. Had Congress called the shots and not POTUS DJT there would not have been the recent court ruling to block/reverse the ban.

  3. “The order is the first step in what will be a protracted legal battle…”

    You got that right. Buckle in and make sure you brought plenty of snacks. It’s going to be a long drive ’til we get there, kids.

  4. I just can’t understand how California socialist-democrats endangered so many law enforcement officers and citizens by excepting officers from the ‘Unsafe Handgun Act?

    • And more so allowing their officers to use unsafe guns lacking the same safety features civilians must use. Shouldn’t the police use the safest guns according to the law?

      Note this is positively dripping with seething sarcasm. I’m aware of the LEO carve outs in the law.

  5. I have to wonder if the CA lege will pull the same shit that NYC did by re-writing the law to get around the ruling, yet keep the restrictions in place.

    • Premature to say. The State will likely appeal the preliminary injunction and request a stay pending appeal (which odds are will be granted). Regardless of of affirmance or reversal, the decision will result in a remand and trial on the permanent injunction, and which final order, regardless of who prevails, will be followed by yet another appeal to the Ninth, and maybe an appeal to the Supreme Court if the plaintiffs lose.

      Meanwhile, the State’s appeal of the various preliminary injunctions issued as to the new NY carry law were heard Monday, but I have yet to hear any commentary about the argument.

      • No idea if there is even a timeline for when we should hear about Monday’s hearing re decision but barring some unexpected display of integrity I expect an appeal for one reason or another. I doubt the sign needed to carry in a business will stand but who knows with the rest.

    • MICHAEL,

      No need to wonder – the answer is obvious. NY, CA, NJ, IL and other ‘blue’ states will continue violating our rights until they are forced to stop. No telling when that will be.

        • I knew it was – I read your comments. I was just making a “rhetorical comment” to your rhetorical comment.

          The part that I’m still trying to get my head around is the way the Leftist legislatures in blue states simply IGNORE contrary law, SCOTUS decisions, state supreme court decisions, etc. If a law will advance their Leftist agenda, they’ll push it, and constitutionality, or conflict with existing law, means nothing.

  6. So now it goes to the apelet court, then en banc, then SCOTUS. These cases should be epedited now. They can’t use waiting for Bruen as an excuse to drag their feet.
    Will the ninth circuit chance getting smacked around by SCOTUS after the initial ruling clearly defined it’s application against the Bruen decision?
    I am wondering if it makes more sense to take the L, and keep other laws that could fall from this going to SCOTUS in play in other states. In the end it is simply slowing the inevitable.
    Bruen was the nuclear bomb of opinions on gun rights. It demanded strict scrutiny, along with other items which clearly sets forth guidance for other courts to follow.
    I seriously want to be there to see the massive influx
    of new firearms into the states. The manufactures will need to start working 24/7 to keep up with demand.

    • The 9th has proven, time and again, that they cannot be taught. They work tirelessly to delay, deny and obfuscate. Each day that they can delay our rights is a plus for them.

    • Daniel,

      We’ll probably never know, but my personal speculation is that Thomas wanted to give them enough rope to hang themselves. Makes it more difficult for them to claim they didn’t get a fair shot at presenting their “case” (such as it is). It extends the process, but I think (hope???) it makes it easier to, at some point, just shut the whole thing down. “We already issued our ruling. We gave you a chance to explain why what we did wasn’t subject to your ruling. You failed. Now eff off and expire.”, and just start denying cert to any appeal of a pro 2A ruling, and granting cert to any typical 9th Circus idiocy.

  7. So what is to stop California officials from merely ignoring this judge’s orders? Hell, Obama did it all the time…when a judge or some other official ruled against him, he simply did what he wanted anyway. There is nothing to stop Newsome from enacting more gun control, and/or doubling down on what has already been enacted.

    • This is the very type of thing that gave us a President Trump. The left doesn’t seem to understand that. They despise Trump so much but are oblivious to the fact that it is their lawlessness that brought him out.

  8. A win for the good guys, BUT you know Cali will appeal to the 9th Circuit and from there to SCOTUS.

  9. As for that firing pin bit, you could always come up with your own “code” that yours stamps. For example:

    USA, †, :), +, or even BANG!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here