A federal judge on Monday blocked California from enforcing a state law requiring new semiautomatic handguns to have certain safety features, finding it violates the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
I believe the OPs point was that because one of the features they required is not possible, and the law required all the features to be implemented, the intent of the lawmakers was not safety.
But let’s assume that the feature is possible and that politicians always have the best of intents. Microstamping itself does not prevent malicious or accidental use. It provides a detective value for after the fact review, rather than a preventative value. So in the most technical of ways, the OP has a defendable position in my opinion.
My problem with it is basically the same as OP’s: it makes guns more expensive, which means only wealthier people can legally own them. On top of that, the technology is presently only available from a single company, making it even more expensive.
I believe the OPs point was that because one of the features they required is not possible, and the law required all the features to be implemented, the intent of the lawmakers was not safety.
But let’s assume that the feature is possible and that politicians always have the best of intents. Microstamping itself does not prevent malicious or accidental use. It provides a detective value for after the fact review, rather than a preventative value. So in the most technical of ways, the OP has a defendable position in my opinion.
It is definitely possible, and has been done
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microstamping
My problem with it is basically the same as OP’s: it makes guns more expensive, which means only wealthier people can legally own them. On top of that, the technology is presently only available from a single company, making it even more expensive.