U.S. appeals court upholds Calif. bullet stamping law

Opponents say tech not workable, making the law a de facto ban

SAN FRANCISCO — A California requirement that new models of semiautomatic handguns stamp identifying information on bullet casings when fired is a “realworld solution” to help solve gun crimes, a divided U.S. appeals court said Friday in a decision that upheld the novel law.

The stamping requirement and two measures intended to make guns safer did not violate the 2nd Amendment because they left plenty of firearms for sale in California and were reasonable to further the state’s goal of keeping people safe, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 2-1 decision.

Gun rights advocates had argued that manufacturers didn’t have the technology to implement the stamping requirement, so the law was effectively a ban on the sale of new guns in the state.

Writing for the majority, Judge M. Margaret McKeown said the inability to buy particular guns did not infringe the 2nd Amendment right to self-defense in the home.

“Indeed, all of the plaintiffs admit that they are able to buy an operable handgun suitable for self-defense — just not the exact gun they want,” she said.

McKeown, joined by Judge J. Clifford Wallace, also rejected the argument that the stamping technology was impossible to implement.

The 9th Circuit was analyzing the law under a less rigorous judicial standard in order to reach its “policy preferences,” said Brandon Combs, executive director of the Calguns Foundation, one of the plaintiffs.

“Really what the 9th Circuit is saying and has said in other cases basically is as long as a person that is law abiding has access to one handgun inside of their home, then that’s it,” he said. “That’s the extent of their right. We think that’s quite wrong.”

In a dissenting opinion, 9th Circuit Judge Jay Bybee said there was conflicting evidence about whether the stamping requirement was technically feasible. If the state adopted a requirement that no gun manufacturer could satisfy, the law would not help the state solve handgun crimes and would illegally restrict gun purchases, he said.

Also at issue in the case were state requirements that were intended to prevent accidental discharges of handguns.