Impossibility can occasionally excuse noncompliance with a statute, but in such circumstances, the excusal constitutes an interpretation of the statute in accordance with the Legislature’s intent, not an invalidation of the statute.
California State Supreme Court Justice
NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
Ct.App. 5 F072310
Super. Ct. No. 14CECG00068
[See also California Supreme Court Upholds Bullet Micro-Stamping Law and Laws That Are ‘Impossible’ to Follow Can Still Be Constitutional, Says California Court
The Legislature amended the definition of unsafe handguns to include “all semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015 [if] not designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched or otherwise imprinted in two or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired.
The manufactures said this requirement was impossible to comply with. The State Supreme court just said that doesn’t invalidate the law. You may not have to comply with the law, but the law still stands.
What I didn’t see in a quick scan through the ruling was whether the California DOJ will be required to ignore that part of the law when the test new guns in regards to whether the guns are safe or not and will people be able to purchase new guns which do not meet the microstamping requirements.
My thought is this is crazy talk. Just get out of there. These people are nuts.—Joe]