NSSF is fighting the good fight against California's handgun roster.

Pena v. Lindley

Let me start out by saying, I hope the attorneys in this case read this, there are some seriously important arguments being left out in this case. First, you completely missed the argument that, California's new safety regulations have prevented the introduction of newer, safer firearms from entering the market. For example, Glock's 3rd generation firearms are certified in California, but their 5th generation firearms are banned. It would not take much to ask a Glock representative to testify in court to the increased safety features found in newer versions of Glock handgun (or any firearm). This would weaken their argument toward increased firearm safety. Second, if you don't believe that is a legitimate argument, you can focus on the fact that the changes made between the firearms are so minute, that banning a 4th or 5th generation firearm does not serve the purpose of increased safety regulation, but instead creates an undue burden on firearms manufacturers to maintain an out of date product line for one state, and therefore infringes upon Californian citizens ability to purchase newer, safer and more effective firearms. Third, you can use the argument that if the law were to stand, the supply of available firearms available for purchase would vanish, creating dramatic price increases on available, which is an undue burden on Californian citizens who want to purchase handguns. You can use the price of new "California Compliant" AR-15 models to show the increase in cost to the consumer. Fourth, the California Constitution deems it illegal to grant special privileges to classes of citizens, and therefore allowing peace officers to purchase off roster handguns unfairly biases a class of citizens who are not peace officers. If the court refuses to hear that argument, the fact that widows, who are not peace officers, have the right to purchase those firearms, which negates the argument that off roster handguns are too unsafe for a private citizen to purchase. Fifth, you can argue that because various classes of citizens are in fact allowed to purchase off roster handguns and sell to private citizens, the State's decision to implement untimely and burdensome regulations on newly imported firearms fails to adequately provide the safety it claims to desire. Sixth, you can show that microstamping provides no added safety to the public, but only furthers the interest of the state, which is to impose justice. Urge the court to consider that when weighing the benefit to the state against the burden to the people, it is the position of the U.S. Supreme Court in D.C. v. Heller that the right belongs to the citizen, and not to the state; therefore, the court should side with the Constitutional rights of the citizen, and not the interest of the state. Seventh, Microstamping in itself does not exist, and therefore the research, development and implementation of the concept would create an additional cost to consumers above the already burdensome cost the state now imposes due to additional safety features and DROS fees. Bring an expert in from any manufacturer calculating the additional costs involved in developing the technology, the timeframe in which it would be ready, and use that it would be a clear infringement on the citizen's ability to purchase the safest and most up to date technology. Eighth, if a police agency is willing to certify a handgun as safe to use in the line of duty, then the government itself has placed a stamp of approval on the safety rating of that firearm in the meaning of safe-for-use provided by the state. All you would need is a declaration from a few law enforcement agency head clarifying to the court why their department chose the newest model of a firearm (ie. 4th Generation Glock instead of the 3rd), and this would negate the State's argument altogether as to the safe operation of the firearm.