No, this boondoggle will not make any money for the patent holder. The statute (among other provisions) required that the technology be "generally available." Technology encumbered by a patent does not meet this definition. To allow that statute to go into effect, the patent owner did not renew his patent, so CalGuns did. This worked only temporarily; the patent owner waived his patent, so he can make no money off of it. This allowed AG Kamala Harris to declare that the technology for microstamping was generally available, and thus she declared the statute to be operative. As a result, no new pistols (the law does not apply to revolvers) may be sold in Ca without compliance with the mandate, nor may pistols that have been "materially changed." To make matters worse, the AG (an avid anti-gunner) has broadly defined "material change," such that a change in the material or manufacturing method of a part is sufficient to trigger the requirement. In the case of Ruger, it changed the method of manufacture of the slide lock/slide release from forged to MIM, and found itself dumped from the roster of approved handguns. Colt has updated its manufacturing techniques, now using computer controlled milling machines, and as a consequence can sell only a Commander pistol (not affected by the change) and the Pythin revolver. And so on.
There are two pending cases attacking the microstamping law. One, sponsored by the NRA and various amici manufacturers, has attacked the provisions mandating loaded chamber indicators, mag disconnects, and the microstamping requirement, arguing that these devices do not make the firearms "safe" within the meaning of the statute as originally enacted, and the third requirement has no connection to safety at all. It lost, and the case is on appeal.
The second suit, which I have not heard about for some time, attacked only the microstamping requirement, arguing that the existing technology did not fulfill the requirements of the statute. Specifically, the statute requires that a unique identifier be stamped in two locations on a spent casing, and the fact of the matter is that the existing technology stamps the identifier only on the primer. The State argued that the law could be construed as allowing the number to be stamped in two places on the primer, an argument the judge wasn't buying. However, as there were multiple issues of disputed facts, the court set the matter for trial. I have not heard anything since. It is promising to note that the judge did not believe the state was playing a winning hand. In the interim, the law remains in effect, a motion for preliminary injunction having been denied.
