Hello,
Brushmore has it right. The law is doing exactly what it was intended to do.
The whole concept of Microstamping is ludicrous. The idea that stamping a unique identifier on the fired case will aid in criminal investigations is silly. To begin with, the technology is easily defeated by altering parts with simple tools like a nail file or sandpaper, or simply replacing them with the ready surplus of non-modified parts. Heck, even a fistful of random cases scattered at a crime scene is enough to queer the process. Let's not even talk about the vast number of guns without the technology floating around out there--enough to keep criminals afloat for dozens of generations before they even need to start thinking about using a microstamped gun.
Of course, all of this assumes that there is value in finding out who the serial number is linked to. As we all know, guns used in crime are usually obtained through theft or the black market, so there is no reason to believe that the person on file is the one who committed the crime with the gun. Probably 99% of the instances where guns are traced using Microstamping will yield nothing but the name of the person who previously had his gun stolen.
This law was never seriously intended as a crime-fighting solution. It was marketed that way to the sheeple, but that was never its intent. The law was simply designed to make these guns more expensive and difficult to obtain, so that the state could reduce the number of guns sold in California. Having companies like Ruger and Smith & Wesson (with many others to follow suit in the coming months) withdraw from the market was not an unintended consequence, but rather the prime objective.
The CA Attorney General is on shaky ground with her proclamation that the microstamping technology is "unencumbered" and therefore available to all vendors in the market to use. It's not, of course, but a minor detail like that won't stop her from issuing an unlawful order. She follows the White House Method, in which an unlawful or unconstitutional edict is issued, then when it is questioned, the Executive says, "So what, what are you going to do about it?" They can do that with confidence, knowing that they will get away with it almost every time.
Incidentally, the AG is no friend of law enforcement, having argued against capital punishment in the case of a convicted cop killer, and having been a constant obstacle to policing in the city she came from. If Smith & Wesson or Ruger or anybody else had the cajones to cut off CA law enforcement from sales and support (as they should), the AG would probably be pleased as punch. I figure she would rather have LE disarmed anyhow.
V/R
Mike