,,iv  #aacth ,,congress  #b;d ,session  
,h4 ,,res4 #gcb  ,,in ,,the ,,house ,,of
 ,,representatives  ,september #ag1     
#bjad ,mr4 ,la,malfa submitted the      
following resolution2 which was referred
 to the ,committee on the ,judiciary    
,,resolution  ,expressing the sense of  
the ,house of ,representatives that     
mandates imposed on manufacturers       
requiring inclusion of unproven and     
unreliable technology in firearms is    
costly and punitive1 and the prohibition
 of firearms without such features is an
 infringement on the rights of citizens 
under the ,second ,amendment4  ,whereas 
,california has implemented a law       
requiring firearms manufacturers to     
micro laser-engrave a gun's make1 model1
 and serial number on two or more       
internal parts of each semiautomatic    
pistol so that1 in theory1 the          
information is imprinted on the         
cartridge casing in two locations when  
the firearm is fired2 ,whereas other    
,states and the ,district of ,columbia  

are considering similar mandates2       
,whereas based on the current state of  
this nascent technology1 it is          
impossible to microstamp a firearm in   
two locations and have the required     
identifying information imprinted on the
 cartridge casing when fired2 ,whereas  
the scientific literature concludes     
there is no existing microstamping      
technology that will reliably1          
consistently1 and legibly imprint the   
required identifying information from   
the tip of the firing pin of a          
semi-automatic pistol on to the         
cartridge casing it fires2 ,whereas one 
study found that the impressions were   
not decipherable nearly #ej percent of  
the time2 ,whereas the holder of the    
patent for the technology was a coauthor
 of peer-reviewed study that concluded1 
legitimate questions exist related to   
both the technical aspects1 production  
costs1 and database management          
associated with microstamping that      
should be addressed before wide scale   

implementation is legislatively         
mandated2 ,whereas a subsequent study   
noted the use of expensive scanning     
electron microscope 7,,sem7 technology  
still failed to solve the problems      
associated with microstamping2 ,whereas 
the microstamping process is costly and 
time-consuming1 and threatens the       
employment of thousands in the firearms 
industry2 ,whereas the passage of       
legislation requiring its use would     
raise the cost of legal firearms by well
 over #bjj per gun for both law-abiding 
citizens seeking to exercise their      
,second ,amendment right and for ,united
 ,states law enforcement personnel2 and 
,whereas manufacturers have publicly    
stated it is impossible for any         
manufacturer to comply with the         
provisions of the ,california law which 
are invalid1 that cannot be enforced1   
and that will not contribute to         
improving public safety3 ,now1          
therefore1 be it  ,that it is the sense 
of the ,house of ,representatives that--

  7#a7 mandates imposed on manufacturers
 requiring inclusion of unproven and    
unreliable microstamping technology in  
firearms is costly and punitive2 and    
7#b7 the prohibition of firearms without
 such features is an infringement on the
 rights of citizens under the ,second   
,amendment4