In the crime-free, gun-controlled utopia of California, guns available for sale to civilians are subject to something called the Unsafe Handgun Act. The law mandates that guns sold there have three features: 1) a magazine disconnect safety, 2) a loaded chamber indicator and…wait for it…3) microstamping capability.

Gun models sold before the law was enacted were grandfathered in. But since microstamping doesn’t work and no manufacturers produce guns capable of uniquely marking casings, the law has resulted in a gradual reduction of the number of guns available for sale in the state. As far as California’s concerned, that’s not a bug, it’s a feature!

A federal lawsuit, Pena v. Lindley, argued that result constitutes a violation of Californians’ Second Amendment rights.

Earlier this year, the Ninth Circus, as it’s done so many times in the past, disregarded the Supreme Court’s Heller decision and ruled that the Unsafe Handgun Act is A-OK as far as they’re concerned. Second Amendment and Heller be damned.

The panel held that the requirements for a chamber load indicator and a magazine detachment mechanism reasonably fit with California’s interest in public safety. The panel further held that California had met its burden of showing that the microstamping requirement was reasonably tailored to address the substantial problem of untraceable bullets at crime scenes and the value of a reasonable means of identification. The panel rejected plaintiffs’ claim that they have a constitutional right to purchase a particular handgun and their claim that the provisions violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Now, the Second Amendment Foundation has filed for Supreme Court review of the Pena decision. Here’s SAF’s press release: