Don't flame me, but, other than the fact that this requirement, if it passes, will probably not be very effective in its stated goals, what's the big deal?
That was my original thought, but I got flamed like crazy!
Most oppose it on the grounds that it is an unattainable goal, and there to outlaws semiautos . Clearly, though, the technology exists imperfectly for new guns, but it exists. If we accept that it at least exists, then the argument becomes, "at what cost?". Additional costs would price some out of the market, which makes new handgun ownership available to the elite only.
Others oppose on the grounds that it is a do-nothing proposal because BG and good guys alike are going to file off the microstamps to avoid ever being entangled in a police investigation due to fired brass.
The nature of things slamming against other things is that... sooner or later... they wear out. Even the U.S. mint has to change dies now and again. Firing pins and ejectors microstamps WILL wear down. When it happens... what next?
I'll repeat with caveats: In a perfect world where all guns are retrofitted for free, where the technology is a no-cost addition, where microstamps never wear out, where parts are replaced indefinitely for free, where brass only holds the last stamp of the gun that fired it, etc. etc. etc, then I could not care less about this legislation.
But I do see the point that if guns without microstamping (i.e. all semis currently out there) were declared "unsafe guns", if bending a firing pin meant a $100 replacement for a microstamped version, if wearing out your microstamp meant a $100 replacement, if microstamping added $200 to the price of every semiauto, if people were caught up in litigation because some crook used their brass in reloads to commit crimes, etc, then this is very bad legislation.
Since I prescribe to the side that says "any bad unintended consequences of law will occur and will be used against the innocent and law-abiding", then I am against proposal as well.