arrow_back Back to App

Opposition to Mandatory Firearm Microstamping Technology

The House of Representatives opposes mandates requiring firearm manufacturers to include unproven microstamping technology. They believe these requirements are costly, ineffective, and infringe upon citizens' Second Amendment rights to bear arms.
Key points
Mandatory microstamping technology is deemed costly and unproven, increasing firearm prices for citizens.
Prohibiting firearms without this feature is seen as an infringement on citizens' Second Amendment rights.
Manufacturers state the technology is impossible to implement and will not enhance public safety.
article Official text account_balance Process page
Expired
Citizen Poll
No votes cast
Additional Information
Print number: 118_HRES_244
Sponsor: Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1]
Process start date: 2023-03-22
Lustra uses Artificial Intelligence. Verify details in source documents.
Summarized by: gemini-2.5-flash-preview-05-20
Source data: api.congress.gov
AI work logs for this document launch

OFFICIAL LEGAL TITLE

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 punitive, and the prohibition of firearms without such features is an infringement on the rights of citizens under the Second Amendment.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

What is the official ID of this bill?

The official print number for this legislation is 118_HRES_244.

Which chamber initiated this legislation?

This legislation was initiated in the House of Representatives.

When did the legislative process begin?

The process officially started on 2023-03-22.

What are the main provisions?

Key points include:

  • Mandatory microstamping technology is deemed costly and unproven, increasing firearm prices for citizens.
  • Prohibiting firearms without this feature is seen as an infringement on citizens' Second Amendment rights.
  • Manufacturers state the technology is impossible to implement and will not enhance public safety.
What is the specific legal status?

The current status is Expired.

Where can I read the full text of this legislation?

The full official text is available at: View full text

Who is the primary sponsor?

The primary sponsor is Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1].

What is the latest detailed status?

The latest detailed status is: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Is this summary verified?

Yes. This content was analyzed by AI and verified by the Lustra Judge System on 2025-12-24.

CATEGORIES

Courts and Law Security