Handgun Roster Freeze:
How Microstamping Stopped New Pistol Approvals

Why can't I buy a new-model pistol in California, and is the roster ever going to change?

How the Roster Works

California Penal Code Sections 31900-32110^[1] establish the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale (commonly called the "Safe Handgun Roster"). No dealer may sell a handgun that is not on the roster. To be listed, a manufacturer must submit the model for independent testing (drop safety and firing tests) and pay certification fees. Certifications must be renewed annually or the model drops off.

The Microstamping Requirement

AB 1471 (2007) added a microstamping requirement to the roster criteria: new semiautomatic pistols must be capable of "imprinting a microscopic array of characters" on fired cartridge cases in two or more places on the internal surface of the firearm. This requirement was contingent on the technology being available, and the California DOJ certified availability in May 2013.^[2]

Since May 2013, no manufacturer has submitted a new semiautomatic pistol model for roster certification. The reason is straightforward: the technology to reliably imprint in two places does not exist in commercially viable form. Smith & Wesson, Glock, Sig Sauer, and other major manufacturers have all declined to develop microstamping-capable pistols for the California market alone.

The Shrinking Roster

The roster is a one-way ratchet. Models drop off when manufacturers decline to pay renewal fees or make any change to the model (even cosmetic changes like a new color require full re-certification, which triggers the microstamping requirement). In 2013, the roster contained over 1,000 models. By early 2026, it had shrunk to approximately 950 models, many of which are variants of the same base design. Entire categories of modern handguns -- including striker-fired pistols with current safety features, optics-ready slides, and improved ergonomics -- are unavailable through retail channels.

Boland v. Bonta

In Boland v. Bonta (S.D. Cal., Case No. 3:22-cv-01421), plaintiffs challenge the roster under the Second Amendment as interpreted by NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022). The core argument is that the microstamping requirement functions as a de facto ban on new handgun models, which cannot be justified by historical analogue. The case survived a motion to dismiss in 2023. Judge Cormac J. Carney of the Central District of California is presiding. Discovery is ongoing. No trial date has been set as of early 2026.

The state argues that the roster is a commercial regulation, not a burden on the right to keep and bear arms, because consumers can still purchase rostered models. Plaintiffs respond that permitting only obsolescent designs while banning all modern alternatives is constitutionally indistinguishable from a ban.

AB 2847 (2020): Reduced Microstamping Standard

AB 2847, signed into law on September 29, 2020,^[3] made two significant changes to the roster framework, effective July 1, 2022:

1. Reduced microstamping locations: The requirement was reduced from two locations to one location on the firing pin or internal surface of the firearm. Legislative findings noted that single-point imprints allow successful identification in 97% of cases.
2. Three-for-one removal rule: For each new semiautomatic pistol added to the roster, manufacturers must remove exactly three older semiautomatic pistol models that lack one or more of the current safety features. This provision was intended to accelerate the transition to newer, safer designs but was criticized by gun rights organizations as further shrinking available options.

As of early 2026, no manufacturer has submitted a new model under the revised single-point standard. Industry sources indicate that even single-point microstamping remains commercially unviable at scale.

SB 452 (2023): Standalone Microstamping Framework

SB 452, signed on September 26, 2023,^[4] took a different approach by creating a standalone microstamping regime outside the roster system. SB 452 established Penal Code Sections 27531 through 27534.2, which include:

- A DOJ investigation into technological viability (report due by March 1, 2025)
- Performance standards for microstamping components (due September 1, 2025)
- A licensing system for entities producing microstamping components
- DOJ grants or contracts to ensure component availability
- A determination by July 1, 2027 of whether microstamping-enabled firearms are "available"
- Sales restrictions on non-microstamping semiautomatic pistols beginning January 1, 2028, contingent on the availability determination

SB 452 did not change the number of microstamping locations required. It created a separate regulatory pathway alongside the existing roster framework. The DOJ released its microstamping technological viability report in July 2025.^[5]

Bottom Line

Settled: The roster exists and is enforceable. The microstamping requirement has prevented any new semiautomatic pistol additions since 2013. The roster continues to shrink annually. AB 2847 (2020) reduced the microstamping requirement from two locations to one and created the three-for-one removal rule.

Unsettled: Whether the roster (with or without the revised microstamping standard) survives Second Amendment challenge under Bruen. Whether AB 2847's reduced requirement or SB 452's standalone framework will result in any manufacturer submissions. Whether the SB 452 January 2028 sales restriction will take effect.

Watch: Boland v. Bonta is the key case. It is before Judge Cormac Carney of the Central District of California (C.D. Cal.). Any ruling will likely be appealed to the Ninth Circuit regardless of outcome.