New York and New Jersey are attempting to join California on its quixotic project to make microstamping a reality. It’s not going well.

On Thursday, Politico reported that the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office is five months behind on its statutory deadline to determine the “technological viability” of microstamping in guns.

“Work on the microstamping regulations and investigation is proceeding and will be completed as soon as possible,” Michael Symons, an AG spokesperson, told the outlet. “Every effort has been made to implement the microstamping law as quickly as possible and much of the work necessary to reach that goal has been completed. This includes reviewing the viability of the technology, which is currently underway.”

That report comes after Gothamist first reported the Empire State was having the same exact issues with its own recently-passed microstamping requirement.

“A New York state law requiring microstamping capability in new pistols is already five months behind schedule, with final results from a required study of the technology not expected until later this year,” the outlet reported.

The state’s Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS), the agency tasked with certifying the technological viability of microstamping, was supposed to conclude by December of last year. Six months later, the agency is struggling to fulfill its obligation.

“To date, this working group has compiled and reviewed scientific materials, held discussions with various stakeholders, and requested additional information,” Janine Kava, a DCJS spokesperson, told the site. “However, given the scope of the inquiry and the volume of data to review, DCJS is continuing to determine whether such technology is viable.”

The lack of progress from both states is unsurprising. Microstamping, as imagined by policymakers, simply does not exist as a commercially viable technology.

In theory, the technology would function by using one or more parts of the internals of a firearm to imprint a unique, identifiable code on spent ammunition to aid law enforcement investigations. In practice, no commercial gun produced anywhere in the world has implemented it. That includes places like Europe, a continent with no shortage of firearms manufacturers and a political culture far more receptive to gun regulations than typically found in America.

Of course, New York and New Jersey need not look to Europe for flashing warning signs. They could look west to the state that pioneered the microstamping mandate.

California first passed its microstamping law in 2007 but did not enforce the mandate until 2013. That’s when then-Attorney General Kamala Harris (D.) decided that microstamping technology was “available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions.” In other words, a lack of encumbrance by patent law, not any demonstration of commercial feasibility, was enough for the state of California to ban the retail sale of handguns without microstamping.

As a result, no new firearms have been added to California’s roster of handguns considered “safe” for legal sale since 2013, functionally banning modern handgun sales in the state. Although, police officers in the state are exempt from microstamping and other “safety” requirements tied to the roster.

Some supporters of microstamping have charged that the experience in California is the result of obstinate gun manufacturers refusing to include the technology rather than an indictment of the technology itself. However, even the most safety-oriented gun companies have echoed the complaints about its unworkability.

Kai Kloepfer, founder of the new biometric “smart gun” company Biofire, told The Reload his firm is unable to incorporate any form of microstamping in its designs. That’s despite his product being self-evidently tailored toward gun safety and his willingness to produce a version of its gun that includes a loaded chamber indicator and magazine disconnect mechanism—requirements unique to California’s handgun roster.

“Biofire does not have microstamping in it,” Kloepfer told The Reload. “Similar to every other manufacturer, we have not seen a viable approach there.”

It’s a restriction that proved onerous enough to catch the attention of District Judge Cormac Carney, who issued a preliminary injunction against California’s handgun roster law earlier this March.

“Californians have the constitutional right to acquire and use state-of-the-art handguns to protect themselves,” Carney wrote in his decision. “They should not be forced to settle for decade-old models of handguns to ensure that they remain safe inside or outside the home.”

The government of California seemed to agree, at least tacitly, with Judge Carney’s characterization of its mandate as likely unconstitutional. The state requested, and was granted, a stay on the injunction regarding some of its handgun safety requirements—but did not contest the microstamping verdict. As such, microstamping remains judicially blocked while the state fights the order in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The statute directing the research of the New Jersey AG’s office was signed into law last July by Governor Phil Murphy (D.). Upon his signature, it put the Attorney General on a 180-day clock to determine if microstamping is technologically viable, at which point all firearms retailers in the state would be required to make at least one model of microstamping-equipped firearm available for purchase as part of their regular inventory. In this sense, it is far less stringent than California’s requirement and is more akin to New Jersey’s current iteration of its “smart gun” mandate.

On the other hand, New York chose to go further than the California approach in its attempt to bring the technology to the northeast, thanks to a law signed by Governor Kathy Hochul (D.) last June. Should the state’s DCJS certify it as viable, a four-year clock will start before its full mandate takes effect. At that point, any new semiautomatic handgun sold in the state must be equipped with microstamping technology. Retailers who continued to sell non-microstamping-equipped pistols after that date would be subject to fines or even misdemeanor criminal charges upon multiple violations.

What will come of the research being done into microstamping technology in New York and New Jersey remains to be seen. Given the recent media coverage highlighting their delayed rollouts and gauging the sense of urgency expressed by the public comments provided by each state’s government officials, it’s quite likely that, at the very least, the pair of states will unveil a verdict soon.

It’s difficult to see how the technology is ready for prime time, something every current and would-be handgun owner in California already knows all too well. But the political incentives of New York and New Jersey being what they are, don’t be surprised to see a green light given based on a tendentious reading of the evidence. An injunction issued against a gun-control law in a like-minded state has never tended to stop these same states from eventually copying it on their own books anyway.

Gun-rights groups will inevitably sue, adding to the growing list of gun laws New York and New Jersey will have to defend in court. The game of cat and mouse between state policymakers and gun-rights plaintiffs will continue apace.