I believe the OPs point was that because one of the features they required is not possible, and the law required all the features to be implemented, the intent of the lawmakers was not safety.

But let’s assume that the feature is possible and that politicians always have the best of intents. Microstamping itself does not prevent malicious or accidental use. It provides a detective value for after the fact review, rather than a preventative value. So in the most technical of ways, the OP has a valid position in my opinion.