PDA

View Full Version : Update on Para-Ord


I. M. Nobody
07-28-2008, 5:57 PM
I talked to the Para people today and was told the state has some issues with the sights they are installing on the pistols. The lady I talked with said the problem should be fixed in about 3 to 4 weeks.

I wonder if Cal will ever approve any new guns. If they stop the sales because the manufacture made a cosmetic change were screwed. I guess good old Jerry Brown is still the antigun jerk he always was.

RRangel
07-28-2008, 6:01 PM
I wonder if Cal will ever approve any new guns. If they stop the sales because the manufacture made a cosmetic change were screwed. I guess good old Jerry Brown is still the antigun jerk he always was.

Sights are not so relevant to this particular law. I bet the person you talked to doesn't know details. Having the state approve of any true newly designed guns may be highly doubtful with the magazine disconnect, and chamber load indicator deal. I don't think there's a whole lot of California approved designs floating around. The good news is that the "not unsafe" gun list may not pass the smell test in this post Heller world.

BillCA
07-28-2008, 6:33 PM
I talked to the Para people today and was told the state has some issues with the sights they are installing on the pistols. The lady I talked with said the problem should be fixed in about 3 to 4 weeks.

Define "some issues"...
Could it be that PO started installing a different sight that was significantly shorter/taller lighter/heavier than what was on their "approved" guns?

Insofar as I can tell, there is no requirement mandated for sights on a firearm. What would cause DOJ to question it would be one that is much different than what's on an approved gun. Then they may claim it needs another "drop test".

bwiese
07-28-2008, 6:59 PM
Frank,

I'll chat w/you tomorrow.

Sights/grips are NOT controlled for Rostering.

It could be, however, that ParaOrd is playing model # games which could require relisting even if it's identically the same gun. If the gun is the same except for sights/grips, they should be able to revert and assign the same model # legally and then figure another way of denoting the sights.

An fictitious example of a catalog entry may clarify:

..."bad" way:
Model 1234 (CA approved/Rostered, with Millet Sights) - can be sold in CA
Model 5678 (not Rostered, identical gun to #1234, except Novak sights) - can't be sold in CA

... "good" way:
Model 1234, on CA Roster
... with Millet sights option - can be sold in CA
... with Novak sights option - same gun w/different sights

Even if they had a separate model # that only differed in grips/sights they could just file a "duplicate model" application and a $200 (?) fee and not have to worry about another drop test, loaded chamber indicator, etc.

Lotsa gun companies - with Springfield Armory being the worst offender - are very stupid about their model numbering process and change #s every time they sneeze. They just need to have auxiliary designators for sights/grips.

This ain't Jerry Brown's fault. The law is what it is and he's obligated to run it that way. It could be a LOT worse.

[BTW, this law was originally brought to you thru the good offices of Gerry Upholt of CRPA & his girlfriend Kathy Lynch because they wanted to protect large chain dealer from competition from little FFLs.]