PDA

View Full Version : California roster as it pertains to finish...


hawk1
05-31-2009, 11:54 AM
Are we having issues importing handguns into California that are on the roster, but differ in cosmetic finish such as color, grips, etc?

Hopi
05-31-2009, 12:08 PM
Are we having issues importing handguns into California that are on the roster, but differ in cosmetic finish such as color, grips, etc?

Your question is worded a little awkwardly....if the gun is on the roster, there is no problem importing it.

The problem is that some guns are exactly the same as other on-roster handguns, but as you've said, they differ in finish only, and as such they are required to be added to the roster independently.

I'll try to find an example...

This should add some good info... (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=161174&highlight=safe+handgun+roster) and here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2140906&postcount=23)

bwiese
05-31-2009, 12:17 PM
If a particular color, finish or color combination is not on the Roster, it can't be sold by an FFL in CA (except via PPT, intrafamily, etc.) Just because one variant (say, blued) is Rostered does not imply others (parkerized, stainless, desert brown) are.

The mfgr has to submit and pay fees for all variants to be Rostered - there is "similar gun" shortcut that allows Rostering of variant guns with only finish changes. [Changes such as barrel length and caliber, types of safety, etc. are considered substantive differences and would require full Rostering procedure - drop/firing test, etc.]

Grips & sights changes do not change Rostering status. However, many gun mfgrs change their SKU number for deltas like fixed vs. adjustable sights, etc. and thus that arguably ends up falling out of the Rostered category (since the other SKU# was the Rostered entity). Companies like Springfield Armory and ParaOrdnance are particularly terrible on this: they change SKU numbers everytime they sneeze even though the underlying gun is identical (package variants with different grips, sights, extra mags, free holster, etc. all have different SKU#s from the entity that was actually Rostered).

And the current CGF+SAF "Roster lawsuit" involves exactly this claim: one purchaser could not acquire a non-Rostered Springfield Armory Bi-tone XD9 pistol, even though other essentially identical variant(s) were Rostered.

hawk1
05-31-2009, 7:30 PM
If a particular color, finish or color combination is not on the Roster, it can't be sold by an FFL in CA (except via PPT, intrafamily, etc.) Just because one variant (say, blued) is Rostered does not imply others (parkerized, stainless, desert brown) are.

The mfgr has to submit and pay fees for all variants to be Rostered - there is "similar gun" shortcut that allows Rostering of variant guns with only finish changes. [Changes such as barrel length and caliber, types of safety, etc. are considered substantive differences and would require full Rostering procedure - drop/firing test, etc.]

Grips & sights changes do not change Rostering status. However, many gun mfgrs change their SKU number for deltas like fixed vs. adjustable sights, etc. and thus that arguably ends up falling out of the Rostered category (since the other SKU# was the Rostered entity). Companies like Springfield Armory and ParaOrdnance are particularly terrible on this: they change SKU numbers everytime they sneeze even though the underlying gun is identical (package variants with different grips, sights, extra mags, free holster, etc. all have different SKU#s from the entity that was actually Rostered).

And the current CGF+SAF "Roster lawsuit" involves exactly this claim: one purchaser could not acquire a non-Rostered Springfield Armory Bi-tone XD9 pistol, even though other essentially identical variant(s) were Rostered.

I ran across this and I think it reads that color/finish should not be an issue.
Bill, maybe you and Gene can run this through and see that we no longer have this issue.
Does this mean the manufacturer must ask for the inclusion or cosmetic differences are automatically included?

12131.5. (a) A firearm shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements
of subdivision (a) of Section 12131 if another firearm made by the
same manufacturer is already listed and the unlisted firearm differs
from the listed firearm only in one or more of the following
features:
(1) Finish, including, but not limited to, bluing, chrome-plating,
oiling, or engraving.
(2) The material from which the grips are made.
(3) The shape or texture of the grips, so long as the difference
in grip shape or texture does not in any way alter the dimensions,
material, linkage, or functioning of the magazine well, the barrel,
the chamber, or any of the components of the firing mechanism of the
firearm.
(4) Any other purely cosmetic feature that does not in any way
alter the dimensions, material, linkage, or functioning of the
magazine well, the barrel, the chamber, or any of the components of
the firing mechanism of the firearm.
(b) Any manufacturer seeking to have a firearm listed under this
section shall provide to the Department of Justice all of the
following:
(1) The model designation of the listed firearm.
(2) The model designation of each firearm that the manufacturer
seeks to have listed under this section.
(3) A statement, under oath, that each unlisted firearm for which
listing is sought differs from the listed firearm only in one or more
of the ways identified in subdivision (a) and is in all other
respects identical to the listed firearm.
(c) The department may, in its discretion and at any time, require
a manufacturer to provide to the department any model for which
listing is sought under this section, to determine whether the model
complies with the requirements of this section.

ke6guj
05-31-2009, 7:43 PM
I ran across this and I think it reads that color/finish should not be an issue.
Bill, maybe you and Gene can run this through and see that we no longer have this issue.
Does this mean the manufacturer must ask for the inclusion or cosmetic differences are automatically included?

12131.5.
(b) Any manufacturer seeking to have a firearm listed under this
section shall provide to the Department of Justice all of the
following:
(1) The model designation of the listed firearm.
(2) The model designation of each firearm that the manufacturer
seeks to have listed under this section.
(3) A statement, under oath, that each unlisted firearm for which
listing is sought differs from the listed firearm only in one or more
of the ways identified in subdivision (a) and is in all other
respects identical to the listed firearm.
(c) The department may, in its discretion and at any time, require
a manufacturer to provide to the department any model for which
listing is sought under this section, to determine whether the model
complies with the requirements of this section.The manufacturer must request it, and pay the yearly listing fees.

hawk1
05-31-2009, 8:11 PM
If they ask for it to be listed under that section 12131.5, I don't see where they are allowed to charge any additional fee's other than the amount charged for the first listing.

liketoshoot
05-31-2009, 8:20 PM
If they ask for it to be listed under that section 12131.5, I don't see where they are allowed to charge any additional fee's other than the amount charged for the first listing.

Because the state wants $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ that is what, where, and why.

hawk1
05-31-2009, 8:28 PM
Because the state wants $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ that is what, where, and why.

I want money too, but that doesn't give me the right to remove it fom your wallet just because you have it open...

bwiese
05-31-2009, 8:48 PM
It's a Rostering or listing fee - the savings for 'essentially duplicate' guns is not having to do the drop test etc (and perhaps not having to have mag disco/LCI).

The behaviors relating to filing for Rostering are in regulatory code.

12voltguy
05-31-2009, 9:10 PM
I want money too, but that doesn't give me the right to remove it fom your wallet just because you have it open...

because you are not a politicion, they can:mad:

Librarian
05-31-2009, 9:21 PM
It's a Rostering or listing fee - the savings for 'essentially duplicate' guns is not having to do the drop test etc (and perhaps not having to have mag disco/LCI).

The behaviors relating to filing for Rostering are in regulatory code.
And not submitting 3 copies of the gun.

If it is to be listed, it must be accompanied by the fee and the statement that the one to be listed is different only in those 'minor' characteristics.