PDA

View Full Version : Why aren't Kel-Tec pistols on the approved list?


NorCalGuy
02-22-2005, 8:25 AM
Doesn't Kel-Tec want some of the California market? Why don't they get their pistols approved?

NorCalGuy
02-22-2005, 8:25 AM
Doesn't Kel-Tec want some of the California market? Why don't they get their pistols approved?

bwiese
02-22-2005, 8:46 AM
KelTec may have just decided it's not worth the grief. They're a small company - you'd be surprised how "small" some "name" gun co's are, in physical plant size, number of employees, dollar sales volume, net profits.

CA prob is not on their marketing radar given that this is a classic legal CCW gun and that's prob the market they're addressing.

Perhaps since they're fairly low cost and compact and might be perceived by plaintiff's lawyers as rougly akin to so-called 'Sat. Nite Specials' (Jennings, Raven Arms, etc.) - putting them on a radar screen they don't want to be on, without deep pockets to defend, esp with very limited legal CCW in CA.

Bill Wiese
San Jose

jnojr
02-22-2005, 10:51 AM
On a related note, I sent Assemblyman Jay LaSuer a letter asking him to consider introducing a bill to repeal the "drop test" law for being intrusive, cumbersome, ridiculous, and leaving us in the position of appearing to say "We want the police and military to be carrying unsafe firearms". IMO, this law would be easier to repeal than the AWB.

bwiese
02-22-2005, 11:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">jnojr wrote:
...asking him to consider introducing a bill to repeal the "drop test" law for being intrusive, cumbersome, ridiculous, and leaving us in the position of appearing to say "We want the police and military to be carrying unsafe firearms". IMO, this law would be easier to repeal than the AWB. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct. The AWB repeal in CA will be essentially impossible unless a sequence of LA-style Rodney Riots leaves general public questioning overall police protection. Otherwise it's just too 'toxic' an issue given CA demographics.

The 'safe gun' stuff however can be amended and can be mauled thru "1,000 cuts". Amendments/ updates could include.
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI> cert test covers all bbl lengths;
<LI> cert test covers all finishes;
<LI> stainless vs alloy vs steel: one test;
<LI> "family" of guns cert for various calibers
(9mm, 40, 357Sig, 45) if guns are same overall design.
<LI> cert test becomes only safety test and has reliability test removed;
<LI> cert allows things like frame strengthening updates to frames as long as action unchanged, without requiring re-certification;
[/list]


Bill Wiese
San Jose

Trader Jack
02-22-2005, 12:01 PM
Never happen Bill. Know why?????

Can you spell $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

maxicon
02-22-2005, 12:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The 'safe gun' stuff however can be amended and can be mauled thru "1,000 cuts". Amendments/ updates could include. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd also include "No expiration once certified". This is one of the most absurd parts, IMO - the idea that, after 3 years, a certified gun is no longer safe to be sold.

bwiese
02-22-2005, 1:24 PM
TraderJack...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Never happen Bill. Know why????
Can you spell $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You haven't analyzed the numbers. State doesn't make that much $$ off of this program. The danger is that they will have to INCREASE fees to even get near breaking even and covering even modest costs!!

This DOJ activity is probably in the red once one accurately counts staff time, office space, DOJ internal rebilling of legal support fees from main office, IT costs, enforcement costs, and all the other hidden costs of a gov't bureacracy paid by general fund.

Let's assume the following, based on data I've just seen or remembered. (Correct me if I'm wrong...)

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI> "List" of approved handguns has 1003 guns;
<LI> IIRC, entry fee=$200 per gun; renewal yearly
[/list]

Thus:
1003 x $200 = $200,600

Not even enough to buy a basic condo in Silicon Valley.

Now, it might be safe to assume it takes several people to administer this program plus allocated shares of others' time:

2 staff @$50K sal + $15K benefits = $130K

1/4 mgmt staff allocation cost
@ $100K + $22.5K benefits = $ 31K

IT Support
allocated $250/mo/staff& mgr
for 3.25 users: = $ 9.75K

software/website programming
and updating, backups, data
entry = $ 40K

Field support:

Allocated DOJ agent time for
FFL compliance statewide
regarding 'safe' guns: = $ 25K (?)

Test lab inspection/cert
activites = $ 25K

Legal support, suits, opinions = $ 25K

----------------------------------------------
TOTAL SO FAR = $286.K

We're at $286K. The above numbers are not unreasonable given salaries, benefits, overhead costs, typical staffing levels. And I haven't counted things like travel expenses to meetings, in-house training, etc. either.


Bill Wiese
San Jose

endings1@aol.com
02-22-2005, 3:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bwiese:
TraderJack...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Never happen Bill. Know why????
Can you spell $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You haven't analyzed the numbers. State doesn't make that much $$ off of this program. The danger is that they will have to INCREASE fees to even get near breaking even and covering even modest costs!!

This DOJ activity is probably in the red once one accurately counts staff time, office space, DOJ internal rebilling of legal support fees from main office, IT costs, enforcement costs, and all the other hidden costs of a gov't bureacracy paid by general fund.

Let's assume the following, based on data I've just seen or remembered. (Correct me if I'm wrong...)

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI> "List" of approved handguns has 1003 guns;
<LI> IIRC, entry fee=$200 per gun; renewal yearly
[/list]

Thus:
1003 x $200 = $200,600

Not even enough to buy a basic condo in Silicon Valley.

Now, it might be safe to assume it takes several people to administer this program plus allocated shares of others' time:

2 staff @$50K sal + $15K benefits = $130K

1/4 mgmt staff allocation cost
@ $100K + $22.5K benefits = $ 31K

IT Support
allocated $250/mo/staff& mgr
for 3.25 users: = $ 9.75K

software/website programming
and updating, backups, data
entry = $ 40K

Field support:

Allocated DOJ agent time for
FFL compliance statewide
regarding 'safe' guns: = $ 25K (?)

Test lab inspection/cert
activites = $ 25K

Legal support, suits, opinions = $ 25K

----------------------------------------------
TOTAL SO FAR = $286.K

We're at $286K. The above numbers are not unreasonable given salaries, benefits, overhead costs, typical staffing levels. And I haven't counted things like travel expenses to meetings, in-house training, etc. either.


Bill Wiese
San Jose </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Welp, if we can't beat em' we can certainly bankrupt them!http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

bwiese
02-22-2005, 3:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Welp, if we can't beat em' we can certainly bankrupt them! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A pretty thought.

But if funds are 'insufficient' what's more likely:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI> is that it takes longer for new guns to make it to The List after testing;
<LI> if a lab or labs are having problems w/DOJ certification they may be 'down' for awhile until DOJ can have enough time/funds to recertify;
<LI> if a gun for some reason drops off The List it will take longer to reinstate it;
[/list]

Bill Wiese

simonp
02-22-2005, 9:05 PM
My understanding the cost is more along the lines of $1500 per gun and you have to submit 3 samples of each gun. They are definitely making money on this or they wouldnt bother with it

bwiese
02-23-2005, 11:39 AM
Simon,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by simonp:
My understanding the cost is more along the lines of $1500 per gun and you have to submit 3 samples of each gun. They are definitely making money on this or they wouldnt bother with it </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When I saw the fee schedule it was only $200. I might of course be wrong - but I believe the
testing lab charges $1500 per gun, which the state doesn't get.

Sorry, the goal of the law was not to make money but to hassle gun mfgrs and indirectly limit gun ownership. With regards to budget, this is a TINY amount of money and prob 'below the radar' on CA's budget (and maybe just one line-item on DOJ budget!)

Even if this brought in 10X the money ($2 Million) it's pocket change in sofa cushions in relation to other monies spent/taken in by state.

Ev Dirksen said it best, "A million here, a million there - pretty soon you're talking about real money."

Bill Wiese
San Jose

Technical Ted
02-23-2005, 1:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorCalGuy:
Doesn't Kel-Tec want some of the California market? Why don't they get their pistols approved? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Until they realized California was their best market for the SU16, Kel-tec announced a policy that they didn't want to sell their handguns in California. One reason may have been the Safety Certification testing. IIRC the main reason was the fact that CA allowed shooting victims to sue firearms manufacturers if their product was deemed unsafe.

The recent case of Brandon Maxfield against Bryco would make any small manufacturer wary of selling handguns in California. The VPC (http://www.vpc.org/) was the major legal and financial support for the lawsuit, with the intention of driving manufacturers out of business.

http://www.brandonsarms.org/lawsuit.php