View Full Version : Help me understand Sig pistols and the roster!
I'm having a hard time understanding which Sig pistol models are on the roster. Specifically, I'm looking at P226's with rails in 9mm. As far as I can tell, the closest match to what I'm looking for, on the roster, is this:
P226R (Blued) / Stainless Steel, Alloy Pistol 4.4" 9mm
That's a Sig 226, railed alloy frame, stainless slide, 4.4" barrel, 9mm. Sig calls it's slide's finish "Nitron" and the frame is anodized, so what exactly makes it "blued"? Assuming "blued" means "nitron" or "anodized", then Sig makes several pistols that meet that requirement, as far as I can tell, but Sig's website doesn't list all of them as "CA Compliant". For example, why is the "two-tone" version "compliant", if all that has changed was the finish, but the "combat" is not? Why does the roster list the 226 Navy without referring to it as a "226R", despite its railed frame? Why is there no mention of the beaver tail frames?
I don't seem to understand the logic at all. I suppose I could blindly follow what Sig lists as "CA Compliant", but I'd rather understand the law in order to make sure I'm following it correctly.
08-10-2009, 11:55 PM
This could take awhile here goes.
The law is nothing more than BS since they know they'll never ban hand guns in this state so they make it next to impossible to add new models to the list.
Anyways when it comes to blued the list isn't to specific, it means that any color that is blued or "black" in color is what they are trying to say. Yes sig's official name is Nitron but to the DOJ it's lumped into the blued category.
As for the R yes it has to have that after the model to be the railed version on the list.
When it comes to the navy and the list, they originally didn't have rails on them when it was added to the list. Now they do. So technically the R model Navy isn't on the list but some dealers will DROS them and they get through without the DOJ being any wiser since it still says Navy on the box, and Sig doesn't put R on the product code.
Beaver tails are flat out not on the list because they only come on the Elite model sigs which couldn't pass the newer model requirements so that's why you can't just go out and buy one. By the time it came out it would need a mag disconnect and a chambered round indicator.
If you're talking about a combat 226 then, it still has a chance to get on the list under the similar design exemption. But Sig still has to pay to have that exact model added to the list who knows if they will or not.
Don't take Sigs website for CA compliant at their word. They aren't based in this freaking state so like they know all the exemptions, loop holes, or what the laws are exactly to the letter.
08-11-2009, 12:15 AM
Write a nice letter to CA DOJ to share your grief.
Sorry to drag this post back up, but I called the DoJ today and spoke with someone regarding my roster questions. I was told that the DoJ does not have a list of model numbers that are on the roster, only Sig can answer that question for me. Even if the paint job is different between pistols, or even if there's a "half ounce difference in weight", it's up to Sig to submit the pistol for certification. Descriptions listed on the roster are as Sig described the pistol to them. She confirmed that the only source I can go to for information on what is and is not legal for sale in California is Sig.
Questions about the validity of the law aside, it seems questionable that my only point of contact for what's legal in California is a private company, one not even located in California. I suppose this is a line of inquiry I should just drop, I seem to be asking questions that shouldn't be asked. :)
Since you'll be importing it into the state through your FFL, he will be the one to tell you if he can get it through DROS or not.
08-25-2009, 3:25 PM
You and your FFL should make your best efforts to comply with the law.
But if you and your FFL, can't distinguish between "blued" and some other bluish finish like "Nitron", so be it. You shouldn't get a stainless gun if only blued is Rostered or vice versa, but if you and your FFL can't tell between identical model# guns with equivalent features & materials and the only difference is minor shades of blue - or unclear on submodel variants you can't figure out the differences betweein - screw it and go for it.
Your FFL has an agency relationship w/CA DOJ and thus, in many way, speaks for them. If there is unclarity and best efforts have been made, criminality cannot be attached to a regulatory dispute. Maintenance of a clear and effective Roster with detailed descriptions and SKU numbers would help; as it is, the Roster is not even up to the standards of the Roberti-Roos or Kasler lists of banned guns.
On difficult things like this we're getting to area where Harrott-style specificity is required. While Harrott deals with (and sets standards for) AW listing and not handgun Rostering, the latter nevertheless involves descriptive lists by make/model/detailss and controls acquisition of a given gun. That there should be differening standards for one "Roster' - with somewhat clearly delineated Kasler list and Roberti-Roos list - but a far murkier handgun Roster is just nonsensical.
CGF already has one Roster case. We'll win it. But we can have others if we need to based on other situations like the above, plus other non-gun Federal issues.
I'd love to see DOJ try to criminalize an administrative/regulatory dispute yet again. That's highly illegal, they've done it in the past under multiple Deputy AGs (back to Nancy Palmieri) - and we'd just have one more final exhibit for a "pattern & practice" suit.
NB: Calling the DOJ likely will not produce a rational answer.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.