PDA

View Full Version : What crazy handgun laws are coming in 2006?


GeneralBacardi
03-24-2005, 9:05 PM
I heard in 2006, no handguns can be sold in CA that don't have either a magazine safety or integral gun lock, and in 2007 or 2008, handguns must have BOTH features.

Is this true, and if so, can you cite the code section?

GeneralBacardi
03-24-2005, 9:07 PM
found my own answer:

SB 489 (Stats. 2003, ch. 500) (Scott)

Requires that effective January 1, 2006, no semiautomatic center-fire pistol model may be added to the roster of handguns certified for sale in California unless it has a chamber load indicator or, if it has a detachable magazine, a magazine disconnect mechanism. No rimfire semiautomatic pistol that has a detachable magazine may be added to the certified list of handguns for sale in California unless it has a magazine disconnect mechanism. Effective January 1, 2007, no semiautomatic pistol may be added to the roster unless it has both a chamber load indicator and, if it has a detachable magazine, a magazine disconnect mechanism. Handgun models that have been placed on the roster prior to the new requirements becoming operative may remain on the roster without these features (PC §§ 12126, 12130).

rawny@mac.com
03-25-2005, 5:25 AM
What it doesn't say is if those approved prior to the new requirements can be renewed without the new "features".

Spotted Owl
03-25-2005, 2:17 PM
So does this effectively ban all 1911-style guns when their current certification runs out?

Black_Talon
03-25-2005, 4:41 PM
Originally posted by Spotted Owl:
So does this effectively ban all 1911-style guns when their current certification runs out?

Not as long as the current certification is renewed before it expires.

Ford8N
03-26-2005, 5:49 AM
But what if the manufacturer drops the handgun off the list on purpose to stop the sale of used models?. Then we would be stuck with trying to find a consignment sale. If I was a greedy industrialist, that's what I would do.

Spotted Owl
03-27-2005, 5:07 PM
Not as long as the current certification is renewed before it expires.

So as long as the current certification is renewed before it expires there is no need to submit a model for retesting? Does that also apply if new "standards" such as the magazine disconnect come into effect?

Inoxmark
03-27-2005, 5:41 PM
But what if the manufacturer drops the handgun off the list on purpose to stop the sale of used models?. That would mean the manufacturer doesn't want any business in CA. To sell a new model here they would have to have a mag disconnect and loaded chamber indicator, which is likely to cost them sales in the rest of the US. I think very few of them would actually choose to build new CA compliant model that is unlikely to have much demand elsewhere.

If I were a manufacturer I would maintain position on the approved list as long as possible. The list of approved models will inevitably shrink considerably in 3-4 years, those on the list would face a lot less competition in CA new handgun market.

Old Fud
03-27-2005, 10:35 PM
Don't worry about being alone in this. California is not the only state interested in these "save the children" features.

Start with the fact that California did not request/does not have any position on the built-in LOCKS that are infesting the landscape.

Most guns made and sold today already have the loaded chamber indicator. It's either a tiny slot milled into the breech of the barrel so the back of the shell casing can be seen, or they make something of the fact the external extractor is in a different position (standing proud) when there's a shell in the chamber.
Point being that any design can be easily adapted to have it at no cost to the manufacturer or to the user. (AFAIK)

More of the latest offerings also have the magazine disconnect feature too. I'm particularly noting it in foreign manufacturers' guns, so once again California is a follower, not a leader, in the matter.

God help us when "they" announce "Smart guns are here".

All of the above is the main reason I'm hurrying to buy what I can of the good stuff WHILE I can.

Fud

RRangel
03-28-2005, 9:42 AM
Start with the fact that California did not request/does not have any position on the built-in LOCKS that are infesting the landscape.

As long as said lock meets the requirement of the CA gun lock/safe mandate then these particular handguns don't require you to buy a seperate lock. The gun makers are doing it in fact because they want to comply with said laws. The Springfield Armory handguns are on the CA list of approved locks because they have them internally.

They're doing it because California and other nanny states are a big market. Its sad really.

jnojr
03-28-2005, 9:52 AM
Originally posted by Old Fud:
All of the above is the main reason I'm hurrying to buy what I can of the good stuff WHILE I can.

Amen. People ask me, "Why do you need so many guns?" Well, I don't... but if I don't buy 'em now, I may never be able to again.

M. D. Van Norman
03-28-2005, 3:19 PM
If I were a firearms manufacturer, I would simply paint the extractors on my semi-autos red. In other words, they would have "always loaded" indicators.

Of course, Californians must already stipulate to the "always loaded" status of firearms when they get their Handgun Safety Certificates.

Inoxmark
03-28-2005, 4:00 PM
I am not sure if there's a semi-auto currently on the market with loaded chamber indicator that meets the SB489 definition:
--------------------------------------
(c) As used in this section, a "chamber load indicator" means a device that plainly indicates that a cartridge is in the firing chamber. A device satisfies this definition if it is readily visible, has incorporated or adjacent explanatory text or graphics, or both, and is designed and intended to indicate to a reasonably foreseeable adult user of the pistol, without requiring the user to refer to a user's manual or any other resource other than the pistol itself, whether a cartridge is in the firing chamber.
--------------------------------------
I think this pretty much mandates text or graphic explanation on the slide or a frame what exactly to look for. Either way, this definition is wide open for unfavorable interpretation.

AceTachyon
03-30-2005, 3:47 PM
Call me naive but I was taught that a gun is always loaded until I physically check the chamber to make sure it isn't.

You know, drop the mag, open the chamber, look inside it, stick your pinky inside the chamber and the ramp to make sure, that sort of thing.

Aren't indicators simply a lazy way out?

Or am I just not "hip" to the new gun tech?

RRangel
03-30-2005, 7:36 PM
Originally posted by AceTachyon:
Call me naive but I was taught that a gun is always loaded until I physically check the chamber to make sure it isn't.

You know, drop the mag, open the chamber, look inside it, stick your pinky inside the chamber and the ramp to make sure, that sort of thing.

Aren't indicators simply a lazy way out?

Or am I just not "hip" to the new gun tech?
It's not just a lazy way out it's plain dangerous. It creates a false sense of security among those who lack an education in guns.

Press check anyone? That's all it takes, but these socialists need to make a law.

bg
03-31-2005, 1:24 PM
Call me naive but I was taught that a gun is always loaded until I physically check the chamber to make sure it isn't.
AMEN!

Rumpled
03-31-2005, 3:53 PM
If I'm not mistaken, the Ruger MkIII have a loaded chamber indicator already. Many say they won't buy such a model.

urban
04-09-2005, 7:57 PM
SB 489 (Stats. 2003, ch. 500) (Scott)

Requires that effective January 1, 2006, no semiautomatic center-fire pistol model may be added to the roster of handguns certified for sale in California unless it has a chamber load indicator or, if it has a detachable magazine, a magazine disconnect mechanism. No rimfire semiautomatic pistol that has a detachable magazine may be added to the certified list of handguns for sale in California unless it has a magazine disconnect mechanism. Effective January 1, 2007, no semiautomatic pistol may be added to the roster unless it has both a chamber load indicator and, if it has a detachable magazine, a magazine disconnect mechanism. Handgun models that have been placed on the roster prior to the new requirements becoming operative may remain on the roster without these features (PC §§ 12126, 12130).

Okay, so does this mean that as long as the pistol is placed on the ROSTER before the law goes into effect said pistol WILL NEVER HAVE TO COMPLY with the new rules? For example, say I want to get a Colt .45, which has neither features, and Colt gets the weapon approved and placed on the roster prior to 2006, does Colt now NEVER have to put a magazine disconnect mechanism simply because they were approved befor 1/1/2006??

Librarian
04-09-2005, 8:55 PM
Okay, so does this mean that as long as the pistol is placed on the ROSTER before the law goes into effect said pistol WILL NEVER HAVE TO COMPLY with the new rules? For example, say I want to get a Colt .45, which has neither features, and Colt gets the weapon approved and placed on the roster prior to 2006, does Colt now NEVER have to put a magazine disconnect mechanism simply because they were approved befor 1/1/2006??
Right - if and only if Colt pays - and continues to pay - to maintain the model on the list.

Or, until they change the law

Strictly speaking, there are provisions for someone other than a manufacturer to pay to keep a pistol on the list, but not just John Q. Citizen - has to be some kind of commercial interest, as an importer might have.

04-10-2005, 9:11 PM
Originally posted by Admin:

It's not just a lazy way out it's plain dangerous. It creates a false sense of security among those who lack an education in guns.

Reeeeeaall dangerous!

Magazine disconnects are the worst, IMO.
If someone learns that a semi-auto handgun won't (can't) fire without it's magazine in place and erroneously, possibly fatally assumes that this is true of ALL semi-auto handguns, nothing has been gained from this law. These mandates only serve to push the liability issue further onto the manufacturers when they get passed -and that's what it's really about.

04-26-2005, 8:18 AM
Originally posted by Basura Blanca:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Admin:

It's not just a lazy way out it's plain dangerous. It creates a false sense of security among those who lack an education in guns.

Reeeeeaall dangerous!

Magazine disconnects are the worst, IMO.
If someone learns that a semi-auto handgun won't (can't) fire without it's magazine in place and erroneously, possibly fatally assumes that this is true of ALL semi-auto handguns, nothing has been gained from this law. These mandates only serve to push the liability issue further onto the manufacturers when they get passed -and that's what it's really about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BB - I couldn't agree with you more. Loaded chamber indicators and magazine disconnects are both dangerous. This has nothing to do with saving the children or public safety. As was said before, one should always treat a gun as if there is a round in the chamber. That's the common sense way of handling guns but, heaven forbid the government do something that makes sense.

Inoxmark
05-17-2005, 2:47 PM
Definition of chamber loaded indicator just out:
(d) (1) A functioning chamber load indicator must meet all of the following conditions:

(A) Explanatory text and/or graphics either incorporated within the chamber load indicator or adjacent to the chamber load indicator is permanently displayed on the firearm and is readable by a person of normal visual acuity.
(B) The chamber load indicator is of a distinct color contrast to that of the firearm.
(C) Only when there is a round in the chamber, the “loaded” indication is visible on the top or either side of the firearm to a person of normal visual acuity from a distance of at least twenty-four inches. When there is no round in the chamber, the “loaded” indication must not be visible.
(D) The text and/or graphics and the “loaded” indication together inform a reasonably foreseeable adult user of the pistol that a round is in the chamber. http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/clitext.pdf

Rumpled
05-19-2005, 12:09 AM
Inoxmark
That is just what is proposed. The comment period doesn't end until 5/24.
But in actuality, the rule will probably be pretty close to that.