PDA

View Full Version : CA DOJ Recently Added Handgun Models - (not)


not-fishing
11-03-2009, 9:50 AM
So I regularly check the DOJ site to see if the new model Handguns that I LUST after have been approved. :43:

The problem is the "Recently Added" seem to really have dropped off in number.

Actually I expected a Rush to add models before our Dear Governor's Brass marking law came into existence. I figured the Manufacture's would not wait on Jerry Brown's certification letter

So what gives?

presently lusting after 1911 Bullseye but long abused by Cantonese dragon wife bai-gui-self is low on funds

ojisan
11-03-2009, 9:55 AM
Grasshopper, you must have the patience of the elephant!

Next year at this time, the "safe handgun" roster hopefully will be dead.
(Micro-stamping is dead already).

troysland
11-03-2009, 10:00 AM
Wait? Brass marking Law? Where have I been? What Law? I read that the Technology was unavailable, and unplausible, so I forgot about it. Please do tell!

troysland
11-03-2009, 10:08 AM
Relief! Hard to read threads while working. Somewhat of a time delay.

M1A Rifleman
11-03-2009, 12:02 PM
A Sig Saurer rep was at Target Master recently and informed my buddy that BOF/DOJ has not responded to ANY of their requests to renew existing models or find new models safe. I'd bet this is for all handguns. I guess no new, and possible no existing models will be available for sale in CA?????

MolonLabe2008
11-03-2009, 12:37 PM
Wait. Isn't Attorney General Jerry Brown supposed to be pro-gun rights?

Well, at least that's what many here tell me.

socalgunrunner
11-03-2009, 12:42 PM
A Sig Saurer rep was at Target Master recently and informed my buddy that BOF/DOJ has not responded to ANY of their requests to renew existing models or find new models safe. I'd bet this is for all handguns. I guess no new, and possible no existing models will be available for sale in CA?????

The DOJ will probably use the excuse that with the state budget cutbacks and mandatory work furloughs that they don't have enough time to do their jobs.

halifax
11-03-2009, 12:46 PM
The DOJ will probably use the excuse that with the state budget cutbacks and mandatory work furloughs that they don't have enough time to do their jobs.

That may be a reason but I doubt it's an excuse.

bwiese
11-03-2009, 12:49 PM
I'm betting many mfgrs are too stupid to renew.

There's a real problem with mfgrs understanding the Roster.

The "brass marking" law you speak of is microstamping, and it is not implementable in CA for other reasons - please use the Search function here.

johnthomas
11-03-2009, 12:58 PM
I'm betting many mfgrs are too stupid to renew.

There's a real problem with mfgrs understanding the Roster.

The "brass marking" law you speak of is microstamping, and it is not implementable in CA for other reasons - please use the Search function here.

I read, when a gun is not in production anymore and supplies are depleted, the gun makers choose not pay the fee california imposes on them to keep it on the list. So, last year you could have one shipped in, or bring it across to california, but this year, because it is not on the list, it is no longer safe under california law? Is this the way it is, or did I get something wrong?

Librarian
11-03-2009, 1:03 PM
I read, when a gun is not in production anymore and supplies are depleted, the gun makers choose not pay the fee california imposes on them to keep it on the list. So, last year you could have one shipped in, or bring it across to california, but this year, because it is not on the list, it is no longer safe under california law? Is this the way it is, or did I get something wrong?

Nope, that's exactly correct.

See The Safe Handgun List (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/The_Safe_Handgun_List) at the Calguns Foundation Wiki.

(well, strictly speaking, a gun on the Roster is 'not unsafe', so if it falls off, it becomes 'not not unsafe')

bplvr
11-03-2009, 2:06 PM
I read, when a gun is not in production anymore and supplies are depleted, the gun makers choose not pay the fee california imposes on them to keep it on the list. So, last year you could have one shipped in, or bring it across to california, but this year, because it is not on the list, it is no longer safe under california law? Is this the way it is, or did I get something wrong?
.

You got it right. Just reboot with the "convoluted logic" icon and download again. See !! Easy huh ? Your 'safe gun' is now 'unsafe' and can only be sold/transfered to an LEO. :confused: unless you do a FTF/PPT. Or sell it OOS ,except to D.C. which adopted the CONLOG Roster last year.
.

CalNRA
11-03-2009, 3:09 PM
it becomes 'not not unsafe')

sometimes I wonder about what your guys do at CG get togethers.

But the results speaks for itself.:D

DarkHorse
11-03-2009, 3:18 PM
When the roster was implemented, guns mainly had to do drop-testing. Recently (2007?), CA added the requirements for a loaded-chamber indicator, and a magazine disconnect safety. Since then, few firearms have been approved, and added to the list (a Ruger and the FMK 9c-thing). I believe the mirostamping bill came after the added roster requirements.

It seems reasonable that most manufacturers would be hesitant to design a new gun (or modify an existing, proven design) in order to meet the laws of one state, even if it has the largest market share, because they can still sell their old models to LEO/GOV agencies in that state.

Also, it seems reasonable that a company would only keep a gun on the roster as long as it made money for them.

ETA - The added requirements are for semi-auto pistols only, not revolvers.

bplvr
11-03-2009, 5:21 PM
sometimes I wonder about what your guys do at CG get togethers.

But the results speaks for itself.
.
We sit around and try to make {non}sense of the Ca. laws.

This........v

:banghead: :90: :willy_nilly: :fud: :shrug: :grouphug:
.