PDA

View Full Version : Someone educate me on the magazine disconnect law


SixDemonBag
11-12-2005, 5:55 PM
I understand starting 01/06 all handguns in CA will require a magazine disconnect safety or a loaded chamber indicator, then the following year both will be required. Is this correct? I've heard that it is only for SA handguns...?

I'm concerned, but not too concerned, because that G19 I have my eye on has a chamber indicator....so at least I'm good for a year before I'm forced to buy a bastardised handgun. :mad:

RRangel
11-12-2005, 6:20 PM
Starting 2006 all new pistols submitted to the CA safety test will be required to have a chamber load indicator. Think something similar to what Ruger is putting in their new handguns. Starting 2007 all new pistols submitted to the bogus CA safety testing will require magazine disconnects like the Browing Hi Power or S&W pistols.

If a particular pistol is on the approved list prior to those dates it is exempt as long as the manufacturer pays the extortion fee to keep it on the list every year.

Basically any new innovation in pistol design must meet those requirements.

capitol
11-12-2005, 6:20 PM
Not ALL handguns, only the ones not on Cali's approved list. So, if a firearm mfg submits a handgun in 2006 those features you mentioned will be imposed.

capitol
11-12-2005, 6:21 PM
Admin you beat to the punch :rolleyes:

Inoxmark
11-12-2005, 6:23 PM
Correct, this is only for semi-automatic handguns.
Guns already on the approved list are exempt from the new law as long as they remain on the list, so if you still want G19 2-3 years from now you should be OK (provided handguns are not banned altogether by then). But if Glock comes up with G49 or whatever it would need to have these features to be approved in CA. Guns sold inside CA by private parties are also exempt from this law.

RRangel
11-12-2005, 6:27 PM
Yes sorry I forgot to mention that private party transactions are also exempt.

shopkeep
11-14-2005, 9:03 PM
I highly doubt Glock and other manufacturers will be changing their whole design philosophy to accomodate CA. Especially when a recent report showed handgun sales in CA at an all time 30 year low (I WONDER WHY?). It will take 10, 20, or 30 years to fully kick in, but eventually this bill will effectively ban 90%+ of semi-auto handguns in the state if we don't do anything.

But hey... at least there's a somewhat brightside... if we're limited to S&W and Browning Hi-power it could be worse... what if we were limited to nothing but Hi-Point? Seriously though it's time to get hardcore about RKBA

scott
11-14-2005, 9:43 PM
Ruger's original loaded chamber indicator on the Mark III turned out to be a safety hazard.

The rim of the cartridge would push up a little "flag" on the gun so you had a quick visual check of the chamber condition. HOWEVER. If you slap the gun down on its side (the side with the flag), yes the flag which is riding on the rim, the gun would fire. They've since rectified the problem but... YIKES!!

I envisioned someone shoving one of those things into a holster and having it fire. That'd be one heck of a long scar down your thigh to explain to the wife. ;-)

mblat
11-15-2005, 2:08 PM
Ruger's original loaded chamber indicator on the Mark III turned out to be a safety hazard.

The rim of the cartridge would push up a little "flag" on the gun so you had a quick visual check of the chamber condition. HOWEVER. If you slap the gun down on its side (the side with the flag), yes the flag which is riding on the rim, the gun would fire. They've since rectified the problem but... YIKES!!

I envisioned someone shoving one of those things into a holster and having it fire. That'd be one heck of a long scar down your thigh to explain to the wife. ;-)

Loaded chamber indicator is safety hazard on any gun. Makes you trust mechanical device that can and will eventually fail. That will give ammunition to the people who is saying that guns can't be made safe.:mad:
As far as magazine disconnect.... I can't imaging any LEO or military person wanting to have this feature. As HK states ( corretly IMO ) in it' P200 manual
"ability to fire with magazine disconnected considered essensial by LEO and military personnel". ( Not exact quote - getting it from memory )

bwiese
11-15-2005, 2:46 PM
I highly doubt Glock and other manufacturers will be changing their whole design philosophy to accomodate CA. Especially when a recent report showed handgun sales in CA at an all time 30 year low (I WONDER WHY?). It will take 10, 20, or 30 years to fully kick in, but eventually this bill will effectively ban 90%+ of semi-auto handguns in the state if we don't do anything.

Sure, we should do something - but most of the rest of your statement isn't true.

We do have the good fortune that these features are mandated only for manufacturing, not for possession/use, or resale via PPT.

Handgun sales are low in CA due partly to a general drop in crime over the last decade. (Crack epidemic faded, meth crisis doesn't usu result in drug-war shootouts, economy has improved over early 1990s. Plus it appears many parents who'd likely end up w/crime-oriented children had abortions in mid/late 1980s - meaning they are not now joining the age 15-25 population cohort that commits bulk of crimes.)

The early 1990s "Rodney Riots" in LA really drove up gun sales, along with pre-Y2K panic. Plus there was a buying spurt driven by hicap mag ban (pistol sales were up in 1999.) The economy was screaming in 1997-2000 so there was a peak due to that as well. Naturally you can't always run at a peak, so sales trend back to somewhat normal; future CA sales will somewhat track population growth. Since quite a few folks moved out during the so-called recession in 2001/2, handgun sales dropped from that too. As people are moving back into CA (real estate prices are rising due to demand) gun sales will increase too.

The truth is, the total CA handgun market is still larger than that of many 'red states' combined. Plus, given some overlap btwn CA 'safe gun' laws with those of MD & MA (and maybe NY) laws, it's easier for gunmakers to design these in for everyone rather than having separate catalog items, production lines, etc.

Using Glock as an example... Glock's already put key locks on Glocks; LCIs, mag discos, and manual safeties are readily possible. (I seem to recall Glock has already put safety levers on some limited-run special Glocks for some LEO agencies; their slides look like that of a full-auto G18, with that on-slide S&W-like safety lever. A larger protruding extractor w/red dot, a la Beretta 92, would serve as an LCI.

Even Ruger's new single-action revolvers (New Vaquero, 50th Anniv. Blackhawk, likely the new 44 Flattop) have internal keylocks on mainspring strut. Just drill a hole in the grip to support this. (This is readily extendible into their DA revolvers.) And note that they did this even though CA exempts SA revolvers from 'safe gun' laws, unlike MD and MA.

These laws won't faze the Rugers, S&Ws, Glocks or H&Ks too much. They have extensive flexible manufacturing, lotsa automation, excellent cataloging and IT support. The smaller companies like ParaOrdnance and Springfield Armory will be hurt - look how they are dealing with the 'safe gun' laws in CA; they just have too many models to certify. This is probably poor business decision anyway - they're beating themselves to death for all those crazy model variations that probably don't cause any sales increases.

You'll likely see all the biggies have these features in their autoloaders (and in some wheelguns) in next year or two. It's not rocket science for competetive manufacturers; they've probably seen this a lot already for special order guns and some of these items may already be designed in...

Bill Wiese
San Jose