PDA

View Full Version : Guns falling off the roster...


gunrun45
01-18-2010, 7:55 AM
So I know that this must be beaten to death, but when will someone file a little paperwork on it.

A gun model that "falls of the roster" is obviously in the same functional condition as designed as it was while it was "on the roster"...

383green
01-18-2010, 8:11 AM
The roster is currently the target of a court case (Peņa), which is on hold pending the McDonald ruling in the Supreme Court.

Harley
01-18-2010, 8:21 AM
Any info on why the Kimber Stainless Pro Carry TLE/RL II 4 inch is not on the approved list? The 5 inch is good to go, but not the 4 inch? :confused:

Yet the Pro Carry II Stainless in 4 inch is approved? I dont get it.

FortCourageArmory
01-18-2010, 8:54 AM
Any info on why the Kimber Stainless Pro Carry TLE/RL II 4 inch is not on the approved list? The 5 inch is good to go, but not the 4 inch? :confused:

Yet the Pro Carry II Stainless in 4 inch is approved? I dont get it.

Stop trying to apply common sense to CA gun laws. You'll go crazy in the attempt.

Aegis
01-18-2010, 8:57 AM
Stop trying to apply common sense to CA gun laws. You'll go crazy in the attempt.

You will have an easier time trying to invent perpetual motion.:)

Roadrunner
01-18-2010, 9:10 AM
So I know that this must be beaten to death, but when will someone file a little paperwork on it.

A gun model that "falls of the roster" is obviously in the same functional condition as designed as it was while it was "on the roster"...

The answer is easy, the state is extorting money from the gun makers to allow a particular gun to be on the approved roster. If you don't pay the yearly protection money to the state, your product gets yanked off of the list and you can't sell it. Combine that with the cost of tests and other hoops that manufacturers go though, it's no wonder that a handgun costs ridiculous amounts of money to buy.

bwiese
01-18-2010, 9:22 AM
The answer is easy, the state is extorting money from the gun makers to allow a particular gun to be on the approved roster. Combine that with the cost of tests and other hoops that manufacturers go though, it's no wonder that a handgun costs ridiculous amounts of money to buy.


Wow, a lot of misconceptions here....

In no way do I support Rostering, the Roster, etc. but I just wanna get the facts straight.

1.) the state doesn't make much money off handgun Rostering. It's all about control, not money.
The few hundred bucks CA makes on a gun being Rostered is trivial - and the test labs are often
outside CA anyway. (The test labs' cost will involve allocated portion of fees having to be paid
for periodic DOJ compliance inspection of the lab, spread across all guns.) Testing costs are a
few thousand per gun model, plus a few gun models for exemplars (details a bit foggy).

2.) the Roster costs and even additional "corporate overhead for CA compliance" for drop testing, etc.
spread over sales for a popular gun are not that much per gun. Even unpopular guns that are Rostered
don't have that much added per gun. Worst case is $5-$7+ per gun leading to ~$15-$20 differential at
retail.

[Note: this does not count features added like LCI and/or mag disco. These features are often in new
gun design plans already for selling to PD/LEOs anyway.]

3.) one of the biggest slices of a gun's costs is for corp. liability insurance. I'm hoping existence of PLCAA
and continued success/validation thereof will over time drive these costs down. I've heard it can be as
much as $75-$100 per gun, higher for handguns - and this number could be all over the map varying w/
mfgr and history, but a value around 20% would not be surprising.