PDA

View Full Version : WHO'S TO BLAME?


marcus_bervus
04-30-2010, 11:53 AM
has anyone notice that there are less and less guns on the CA Approve Roster... I am at a lost for a reason why this happens... is it the Manufacturers' fault for not renewing their license to manufacture the gun model or Is it the lawmakers' fault for making unrealistic or stupid restriction of the kind and function of a firearm.....

ANY HAD ANY IDEA!:mad::mad:

Scratch705
04-30-2010, 12:09 PM
state's fault for making it more expensive for the manufacturers to keep guns on the list or to add guns to the list.

since in order to be on the list, it has to have certain features, and those features add cost.

ilkhan
04-30-2010, 12:30 PM
nobody is adding guns, guns that fall off can't get back on, and the manu's don't want to keep their whole list of guns on it. Thus the dwindling list.
Which is the whole point, of course.

dfletcher
04-30-2010, 12:43 PM
If they have not already, at some point I think a manufacturer is going to learn how to use the roster and a closed market to increase their profit by deliberately limiting the the guns they sell in CA. I don't know if DW did so but the net effect of them having the CBOB only in CA has sent the price up by about $400.00.

Old4eyes
04-30-2010, 12:52 PM
The fault is on several fronts.

The list controllers are getting crazier. A fellow contacted Springfield an asked about the XDM becoming California legal. A SA rep responded by stating California rejected the XDm because it did not have a magazine disconnect and stated that the loaded chamber indicator was not sufficient.

The loaded chamber indicator on an XD sticks out like a sore thumb? What do they want, flashing strobe lights, pre-recorded voice in multiple languages?

So if you are designing a marketing a gun, you might be a little shy about designing a gun to CA specs or what you thought were CA specs, only to be denied.

Second problem, we are creatures of the new whiz bang. We want this year's model. If you are a manufacturer you may need to stay on that bandwagon. As such you are force to come up with a new gun to keep up with the Joneses (or Glocks,M&P, HK,SA, etc) in order to keep OUR interests.

Is the California market share worth trying to design for when it may be possible that the safety feature you put on that device prices you out of other markets or the majority of people in other markets don't want that design. Build a gun for two markets, expensive tooling.

As a manufacturer, do you keep the old line of guns which are CA legal and manufacturer the new line as well. Does the profit margin of those CA only guns warrant the effort.

ilkhan has it nailed. The list is doing what the legislature intended, reducing the guns. Well, let's say it reduces the LEGAL guns. Has nothing to do with reality and keeping guns out of criminal hands.

plan-b
04-30-2010, 9:18 PM
Part of me wants the roster to dwindle to nothing. Then in effect, it becomes a de facto handgun ban. Might make for a case to do away with the roster entirely. But then, I'm not even remotely close to being a lawyer.

JTROKS
04-30-2010, 9:27 PM
Nobody likes to be a victim of extortion. I think a lawsuit should be filed.

bigthaiboy
04-30-2010, 10:45 PM
nobody is adding guns, guns that fall off can't get back on, and the manu's don't want to keep their whole list of guns on it. Thus the dwindling list.
Which is the whole point, of course.

Agreed. I figure this out a long time ago. :TFH:
When the "safety" roster was introduced, there were enough guns available to appease CA gun buyers without them screaming blue murder. In the past years as guns drop off the roster and new ones cannot qualify to be added, the list continues to grow smaller and smaller, but because it is happening over a number of years nobody is really noticing. The less choice people have, the less new guns people want to buy. The roster was definitely part of a long-term strategy to reduce the number of handguns coming into CA.

advocatusdiaboli
04-30-2010, 11:06 PM
nobody is adding guns, guns that fall off can't get back on, and the manu's don't want to keep their whole list of guns on it. Thus the dwindling list.
Which is the whole point, of course.

Exactly. The anti-gunners a while ago figured that they could not win a frontal assault so they decided on a two-pronged strategy: go after pistols and ammunition. We've seen the former with the roster of faux safety tests and the latter with the new center-fire pistol ammunition restrictions going into to effect in February 2011. Either the Supreme Court removes this all or we feel our rights gradually taken away in a python-squeeze of regulation. If the Supreme Court fails to renew our rights, I'll be moving out of state as the last course open to me.

Quiet
04-30-2010, 11:10 PM
Nobody likes to be a victim of extortion. I think a lawsuit should be filed.

You mean like this lawsuit...
Pena v Cid (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/pena/Pena-v-Cid-complaint.pdf)
It's currently pending on the outcome of Nordyke v King, which is pending the outcome of McDonald v Chicago.

ALSystems
05-01-2010, 6:09 AM
Exactly. The anti-gunners a while ago figured that they could not win a frontal assault so they decided on a two-pronged strategy: go after pistols and ammunition. We've seen the former with the roster of faux safety tests and the latter with the new center-fire pistol ammunition restrictions going into to effect in February 2011. Either the Supreme Court removes this all or we feel our rights gradually taken away in a python-squeeze of regulation. If the Supreme Court fails to renew our rights, I'll be moving out of state as the last course open to me.
+1
I guess we'll get an answer in about a year as the court cases get through the system.

Greg-Dawg
05-01-2010, 6:32 AM
Who's to blame? Look where you live.

marcus_bervus
05-01-2010, 4:29 PM
Who's to blame? Look where you live.



you have such a myopic point of view, this problem is not only symptomatic of the place, but due the apathetic and lackadaisical attitude of political armchair like yourself.....:cool2::cool2: