PDA

View Full Version : Handgun Roster, illegal?


GLOCK PERFECTION
04-30-2011, 11:14 PM
It's one thing to say that we can't have more than 10 rounds in a mag but to also say that a mag disconnect safety is REQUIRED, not optional, shouldn't that be illegal? Of course everyone here is going to agree but why is this specific regulation not being thrown out the window like the mail order ammo ban was? For California to say some guns without mag disconnect safety is legal to purchase while others is not is absolutely mind boggling. So say a new shooter acquires a new hand gun with a mag disconnect safety and learns that the shooter cannot fire his/her handgun w/o the mag in place but goes to the range, rents a gen 3 glock, releases the mag and squeezes...BANG! I say pushing and promoting the basic gun safety rules is much much more effective in keeping new and old shooters safe.
Anyways, what I'm here to ask about is, does anyone here know if the requirements on the handgun roster will change? Specifically, will the mag disconnect safety requirement be removed? Some newest and safest guns available can now no longer be acquired in Cali, without jumping, cartwheeling and tictactoeing to get a single shot conversion and other BS crap like that.

rero360
04-30-2011, 11:23 PM
Yes it is illegal

Blackhawk556
04-30-2011, 11:29 PM
Read the wiki page on top and you'll see there a lawsuit that take 10 years to complete. Once it's finished though, the roster will be dead

ke6guj
04-30-2011, 11:30 PM
yes, based on the 2nd amendment, the roster would appear to be illegal. We currently have a court case in progress in an attempt to get the roster ruled to be unconstitutional, http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Pena_v._Cid , but at the current time, it is the law of the land in CA.

GLOCK PERFECTION
04-30-2011, 11:40 PM
Read the wiki page on top and you'll see there a lawsuit that take 10 years to complete. Once it's finished though, the roster will be dead

Wow, is that right? About 10 years? I may sound sarcastic when I say this but trust me I'm serious...THAT IS REALLY GOOD NEWS. I didn't read the wiki article yet, in fact, I'm not able to find the exact link but any news that this retarded roster list going down and I can sleep much better now lol. I mean, I would love to have the damn thing down tomorrow but a victory is a victory, no matter how long it takes. Also, if it isn't too much trouble, would you be able to provide the link in your reply to spread the happiness to all the shooters in Cali who doesn't know about this...Hmmm, I kinda want the new Ruger 1911. Oh, we can't forget the Glock Gen 4's. HK45, S&W M&P R8 revolver, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. :D

GLOCK PERFECTION
04-30-2011, 11:42 PM
yes, based on the 2nd amendment, the roster would appear to be illegal. We currently have a court case in progress in an attempt to get the roster ruled to be unconstitutional, http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Pena_v._Cid , but at the current time, it is the law of the land in CA.

Thank you, you beat me to it. Btw, I just joined Calguns, I dont know why it took me so long but I'm glad I did, you guys are awesome. Maybe there's hope for this State after all. ;)

cali_armz
04-30-2011, 11:50 PM
heres some more info on the case

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/pena/Pena-v-Cid-Amended-Complaint.pdf

Blackhawk556
05-01-2011, 12:06 AM
Just to clarify something, I was playing when I said ten years. The case is on hold until another case that has been going on for 10 years gets resolved. Seriously though, I think it will take about 1.5-3 years. This is my unedumacated opinion ;)

Munk
05-01-2011, 9:16 AM
The problem is there's no requirement for expedience, so these cases have no set timeframe. It would be nice if there could be a "no dragging your *** out of spite" requirement for rulings in these cases.

*grumblegrumble-Stupid-Nordyke-grumble*

WWDHD?
05-01-2011, 9:49 AM
10 years? But you guys all said 2 WEEKS.

Baconator
05-01-2011, 9:52 AM
10 years? But you guys all said 2 WEEKS.

Yes, two weeks; two weeks then two more weeks, then...

wang949
05-01-2011, 10:18 AM
I'm just glad to hear it WILL get repealed.

Noah3683
05-01-2011, 11:36 AM
Meh...... by the time it gets repealed I will have everything I want through single shot exemption anyway. Sucks to pay more, but I'm impatient ;)

zdragon
05-01-2011, 11:50 AM
So say a new shooter acquires a new hand gun with a mag disconnect safety and learns that the shooter cannot fire his/her handgun w/o the mag in place but goes to the range, rents a gen 3 glock, releases the mag and squeezes...BANG!

unnecessary tragedy waiting to happen.....very sad.

Rudolf the Red
05-01-2011, 3:56 PM
Don't get me started on the roster.

I bought a handgun to sell at a gun show recently and while it was being shipped, it fell off the roster. I know, I know, my fault for not checking but hear me out. What CA is saying is that this gun was safe yesterday, but not today. It is a JOKE. How long can this BS stand?

The gun is a Taurus PT111. Nice. I'm trying to sell it to an LE officer at a 10% loss. I can't make any money on it in any other state either. It's a 10 rounder and other states get 12 in this model. F U California!!

Left Coast Conservative
05-01-2011, 4:50 PM
I own a Kimber Custom II 1911 pistol. It has a firing pin safety, but no magazine disconnect. Now, with the anniversary of the 1911 pistol, many manufacturers have introduced new 1911 models. Because of the Roster many of these pistols, functionally identical to my Custom II, are now "unsafe" and will not be sold in California. These pistols include:

Remington R1 Range Officer
Ithaca M1911
Ruger SR1911
Kimber Aegis II

There may be other models that don't qualify of which I am unaware.

Now get this, the original Colt Model 1911 would not be approved for sale in California. Here are the disqualifications: no chamber loaded indicator, and no magazine disconnect. While the chamber loaded indicator is an easy thing to add, the magazine disconnect is not, so don't expect ANY new 1911 models to become available in California.

OOPS!

A quick check of the roster shows that Colt got the Model O1991Z Custom 1911A1 approved on 4/18/2011. I could not find any information about this pistol on the Colt site, so I don't know if it has a magazine disconnect.

tonelar
05-01-2011, 5:02 PM
I search to no avail, however... Years ago, some pacifican shot a family member while showing off a gun that orig came with a mag disconnect
He bought the SW 9mm auto used with no clue the previous owner had the anti-stupid feature negated
Part of his in home demo was to load the pistol, drop the mag and pull the trigger

jtmkinsd
05-01-2011, 5:10 PM
One of the best arguments against the list: A "safe" handgun becomes "unsafe" simply because a manufacturer fails to pay the fee to keep said handgun on said list. Nuff said :cool:

Dhena81
05-01-2011, 5:23 PM
This state is already a has been 10 years from now Texas will have everything CA used to have.

NorCalDustin
05-01-2011, 5:39 PM
I'm just glad to hear it WILL get repealed.
No one's saying that it WILL be repealed... We all hope it will be repealed, but you never know what will happen.

Let's just be real here... We all want it gone, but we can't say for sure.

ojisan
05-01-2011, 5:42 PM
The problem is there's no requirement for expedience, so these cases have no set timeframe. It would be nice if there could be a "no dragging your *** out of spite" requirement for rulings in these cases.

*grumblegrumble-Stupid-Nordyke-grumble*

<Joins in with Munk's grumbling and adds growling>

sequoia_nomad
05-01-2011, 5:42 PM
Glock Perfection: Cannot believe that was still available!

tonelar
05-01-2011, 6:12 PM
Rilly? I'm not surprised.

Back OT ; as single shot exemption shops sprout up everywhere... The roster will be less and less pertinent.

GLOCK PERFECTION
05-01-2011, 6:20 PM
Glock Perfection: Cannot believe that was still available!

I KNOW RIGHT! :drool5:

Moto4Fun
05-02-2011, 6:31 AM
This state is already a has been 10 years from now Texas will have everything CA used to have.

What does this statement mean? Even with punctuation, I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Please clarify so I can figure out what I need to hide from Texas.

Baconator
05-02-2011, 7:30 AM
What does this statement mean? Even with punctuation, I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Please clarify so I can figure out what I need to hide from Texas.

All your base are belong to us.

JDW67
05-02-2011, 8:26 AM
Meh...... by the time it gets repealed I will have everything I want through single shot exemption anyway. Sucks to pay more, but I'm impatient ;)

So true!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

glock7
05-02-2011, 6:25 PM
Thank you, you beat me to it. Btw, I just joined Calguns, I dont know why it took me so long but I'm glad I did, you guys are awesome. Maybe there's hope for this State after all.

Calguns is awesome...but there's no hope for this state..:(

JayBeeJay
05-02-2011, 7:39 PM
Maybe there's hope for this State after all.

Calguns is awesome...but there's no hope for this state..:(

Uhh?:confused: Welcome to Calguns by the way.

RolinThundr
05-02-2011, 11:04 PM
One of the best arguments against the list: A "safe" handgun becomes "unsafe" simply because a manufacturer fails to pay the fee to keep said handgun on said list. Nuff said :cool:


Interestingly, decades ago certain men (often now portrayed in movies with trench coats and tommy guns) were labeled as "most wanted" for the same type of "make your payments on time or don't do business on my block" business model.

Munk
05-03-2011, 9:14 AM
Interestingly, decades ago certain men (often now portrayed in movies with trench coats and tommy guns) were labeled as "most wanted" for the same type of "make your payments on time or don't do business on my block" business model.

so we can nail the anti's on Rico rap?

cali_armz
05-03-2011, 9:54 AM
for the sake of more grumbling, id like to say it is absurd that pena vs cid is effectively on hold until the case nordyke vs king is resolved. gun shows have nothing to do with the issue of whether or not the handgun roster should be allowed.

SuperHyperJer
05-04-2011, 9:04 AM
I think the roster's only half the battle, is there hope for the assault weapons ban, too?

I'm sure we all know it really just limits accessories, and doesn't really take away the lethality of it: not to mention bad guys get illegal, unregistered weapons,anyway. Why can't those antigun people see that. I'm not sure about the 10 capacity being state or federal, but automatics and explosives are already heavily restricted by the federal government. I don't get what these morons are after.

Anyways, I feel the roster and assault weapons ban go hand in hand, so I was wondering about that, too.

Don the savage
05-04-2011, 10:38 AM
I think the roster's only half the battle, is there hope for the assault weapons ban, too?

I'm sure we all know it really just limits accessories, and doesn't really take away the lethality of it: not to mention bad guys get illegal, unregistered weapons,anyway. Why can't those antigun people see that. I'm not sure about the 10 capacity being state or federal, but automatics and explosives are already heavily restricted by the federal government. I don't get what these morons are after.

Anyways, I feel the roster and assault weapons ban go hand in hand, so I was wondering about that, too.

The roster, awb and at will ccw are not about safety, they are about control plain and simple. A well armed populace is not controlled as well by fear ( for verification please see Mexico, et al) our socialist, statist Kalifornia leaders want to control us and make us endebted to our state check on the 1st and 15th. Freedom is unpleasant for the ruling class.
Who is John Galt?

Bullwinkle
05-04-2011, 11:39 AM
Personally, I don't find the Roster as bad as the illegal database of handgun owners maintained by the DOJ (i.e. DROS). Or the AWB. Or may-issue. Or mag capacity restrictions. Or the one-handgun-per-month rule. Or requiring a thumbprint for handgun purchases. Or....

In fact, I think the Roster is the least important and least intrusive of the restrictions, at least in practice if not principle.

Don't misquote me, though... I didn't say the Roster doesn't bother me or make me upset; it does, and it is very illegal. I just think there are worse atrocities against gun rights going on concurrently.

YMMV

Wherryj
05-04-2011, 3:54 PM
Don't get me started on the roster.

I bought a handgun to sell at a gun show recently and while it was being shipped, it fell off the roster. I know, I know, my fault for not checking but hear me out. What CA is saying is that this gun was safe yesterday, but not today. It is a JOKE. How long can this BS stand?

The gun is a Taurus PT111. Nice. I'm trying to sell it to an LE officer at a 10% loss. I can't make any money on it in any other state either. It's a 10 rounder and other states get 12 in this model. F U California!!

I wonder how long it would continue if the handgun roster was the "automobile roster"? Can you imagine Ford having to pay a fee and provide several samples of each color of each model in all trims available?

nitroxdiver
05-04-2011, 4:24 PM
One of the best arguments against the list: A "safe" handgun becomes "unsafe" simply because a manufacturer fails to pay the fee to keep said handgun on said list. Nuff said :cool:

That, and cops are somehow exempt from buying "safe" handguns.

97F1504RAD
05-04-2011, 4:27 PM
Thank you, you beat me to it. Btw, I just joined Calguns, I dont know why it took me so long but I'm glad I did, you guys are awesome. Maybe there's hope for this State after all. ;)

You can help things along by contributing to CGF. See the link in my sig.

SuperHyperJer
05-26-2011, 12:39 AM
The roster, awb and at will ccw are not about safety, they are about control plain and simple. A well armed populace is not controlled as well by fear ( for verification please see Mexico, et al) our socialist, statist Kalifornia leaders want to control us and make us endebted to our state check on the 1st and 15th. Freedom is unpleasant for the ruling class.
Who is John Galt?

I kinda figured that was the real intent behind them, but how could they get away with that if they didn't have a real reason? Even considering all the naive people who think less (legal) guns = less violence and murder, there's no way of proving that point in court, it goes against common sense.

Well, in any case there's still hope. Thanks to Obama, people are turning to republicans to fix the country, and while even they won't be able to cut budget enough (they have to keep most of the voters happy, of course), they might make it easier to fight for our constitutional rights. Plus, new republican president may = new republican judges. Even in California's case, I plan on sticking around a while, 'cause if all the pro-gun voter's move to another state California'll have no defense, especially at the polls. Of course, I've gotta draw a line, but maybe when they get away with essentially ignoring the 2nd amendment, getting rid of the 2nd amendment, or essentially making it ridiculously difficult to get a gun. Restricting us to derringers or 5-shot .22 lr revolvers would cross it, too. Frankly, if they successfully ban open-carry, that may cross the line as well. When I say crossing the line, State-wise, I'd move to a more gun-friendly state, federal-wise, it might be time for a rebellion, but I don't think what CA is doing would ever fly federally, anyways.

Sorry, probably expanded the subject too much, I'll leave at this, just had to say it.

Merc1138
05-26-2011, 2:05 AM
I kinda figured that was the real intent behind them, but how could they get away with that if they didn't have a real reason?

How could they have gotten away with it? LOL, easily. Ignorant voters and redistricting.

1: The same party has been in control of our state legislature for decades now, they're the ones who come up with these laws, budget problems, etc. When something goes wrong, both sides want to blame whoever the current governor is while ignoring the legislature.

2: Gerrymandering. If you pay attention to state politics, you'll see that there sure is an awful lot of redistricting? Want to know why? The legislature does it to keep themselves in power.

Imagine a rectangle.
__________
|____|____|


We're both legislators, my district is on the right, yours is on the left. It's divided pretty evenly, correct? let's say in my district I'm only going to get 45% of the vote for my party, and you're going to get 75%. Now I know that a lot of people voting against me live on our border. How do we make sure I get re-elected? We redistrict!
__________
|_____|___|

We shift the line so my area has 60% willing to vote for me, and your vote drops too but it's still 60% so we both win again next election.

Well, what if next election the voters in another part of town want to vote against you? Well, there are lots of districts, so we just shift those votes against you into yet another district where our friend will still win!

Now check this out:
http://www.legislature.ca.gov/legislators_and_districts/districts/assemblydistricts.html

That is a map of our state assembly districts. Notice how almost none of the districts are shaped uniformly at all? You'll have to click on LA and the SF bay area to see those districts because they're smaller. But notice how they kind of intertwine, and some of those borders even cross cities so neighbors across the street could literally be in 2 different districts? Yeah, that's all because of re-districting, aka gerrymandering. Because it's the people in office who get to decide this crap, they just keep doing it over and over and over. If you gave it enough time, a district from SF could theoretically trade enough land back and forth to end up in the middle of LA. Whenever anything on the normal ballot comes up to stop this, ignorant voters just shrug and let it continue to happen.

Now why do they want to control guns? Because an unarmed welfare reliant populace relies on the people in government to do everything for them. Also, it gets these people easy votes from ignorant voters again.

You might be thinking "but don't some of these positions have term limits?". Sure they do. But these people serve 8 years in one position, then simply run for a different position. Do 6 years on the state assembly, then another 8 in the state senate and get your buddy elected to your old assembly position! Then maybe be a mayor for a while, perhaps a sheriff even.