PDA

View Full Version : CA approved hand guns list


PackingHeatInSDCA
07-31-2012, 2:23 PM
this is for the lawyers out there. I'm hoping someone can explain something to me...

I understand california has a list of approved handguns that can be sold in the state. My question is...given the 2A and 'not be infringed', etc., shouldn't it be closer to the state should maintain a list of handguns that *can't* be sold in the state because they are deemed dangerous, etc., and anything else is ok?

i.e. shouldn't it be the other way around??

just curious...

thank you

stix213
07-31-2012, 2:35 PM
i.e. shouldn't it be the other way around??


IANAL but the reason it is not the other way around is because that is simply not the way the law was written. The law also dates from before the 2A was applied to the states in McDonald (2A didn't exist at the state level before 2010 for all practical purposes, so "not be infringed" didn't apply). You'll want to look into the SAF & CGF legal challenge in PeŮa v Cid. http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Pena_v_Cid.

Both organizations and their legal actions are funded by donations, many from members here, so if you feel passionate about this as many of us are I'm sure they could use more support.

Legasat
07-31-2012, 2:51 PM
Using common sense? Sorry, doesn't apply as far as the law goes.

Nice try though!

Librarian
07-31-2012, 3:16 PM
See also the wiki -- http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/The_Safe_Handgun_List

corrosively_armed
07-31-2012, 5:52 PM
The local shop here seems to get around it somehow I think by selling the off list pistols as single shots which you then come back to modify. Guns like the sw bodyguard and lcp were a couple examples as I recall and others. I don't know how a gun can be deemed safe for the police but not safe for the public.

ICONIC
07-31-2012, 6:24 PM
The roster has nothing to do with safety. It is just a way for the State of California to extort money from the evil gun companies.

jeff762
07-31-2012, 9:18 PM
The roster has nothing to do with safety. It is just a way for the State of California to extort money from the evil gun companies.

none of which comes into the state.

Veggie
07-31-2012, 10:04 PM
this is for the lawyers out there. I'm hoping someone can explain something to me...

I understand california has a list of approved handguns that can be sold in the state. My question is...given the 2A and 'not be infringed', etc., shouldn't it be closer to the state should maintain a list of handguns that *can't* be sold in the state because they are deemed dangerous, etc., and anything else is ok?

i.e. shouldn't it be the other way around??

just curious...

thank you

How would the state make money off it then? They charge the gun maker to get their name on the safe handgun roster right now. They have to renew every so often.

corrosively_armed
07-31-2012, 10:22 PM
what does it really cost the mfr?

Librarian
07-31-2012, 10:25 PM
How would the state make money off it then? They charge the gun maker to get their name on the safe handgun roster right now. They have to renew every so often.

They don't make much.

Fee is $200 for each listed weapon each year.

Today there are 1306 models on the list - $261K. The 2012 budget for DOJ (http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/Revised/StateAgencyBudgets/0010/0820/department.html) is $454 million.

Can't refuse even a small contribution, but the purpose is not financial.

Darto
07-31-2012, 10:26 PM
It cost's the makers $ in loss of sales due to the hassle of buying.

REH
07-31-2012, 10:28 PM
As I understand it, $200.00 per gun, per year to renew. Check the roster and look at the Smith & Wesson list. Make sure to take your caculator.

REH
07-31-2012, 10:30 PM
They don't make much.

Fee is $200 for each listed weapon each year.

Today there are 1306 models on the list - $261K. The 2012 budget for DOJ (http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/Revised/StateAgencyBudgets/0010/0820/department.html) is $454 million.

Can't refuse even a small contribution, but the purpose is not financial.

If not financial, then what?

IVC
07-31-2012, 10:47 PM
If not financial, then what?

Take a wild guess... Hint: Bradys give extra points to any state for having a roster. Another hint: Gen 4 Glock, XDM, HK45/P30 and many other *new* handguns are not on the list.

FalconLair
08-01-2012, 1:11 AM
obviously more logical to have an approved list versus a "non approved" list to prevent guns from slipping through the cracks...plus, supposedly, these guns must confirm to certain California safety ratings

if you had a non approved list certain guns could possible slip on in simply by not being on the list...simple changes on the gun to make it different from what is on the non approved list

Wiz-of-Awd
08-01-2012, 8:08 AM
Personally...

I prefer a list of what I can buy.
A list of what I can't buy doesn't do me any good.

Just sayin'

A.W.D.

uyoga
08-01-2012, 8:42 AM
QUOTE=
If not financial, then what?[/QUOTE]

Control!

NytWolf
08-01-2012, 8:45 AM
My question is...given the 2A and 'not be infringed', etc., shouldn't it be closer to the state should maintain a list of handguns that *can't* be sold in the state because they are deemed dangerous, etc., and anything else is ok?

i.e. shouldn't it be the other way around??

just curious...

thank you

There you go again ... attempting to apply logic to CA's laws. :rolleyes:

It has more to do with politics than law, for starters. Second, having seen that they (the lawmakers) have been burned in the past for writing vague, un-specific, or just plain too general laws, that could not be passed, they had to define what is legal and what is not.

XD40SUBBIE
08-01-2012, 10:36 AM
The roster has nothing to do with safety. It is just a way for the State of California to extort money from the evil gun companies.

Exactly. If it was about logic or safety, how does a gun with the same functionality fail to be sold simply because it has a different finish? It is obvious what's really going on here. It is taxing or fee charging the gun manufacturers to do business in California. Unfortunately, we have the largest economy in the union, so writing us off can really depress their business. Perhaps if we push hard enough they may just say F**k, California. But then again, we as voting citizens may be able to get some legislation to remove these stupid regulations that the DOJ has made for itself. I can dream, right? Well, that or we sue?

XD40SUBBIE
08-01-2012, 10:41 AM
FalconLair, this is OT, but your sig picture is interesting and quite optimistic. For it is the same phenomenon that usually have us writing typos, even after we have reviewed what we have written. :) It is the 45 out of 100 that has the advantage of seeing our mistakes since they cannot understand our errors. :)

curtisfong
08-01-2012, 10:41 AM
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Pena_v_Cid

XD40SUBBIE
08-01-2012, 10:45 AM
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Pena_v_Cid


Ah, thanks, Curtis.

Wiz-of-Awd
08-01-2012, 11:38 AM
The roster has nothing to do with safety. It is just a way for the State of California to extort money from the evil gun companies.

Exactly. If it was about logic or safety, how does a gun with the same functionality fail to be sold simply because it has a different finish? It is obvious what's really going on here. It is taxing or fee charging the gun manufacturers to do business in California. Unfortunately, we have the largest economy in the union, so writing us off can really depress their business. Perhaps if we push hard enough they may just say F**k, California. But then again, we as voting citizens may be able to get some legislation to remove these stupid regulations that the DOJ has made for itself. I can dream, right? Well, that or we sue?

You know, I was told by pretty much everybody in a thread I posted - that CA isn't interested in our money (taxes/fees regarding guns and gun laws), but rather not letting us have them.

The same should apply to gun manufacturers in this thread's question/s.

Unless, they do want our money. In which case...

A.W.D.

dvcrsn
08-01-2012, 11:53 AM
obviously more logical to have an approved list versus a "non approved" list to prevent guns from slipping through the cracks...plus, supposedly, these guns must confirm to certain California safety ratings

if you had a non approved list certain guns could possible slip on in simply by not being on the list...simple changes on the gun to make it different from what is on the non approved list

Don't forget that the Ravens, Davis and Lorcins PASSED:TFH:

Wherryj
08-02-2012, 8:37 AM
They don't make much.

Fee is $200 for each listed weapon each year.

Today there are 1306 models on the list - $261K. The 2012 budget for DOJ (http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/Revised/StateAgencyBudgets/0010/0820/department.html) is $454 million.

Can't refuse even a small contribution, but the purpose is not financial.

To some extent I disagree with your statement. It may not be a large amount of money for the state, but it IS a significant financial burden for the manufacturer.

It turns out to be a financial means to controlling the sale of the item. True, the state isn't using it JUST to create revenue, but it is still a financial attack.

IVC
08-02-2012, 10:26 AM
It turns out to be a financial means to controlling the sale of the item. True, the state isn't using it JUST to create revenue, but it is still a financial attack.

Let's not overreact here. The burden could be significant for some low volume handguns, but it's not the primary purpose. If it was just the cost, it would be easy to pass it on to the consumers. Just look at how much people pay for SSE and "used" off-roster handguns ("used" = NIB with intent to sell).

The primary purpose is to provide a framework for selective and arbitrary gun regulation, where new features and models can be restricted by adding roster requirements instead of having to define and legislate forbidden models/features. It's a very convenient "keep the tab open" type of regulation.

If we had a similar roster of "not unsafe rifles," Senator Yee could just add a requirement that to get on the roster a rifle cannot have a bullet button. Problem solved: no bullet button + features = AW. Add bullet button = cannot get on the roster.

The best way to analyze any roster-like setup is to look at how it's used in practice. It started with "safety" and "saturday night specials", but then added magazine disconnect and microstamping (not yet effective, but only because of the patent issues).

Meplat1
08-02-2012, 11:32 AM
Let's not overreact here. The burden could be significant for some low volume handguns, but it's not the primary purpose. If it was just the cost, it would be easy to pass it on to the consumers. Just look at how much people pay for SSE and "used" off-roster handguns ("used" = NIB with intent to sell).

The primary purpose is to provide a framework for selective and arbitrary gun regulation, where new features and models can be restricted by adding roster requirements instead of having to define and legislate forbidden models/features. It's a very convenient "keep the tab open" type of regulation.

If we had a similar roster of "not unsafe rifles," Senator Yee could just add a requirement that to get on the roster a rifle cannot have a bullet button. Problem solved: no bullet button + features = AW. Add bullet button = cannot get on the roster.

The best way to analyze any roster-like setup is to look at how it's used in practice. It started with "safety" and "saturday night specials", but then added magazine disconnect and microstamping (not yet effective, but only because of the patent issues).

Donít forget itís not just $200, Itís $200 for every individual model. That means any change in sights finish or grip material, ANYTHING, makes it a different model. Plus, every three years they must submit five examples of each and every model they want approved, and the examples are not returned. What do 20 or 30 brand spanking new sigs cost? And models that do not move fast, like those suited to left handed shooters, donít get submitted.

On top of all this, possibly the most accident prone gun in the world, for dummies that donít understand it, the single action revolver, is EXEMPT!

jorgyusa
08-02-2012, 12:01 PM
I don't think it is about money, or safety but is about the desire on the government's part to ban all handguns which they know they can't directly do. Banning features incrementally moves us to fewer and fewer hand guns being available. Don't forget about the micro-stamping requirement which has not been implemented yet because of patent issues. When that goes into effect all new handguns will be banned for sale. You will only be able to buy the old models as long as the manufacturer pays the tax. (Unless you leave the state or play single shot conversion game)

bbbppc
08-02-2012, 12:50 PM
What I dont understand is, if guns not on the roster are unsafe or not proven to be safe by the DOJ then why are LEO exempt? wouldnt that be a liability if they use a potentially "unsafe" gun? How does that work?

Wiz-of-Awd
08-02-2012, 12:59 PM
What I dont understand is, if guns not on the roster are unsafe or not proven to be safe by the DOJ then why are LEO exempt? wouldnt that be a liability if they use a potentially "unsafe" gun? How does that work?

I believe that's what they call a "double standard."

A.W.D.

ECVMatt
08-02-2012, 1:07 PM
I have always thought that we should encourage lawyers to sue every time a handgun that is not on the safe list is used in a police shooting. If the state of California deems it to be unsafe then why in the world would a police department want to issue them? I would think in a court of law that this wouldn't be too far of a stretch to win some pretty good claims against police departments. While I have nothing against the police departments, this may put some pressure on the DOJ or at least the lawmakers to fix it.

Probably just wishful thinking.

IVC
08-02-2012, 1:26 PM
What I dont understand is, if guns not on the roster are unsafe or not proven to be safe by the DOJ then why are LEO exempt? wouldnt that be a liability if they use a potentially "unsafe" gun? How does that work?

That's where the double negation comes into play.

It's "roster of not unsafe guns." Anything outside is only "not guaranteed not to be unsafe."

So, we just can't get it new from an FFL, but otherwise they may or may not be "not unsafe."

Any time you see double speak it's fishy, with the devil in the detail.

Meplat1
08-02-2012, 7:06 PM
I don't think it is about money, or safety but is about the desire on the government's part to ban all handguns which they know they can't directly do. Banning features incrementally moves us to fewer and fewer hand guns being available. Don't forget about the micro-stamping requirement which has not been implemented yet because of patent issues. When that goes into effect all new handguns will be banned for sale. You will only be able to buy the old models as long as the manufacturer pays the tax. (Unless you leave the state or play single shot conversion game)

It is not about the money, as in revenue for the state; they could make far more selling LTCs. It is about obstacles to ownership, including boosting cost and limiting availability. Actually it should be unconstitutional under the commerce clause!

mrdd
08-02-2012, 7:37 PM
Donít forget itís not just $200, Itís $200 for every individual model. That means any change in sights finish or grip material, ANYTHING, makes it a different model. Plus, every three years they must submit five examples of each and every model they want approved, and the examples are not returned.

Do you have a cite for the requirement for a manufacturer to submit 5 examples every 3 years?

Librarian
08-02-2012, 8:04 PM
Plus, every three years they must submit five examples of each and every model they want approved, and the examples are not returned.

No, not correct.

DOJ can ask for a re-test, but that's unusual. No regular re-rest is required.

And I'll bump your password problem Up The Line ...

mrdd
08-02-2012, 8:11 PM
No, not correct.

DOJ can ask for a re-test, but that's unusual. No regular re-rest is required.

And according to the regulations and the law, the DOJ pays all costs for the retest, including acquiring the testing examples.

vincewarde
08-02-2012, 10:09 PM
The roster has nothing to do with safety. It is just a way for the State of California to extort money from the evil gun companies.

I think it would be more accurate to say it has little to do with safety. Clearly the "drop test" has ***some*** value. Not much, but some.

The key thing is that guns not on the list are clearly not necessarily "unsafe". In the past, many could have passed the test, but the manufacturer or importer (the only one's allowed to submit guns for testing) just didn't submit them to DOJ. Now new designs have to meet new "safety" standards that include a loaded chamber indicator, a magazine disconnect and a manual safety. This means that the gun basically must be designed to meet the new specs.

Of course, police can buy and departments can issue all of the "off list" guns they want. Indeed, the most common police gun (the Glock) could not pass the new standards - the only reason the older Glocks are allowed in is the fact that they were approved before the new requirements.

What is the real motive for the list? IMHO, it is intended to make smaller guns and less expensive guns unavailable in California. For instance, it would be hard for Ruger to redesign the LCP (a very small .380) to incorporate all the required features. They were able to do so on the LC9 - but it is quite a bit bigger.

Another point is that if you look at the pistols in the same size and price range as the LC9, none of them are on the approved list. One or two in the same size range are in the list - but they cost quite a bit more.

Originally the list was supposed to eliminate inexpensive larger guns called "Saturday Night Specials" by gun control advocates. The only problem is that most of these actually passed the test!

The original idea was to make handguns expensive enough that the average poor person could not afford them. That's why guns that are no longer made - and thus not renewed by the manufacturer - "drop off" the list. That way they cannot be sold used by dealers, because they become somehow "unsafe" when the fee is not paid. Other than handguns still on the list, handguns on the Federal "Curio and Relic" list and sales to police officers - dealers can't sell used handguns.

As an earlier poster mentioned, ways have been found to get around these limits, through either the single action revolver exemption (put in for cowboy action shooters) or the single shot exemption. Both involve modifying the gun prior to sale. There is a lot of information here on these methods.

The list is about limiting choice - not safety, even though the drop test has value. Hopefully it will be struck down as the violation of the 2nd Amendment that it clearly is.

ECG_88
08-03-2012, 7:38 AM
What if we just let the microstamping thing go through. Let go of the argument about patents and stuff. Just let the Roster say that every legal gun in california has to be microstamped or else its "banned". Then just make sure no firearms manufacturer makes a gun with any microstamping. Since there are no handguns with microstamping cause the manufacturese wont make them, no handgun could be legal. Then we could use heller to strike down the defacto handgun ban.

Of course there are too many ways the courts could play games with that so in the end it probably wouldnt work, but its my legal fantasy.

Meplat1
08-06-2012, 2:59 PM
No, not correct.

DOJ can ask for a re-test, but that's unusual. No regular re-rest is required.

And I'll bump your password problem Up The Line ...

I got that notion from the DOJ web site. Iíve been known to miss understand legalese before, so Iím not surprised.