PDA

View Full Version : Examples of Roster Silliness


Tiberius
11-25-2012, 11:01 AM
I'm collecting examples of roster silliness. For example, the Sig P232 is available in California in stainless, but not in blue. Same gun, same mechanics, but one is "safe" (Ok, one is "not unsafe") and one is prohibited (sort of, unless you're a LEO, or get it through a PPT).

There are many other examples, where identical versions of the same gun are banned due to minor differences in finish (for example, the tan or green or whatever). While the intent of the roster may have originally been good, in that it was supposed to get rid of the mythical cheap and dangerous Saturday Night Special, as applied it appears to achieve none of its goals while creating a ridiculous situation.

Could you kindly set out other examples of the same gun being both allowed, and banned, due to tiny differences that likely result in a different model number? In the case of the Sig P232, perhaps stainless and non-stainless have slightly different qualities, so ideal examples are those where the guns differ only in pure cosmetics such as grips or coloration.

T

Librarian
11-25-2012, 11:08 AM
The intent of the Roster was never good.

See also the wiki -- http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/The_Safe_Handgun_List

JeremyS
11-25-2012, 12:52 PM
...While the intent of the roster may have originally been good...

You're being very generous. I'm sure it had nothing to do with money and furthering the goals of an anti-gun legislative environment by greatly reducing access to firearms among the general public.

Your list would be too long. It would be much longer than the roster. There are way more examples of guns that aren't on it due to a grip difference or a color difference from the gun that is on the roster than there are guns on the roster. Besides, where you draw the line as being "silly" is a bit subjective. What about two guns that are identical mechanically but one has a longer barrel and/or slide? What about one that comes with regular sights and one with night sights? What about the fact that guns somehow become "unsafe" and unable to be purchased normally by a citizen if the company stops paying the annual fee to keep it on the roster?

...etc etc etc... just saying, your list would end up 20x the length of the roster itself.

CSACANNONEER
11-25-2012, 1:00 PM
Besides limiting firearms available to the common folk, the roster is about revenue. It's not "silly", it's about control and state revenue and there is nothing "silly" about either one.

Eldraque
11-25-2012, 1:51 PM
especially now that theyve added the requirement for magazine detaches, and loaded chamber indicators. once they get rid of the SSE, CA gun owners are ****ed

Quiet
11-25-2012, 1:55 PM
The "unsafe handgun" laws, which created the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale, are a prime example of what happens when gun owners don't stand together and only look out for their own interests.

For example...
While the unsafe handgun bill was working it's way through the legislature, cowboy action shooters opposed it. But, once they were given an exemption for single-action revolvers, they switched from opposing it, to supporting it.

Brandon04GT
11-25-2012, 1:58 PM
This one is the worst I've seen so far:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v205/paperchasin/sig_lci.jpg

REH
11-25-2012, 2:02 PM
Does anyone really belive that a manufacture, today, would build an unsafe gun? With manufacturers putting internal locks, heavy pull triggers, instruction stamped all over the barrels etc on their firearms just to CYA. The roster is a good example of old time extortion.

hornswaggled
11-25-2012, 2:07 PM
I can't wait until the roster challenge gets heard in court. So Mr. Attorney General, explain how a chocolate covered Glock 19 is more unsafe than a black one?

REH
11-25-2012, 2:11 PM
May also want to ask Mr. or Ms Attorney General, why a LEO can use an unsafe gun to protect the public.

David13
11-25-2012, 2:18 PM
I don't know that it was the 'anti's' that were the impetus behind the roster law.
I thought it had to do with some type of compromise, rather than certain local prohibitions that may have been upheld.
I thought also that there were others in favor of it, besides just the cowboy action shooters.
Others who should have been against it, but instead found some way to use it to their benefit.
But my memory is poor.
dc

corcoraj2002
11-25-2012, 2:18 PM
I have not been looking for anything too wild as a firearm, so the roster has not been a pain for me. But the new LCI is fcuking ugly. I would not buy (or would try SSE) any newer weapons.

Raider888
11-25-2012, 2:18 PM
This one is the worst I've seen so far:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v205/paperchasin/sig_lci.jpg

perfect line for my zipper, not on my guns. lol

Librarian
11-25-2012, 2:19 PM
it's about ... state revenue
Hardly.

"There are 1310 models in the database."

1310 x $200 = $262,000.

Now, I wouldn't throw away $262,000.

But DOJ's 2012 budget (http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/Enacted/StateAgencyBudgets/0010/agency.html) is $741,778,000 - Roster income, even presuming it has zero costs, is .035% of the DOJ budget.

jshoebot
11-25-2012, 2:22 PM
Sig P250 Two-Tone: on the roster. That gun was never produced by Sig except for the guns submitted to the CA DOJ. Can't get any other P250s, even though they're the exact same as a nonexistent gun that's on the roster.

JeremyS
11-25-2012, 3:03 PM
1310 x $200 = $262,000.

That's the annual upkeep to maintain on-roster status, but isn't there a fee for the testing and such to get on the roster in the first place? I thought that was fairly expensive for the gun manufacturer and then the annual fee was basically nothing in comparison.



The other unfortunate truth, in regards to the topic of this thread, is that a lot of the guns missing from the roster that are mechanically identical to ones on there but are in different colors or have different grips or whatever, CAN be on the roster and it's the manufacturer's fault for not pushing the issue. The easiest way would be to assign the same model/part number to the gun regardless of color. But, even with different model numbers, the manufacturer can get other variations on the roster w/out further testing.

What am I talking about? From the penal code regarding the testing requirements and roster requirements, etc:

CAL. PEN. CODE 12131.5 : California Code - Section 12131.5


(a)A firearm shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of subdivision (a) of Section 12131 if another firearm made by the same manufacturer is already listed and the unlisted firearm differs from the listed firearm only in one or more of the following features:

(1)Finish, including, but not limited to, bluing, chrome-plating, oiling, or engraving.

(2)The material from which the grips are made.

(3)The shape or texture of the grips, so long as the difference in grip shape or texture does not in any way alter the dimensions, material, linkage, or functioning of the magazine well, the barrel, the chamber, or any of the components of the firing mechanism of the firearm.

(4)Any other purely cosmetic feature that does not in any way alter the dimensions, material, linkage, or functioning of the magazine well, the barrel, the chamber, or any of the components of the firing mechanism of the firearm.

(b)Any manufacturer seeking to have a firearm listed under this section shall provide to the Department of Justice all of the following:

(1)The model designation of the listed firearm.

(2)The model designation of each firearm that the manufacturer seeks to have listed under this section.

(3)A statement, under oath, that each unlisted firearm for which listing is sought differs from the listed firearm only in one or more of the ways identified in subdivision (a) and is in all other respects identical to the listed firearm.

(c)The department may, in its discretion and at any time, require a manufacturer to provide to the department any model for which listing is sought under this section, to determine whether the model complies with the requirements of this section.




Another thing not exactly mentioned is that the Roster is an elitist effort to keep poor people from owning firearms. Laws like this have always existed; meant to keep classes of people, from the poor on up to everybody except for the ruling class, from owning firearms. Even Obama mentioned in the 2nd debate a month or so ago that he wanted to get rid of "cheap handguns" or Saturday Night Specials or whatever they want to call them. San Francisco banned firearms ownership in public housing projects until the NRA sued and got it overturned. The $200 tax stamp to own NFA items was simply a tax to keep only a certain class of people from being able to own them ($200 back in 1937, when it was passed, was like $3,300 or so in today's dollars adjusted for inflation, which sure classes out a lot of people who may have wanted to purchase an NFA firearm).

The same thing can be said about concealed carry permit issuing in many CA counties. If you are rich and/or politically connected, or are yourself a politician/judge/etc, you can get a permit. If you don't have the money to be connected, then you cannot. Obviously there's an amount of wealth that equates to being trustworthy with a firearm and being deserving of the ability to protect yourself.

Why do I say this? Well... what does a firing reliability requirement have to do with a gun being safe? Why should it have to go through 500 rounds without a stoppage? Well... because it classed out a whole bunch of cheap guns like Jennings and Raven and other things that tended to jam. Most of the "Saturday Night Specials." The fees required to submit to testing also classed out some of the companies that made these guns. Now that many inexpensive guns are capable of this level of reliability, the state adds new requirements that require manufacturing changes and new testing. Trying to add things like microstamping and other expensive-to-manufacture things again classes out inexpensive guns.

Why are old school single action revolvers exempt from the roster? These are some of the only guns actually at high risk of firing from being dropped. Modern guns don't do that! But many people refer to the CA testing process as "drop testing," since that's always the step mentioned as the primary safety test. Yet... the group of guns most likely to fail was exempted before the testing law was even passed. This doesn't make a strong argument that the roster was ever actually about safety.

ZNinerFan
11-25-2012, 3:43 PM
I wish there was some real movement in Pena v. Cid to get this roster nonsense taken care of once and for all.

It would be nice to be able walk into gun store and be able to buy the latest innovation in handgun technology without any modifications, extra fees, or the need to invoke any exemptions.

LMTluvr
11-25-2012, 4:20 PM
I wish there was some real movement in Pena v. Cid to get this roster nonsense taken care of once and for all.

It would be nice to be able walk into gun store and be able to buy the latest innovation in handgun technology without any modifications, extra fees, or the need to invoke any exemptions.

Without a ten day wait!

ZNinerFan
11-25-2012, 4:34 PM
Without a ten day wait!

I hope I can experience that in my lifetime.

hundreddollarman
11-25-2012, 4:48 PM
I don't like the state telling me what handgun is safe enough for me to purchase. A gun is only as safe as the person operating it.

ewarmour
11-25-2012, 5:05 PM
I hope I can experience that in my lifetime.

Move to a free state. ;)

Librarian
11-25-2012, 5:26 PM
That's the annual upkeep to maintain on-roster status, but isn't there a fee for the testing and such to get on the roster in the first place? I thought that was fairly expensive for the gun manufacturer and then the annual fee was basically nothing in comparison.


Just to this point: the initial testing fee is also $200; the expense comes from the company's internal paperwork, and supplying three copies of the gun for testing. The guns deemed 'substantially similar' are not tested.

Still not much of a profit center.

The Roster was never actually about safety.

uhlan1
11-25-2012, 6:49 PM
I can't wait until the roster challenge gets heard in court. So Mr. Attorney General, explain how a chocolate covered Glock 19 is more unsafe than a black one?

Anyone know when it will be heard?

Mossy Man
11-25-2012, 6:50 PM
Just to this point: the initial testing fee is also $200; the expense comes from the company's internal paperwork, and supplying three copies of the gun for testing. The guns deemed 'substantially similar' are not tested.

Still not much of a profit center.

The Roster was never actually about safety.

The Roster is about piecemeal banning of handguns.

uhlan1
11-25-2012, 6:58 PM
The "unsafe handgun" laws, which created the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale, are a prime example of what happens when gun owners don't stand together and only look out for their own interests.

For example...
While the unsafe handgun bill was working it's way through the legislature, cowboy action shooters opposed it. But, once they were given an exemption for single-action revolvers, they switched from opposing it, to supporting it.

They did? I didn't know that. Are they so short sighted they don't realize the ultimate goal is not gun control but no guns. Selfidh idiots.



First they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemoller, Pastor, Nazi Germany

rromeo
11-25-2012, 7:09 PM
If a blued model is on the roster, and the stainless is not, then that is because the manufacturer didn't want to pay another $200. The DOJ isn't stopping them.

kf6tac
11-25-2012, 7:16 PM
If memory serves, there were some pretty good examples in the Pena v. Cid complaint (I vaguely recall something about one of the named plaintiffs who didn't have a right arm being unable to acquire a left-handed version of a gun that because only the right-handed version was on the roster).

gorenut
11-25-2012, 7:46 PM
I always saw the roster as a means to keep more guns out rather than for actual profit.

Atlantaboi2012
11-25-2012, 7:57 PM
After winter Ill be a free man...moving out of state. No more BB Bull*** ... Ill be in "happy stick" heaven

SoyB3an
11-25-2012, 8:08 PM
It's not so much there are "unsafe guns", it's more like "unsafe handlers". The most mind boggling of the CA approved list is the exclusion of the Walther PPK in all finishes. Like seriously? It was sold in stores all over a few years ago. I guess the DOJ figures just because 007 uses it, then it must be a spy weapon and therefore unfit for civillians. :banghead::rant:

Fishslayer
11-25-2012, 8:15 PM
I keep telling you guys. "They" are NOT stupid and the laws "they" pass, including the roster, make perfect sense if your agenda is eventual disarming of the law abiding sector of a population.


Move to a free state. ;)

Adorable Avatar is adorable. :D

REH
11-25-2012, 8:29 PM
Question to Libraian. If we prevail with Pena V. Cid, will the loaded chamber indicator and mag disconnect go away?

jshoebot
11-25-2012, 8:34 PM
If a blued model is on the roster, and the stainless is not, then that is because the manufacturer didn't want to pay another $200. The DOJ isn't stopping them.

Good point, it's obviously the manufacturer's fault for not paying the extortion fee.

Apec
11-25-2012, 9:43 PM
Haha. As much as we all want that stupid roster dead - which is a good thing - I can't help but think that I'll feel like an idiot for paying out the nose to get something SSE'd way back then...if it happens.

On the plus side, folks won't be able to gouge second hand sales of formerly "off-roster" guns.

uhlan1
11-25-2012, 9:55 PM
Haha. As much as we all want that stupid roster dead - which is a good thing - I can't help but think that I'll feel like an idiot for paying out the nose to get something SSE'd way back then...if it happens.

On the plus side, folks won't be able to gouge second hand sales of formerly "off-roster" guns.

Shhh...I'm listing my wife's newly off-roster Bersa for 1200.00. LBNIB, only 50 rounds through it You guys are the first to know so drop me a pm if you want to beat the stampede.
PPT on you, naturally. Price is firm, no lowballers.

JeremyS
11-25-2012, 9:59 PM
...they don't realize the ultimate goal is not gun control but no guns...

Deeper than that, really... Gun control isn't about guns; it's about control.



Just to this point: the initial testing fee is also $200; the expense comes from the company's internal paperwork, and supplying three copies of the gun for testing.

Thanks. For some reason I was under the impression that the testing and submission process ran tens of thousands of dollars.

Librarian
11-25-2012, 10:08 PM
Question to Libraian. If we prevail with Pena V. Cid, will the loaded chamber indicator and mag disconnect go away?

Depends on what the ruling may say.

Those (mis)features are requirements to get on the Roster. If the Roster were to entirely go away, then requirements for those things would no longer have any connection to anything.

drifter2be
11-25-2012, 10:09 PM
The biggest example of roster silliness is the fact that it even exists.

REH
11-25-2012, 10:26 PM
Depends on what the ruling may say.

Those (mis)features are requirements to get on the Roster. If the Roster were to entirely go away, then requirements for those things would no longer have any connection to anything.

Thanks............great answer. Can't wait till June 2013

Quiet
11-26-2012, 7:38 AM
The biggest example of roster silliness is the fact that it even exists.

It exists because "pro"-gun groups did not stand together.
Once certain groups got an exemption to it, they threw everyone else under the bus.

12voltguy
11-26-2012, 11:01 AM
The "unsafe handgun" laws, which created the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale, are a prime example of what happens when gun owners don't stand together and only look out for their own interests.

For example...
While the unsafe handgun bill was working it's way through the legislature, cowboy action shooters opposed it. But, once they were given an exemption for single-action revolvers, they switched from opposing it, to supporting it.

It exists because "pro"-gun groups did not stand together.
Once certain groups got an exemption to it, they threw everyone else under the bus.

there so we all remember who did not help, but hurt all gun owners, they must be pretty proud of themselves today:rolleyes:

drifter2be
11-26-2012, 11:24 AM
^ No different than all the hunters that couldn't have cared less about the AWB or bills like SB249 because it doesn't directly affect their guns. Many gun owners are complacent unless legislation directly affects them or could care less, like many LEOs because most of CAs retarded gun laws like the Roster or hi-cap mag ban do not affect them at all. I wish they would do away with LEO exemption from the roster and the mag ban and put them on equal ground with the rest of CA's subjects, I guarantee most of them would be demanding that the laws be done away with if that ever happened.

Dakine_surf
11-26-2012, 11:49 AM
^ No different than all the hunters that couldn't have cared less about the AWB or bills like SB249 because it doesn't directly affect their guns. Many gun owners are complacent unless legislation directly affects them or could care less, like many LEOs because most of CAs retarded gun laws like the Roster or hi-cap mag ban do not affect them at all. I wish they would do away with LEO exemption from the roster and the mag ban and put them on equal ground with the rest of CA's subjects, I guarantee most of them would be demanding that the laws be done away with if that ever happened.

This^

I love Ronnie Barrett's approach. California outlawed his rifles, so he said fine, your LEO and other agency's cant have them either. Unfortunately most LEO departments have no need for .50 BMG so not much stink was raised... That being said, Ronnie is still a stand up guy, and has a soft spot for Californias, hence the new 82A1.

X9BgG6Y5LOc

12voltguy
11-26-2012, 12:50 PM
This^

I love Ronnie Barrett's approach. California outlawed his rifles, so he said fine, your LEO and other agency's cant have them either. Unfortunately most LEO departments have no need for .50 BMG so not much stink was raised... That being said, Ronnie is still a stand up guy, and has a soft spot for Californias, hence the new 82A1.X9BgG6Y5LOc

or he was losing out on our CALIF $$$$$
might have more to do with the $$ then anything else;)
California's economy is the eighth largest economy in the world (2011We have the most people of any state at
37,691,912
TX is 2nd at
25,674,681
we have 12 million more people then TX!