2022 08 01 Boland V Bonta - Handgun Roster Lawsuit

[Maxa1]

This is great news!

I'm concerned that the legislature will do with NY did with the CCW law and tried to do with California's CCW law: add more requirements, making new(er) firearms impossible to qualify for the roster.

Does anyone know of Bonta/Newsom/the Legislature talking about that?

[The Gleam]

Originally Posted by DrewN

why is it a requirement for a gun to be on the roster then? They state started that stupid mess.


GCA 68 showed them the way with the Saturday Night Special bans. They pitched that as about safe function as well. So they knew something like the roster had precedent. They just got too greedy with microstampming.

I fell into a burning ring of fire,
I went down, down, down,
And the flames went higher,
And it burns, burns, burns,
The ring of fire,
The ring of fire......

---

[The Gleam]

Originally Posted by Sgt Raven

On the DROS, at one time, it didn't have a provision for "other". It has been a long time since I read about it. I don't know if this has changed.

"Other" can now be found on the 4473 - check the box labled "Non-Binary".

---

[Uncle Leo]

Originally Posted by Superben104

Definitely on the short long list with a Walther PDP, FN 509 MRD-LE, P365, CZ P10F, Staccato P...

I'd sell my Springfield Pro for a Wilson Combat Beretta, gen 5 glock 45, and a sig without that ridiculous LCI. It feels good to dream.

Scratch the sig, hk45. Just imagine the lines at gun stores

[WWDHD?]

Originally Posted by Uncle Leo

I'd sell my Springfield Pro for a Wilson Combat Beretta, gen 5 glock 45, and a sig without that ridiculous LCI. It feels good to dream.

Scratch the sig, hk45. Just imagine the lines at gun stores

Might be a good time to get into the retail store display case manufacturer/sales business.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by Uncle Leo

I'd sell my Springfield Pro for a Wilson Combat Beretta, gen 5 glock 45, and a sig without that ridiculous LCI. It feels good to dream.

Scratch the sig, hk45. Just imagine the lines at gun stores

Not to worry, it will be years before those lines form. Gavin will see to it. Because he hates you.

[Sgt Raven]

Originally Posted by The Gleam

"Other" can now be found on the 4473 - check the box labled "Non-Binary".

---

I'm talking about CA DROS computer system entries, not the BATFE 4473. The 4473 has had "other" for years. The DROS form and the 4473 do not tract each other 100%.

[The Gleam]

Originally Posted by Sgt Raven

I'm talking about CA DROS computer system entries, not the BATFE 4473. The 4473 has had "other" for years. The DROS form and the 4473 do not tract each other 100%.

That was a joke son - a joke I says!

---

[tenemae]

Originally Posted by Maxa1

I'm concerned that the legislature will do with NY did with the CCW law and tried to do with California's CCW law: add more requirements, making new(er) firearms impossible to qualify for the roster

The judge is aware that LEOs are almost exclusively using off-roster handguns in California. I suspect his judgement will address the unconstitutionality of the carve-outs, making that type of roster requirement change difficult to impossible

[Tahoeshooter]

Originally Posted by taperxz

We will see. However they know that this is inevitable and with this case, they can still maintain a roster of handguns.

This is a boutique law that is no longer worth fighting for but still able to maintain some control instead of losing the entire scheme

Interesting take on it...But it doesn't cost them anything to fight for it. They get paid in any case, and can score political points with their constituents to do so.

[jcwatchdog]

Originally Posted by Tahoeshooter

Interesting take on it...But it doesn't cost them anything to fight for it. They get paid in any case, and can score political points with their constituents to do so.

There is a lot of money to be made for the state of California by allowing this ruling to stand. They can still have their ?roster of safe handguns? that they can parade to their base. Sure the list is longer, but with that longer list they get substantially more money from the gun manufacturers when they place their guns on roster, and they get this cash yearly. When $ is involved, don?t doubt that the state simps start to drool just a little.

[rrr70]

Originally Posted by jcwatchdog

There is a lot of money to be made for the state of California by allowing this ruling to stand. They can still have their ?roster of safe handguns? that they can parade to their base. Sure the list is longer, but with that longer list they get substantially more money from the gun manufacturers when they place their guns on roster, and they get this cash yearly. When $ is involved, don?t doubt that the state simps start to drool just a little.

I remember reading few years ago that Ca is the second largest Gun market in the US after Texas. Several billion so dollars. They want complete ban. Fu#ers just raise taxes to compensate.

[Superben104]

The biggest difference between Texas and California is the number of weapons sold per capita.

[Tahoeshooter]

Originally Posted by jcwatchdog

There is a lot of money to be made for the state of California by allowing this ruling to stand. They can still have their ?roster of safe handguns? that they can parade to their base. Sure the list is longer, but with that longer list they get substantially more money from the gun manufacturers when they place their guns on roster, and they get this cash yearly. When $ is involved, don?t doubt that the state simps start to drool just a little.

The money from manufacturers is almost nil.
But you're right in the sense that sales volume would increase dramatically, bringing in millions in sales tax revenue.

I suppose it would only negatively affect a lib politician if they were forced to publicly take a stand on it. In that case lib challengers to incumbents could use it against them if they didn't. But this is a court ruling so if they just keep quiet or support attacks against it they might be able to benefit from it. They could always just blame it on the power of the evil NRA.

So maybe we'll get lucky. In any event, there's now a stay and more challenges will be made. If so I would guess that will be at least a couple of years before we finally put the knife to it.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by jcwatchdog

There is a lot of money to be made for the state of California by allowing this ruling to stand. They can still have their ?roster of safe handguns? that they can parade to their base. Sure the list is longer, but with that longer list they get substantially more money from the gun manufacturers when they place their guns on roster, and they get this cash yearly. When $ is involved, don?t doubt that the state simps start to drool just a little.

Oh, let's look at that.

The current fee to get on the list is $200 per model per year.

Let's say there could be 10,000 guns. At $200 each, that's $2,000,000 - two million dollars. Not an amount I would disparage, myself.

Now, let's look at the California Budget for 2023-2024: https://ebudget.ca.gov/

The estimated resources (January) are 231,695,000,000. 231+ billion dollars.

Let's say we really need consider only the Department of Justice: https://ebudget.ca.gov/budget/2023-24/#/Department/0820

$1,237,697,000

One billion dollars.

Compared to two million.

The Roster has never been about money.

[Superben104]

Originally Posted by Librarian

The Roster has never been about money.

Agreed

[jcwatchdog]

But that?s 2 million on top of all taxes collected, on top of if they pass Ab28. That could be a lot of money. The roster itself may never have been about money, but that doesn?t mean they can?t make it about money now.

Also, isn’t Renna trying to remove the roster completely? If California doesn’t appeal this decision, they may be able to keep the roster and claim that proofing laws are historical analogues to making sure the gun is safe. They would still maintain some control. That’s not conceding a loss with Renna, but they may have a better chance by taking the risk.

Originally Posted by Librarian

Oh, let's look at that.

The current fee to get on the list is $200 per model per year.

Let's say there could be 10,000 guns. At $200 each, that's $2,000,000 - two million dollars. Not an amount I would disparage, myself.

Now, let's look at the California Budget for 2023-2024: https://ebudget.ca.gov/

The estimated resources (January) are 231,695,000,000. 231+ billion dollars.

Let's say we really need consider only the Department of Justice: https://ebudget.ca.gov/budget/2023-24/#/Department/0820

$1,237,697,000

One billion dollars.

Compared to two million.

The Roster has never been about money.

[The Gleam]

Originally Posted by jcwatchdog

But that?s 2 million on top of all taxes collected, on top of if they pass Ab28. That could be a lot of money. The roster itself may never have been about money, but that doesn?t mean they can't make it about money now.

Newsom will likely get a $2,000,000 Presidential Campaign donation AND a blow job from Shannon Watts alone, if he appeals Boland vs. Bonta.

He couldn't care less if the State flourishes and gets any increase in money out of it - he's a narcissistic career politician, in it for himself.

---

[Dr.Lou]

I think Alito, Thomas, et al., are ready to spank some 9CA and 2CA *** and I think they know that.

[Sgt Raven]

Originally Posted by jcwatchdog

....snip.... If California doesn?t appeal this decision, they may be able to keep the roster and claim that proofing laws are historical analogues to making sure the gun is safe.

Every single M16/M4 barrel the Government buys, has a 70,000 psi "proof load" fired in it & then it is MPI inspected. That is a Mil-Spec requirement.


For other things a sample is pulled and tested for each "Lot". We can buy 5.56mm ammo, that did not pass the Military Lot test.



The BS part of the roster, is a minor part change or a different finish, is considered a different firearm.



The drop test and firing test is something every manufacture should be doing on their own before the firearm is released to the market.

[jcwatchdog]

Originally Posted by Sgt Raven

The drop test and firing test is something every manufacture should be doing on their own before the firearm is released to the market.

It should be, I always thought it was part of testing. But either it isn?t, or some companies don?t bother. Sig must not have.

[ar15barrels]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

Here is a thought on the whole "stripped lower" not being on the roster:

I was under the impression that you could, even today, buy a stripped lower as a "other" that is neither a rifle nor a pistol.

In CA, stripped AR lowers are sold/DROSed as long guns.
That means they can never be built as handguns in CA.

[ar15barrels]

Originally Posted by blackrat

Do you have more details on what "drop testing" is considered? I get the premise but what is CA specifically looking for? I was under the impression modern military rifles/actions were drop safe, but I assume it doesn't fit some specific criteria.

The details are spelled out in California Penal Code sections 31900-32110.

[ar15barrels]

Originally Posted by homelessdude

A striped lower will pass the drop test.
You can drop it a hundred times and it won't fire.
Problem solved.

It also has to pass the live fire testing.
That means, with no changes to the configuration that is drop tested, the lab introduces ammo and confirms that the gun fires/functions as intended.

If it won't pass BOTH tests, it won't get rostered.

Hence why stripped lowers can not be rostered.
They fail the live fire testing.

[ar15barrels]

Originally Posted by DrewN

[I]why is it a requirement for a gun to be on the roster then?

Here is the relevant PC you seek:

32000.
(a) (1) A person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state for sale, keeps for sale, offers or exposes for sale, gives, or lends an unsafe handgun shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year.

(2) The failure to report to the Department of Justice in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) the sale or transfer of an unsafe handgun obtained pursuant to paragraph (4), (6), or (7) of subdivision (b) may be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

(3) In addition to any criminal penalty provided in paragraph (1), the unlawful sale or transfer of an unsafe handgun obtained pursuant to paragraph (4), (6), or (7) of subdivision (b) may be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

[ar15barrels]

Originally Posted by jcwatchdog

It should be, I always thought it was part of testing. But either it isn?t, or some companies don?t bother. Sig must not have.

The Sig P320's passed all the standardized drop tests BEFORE people started reporting problems with them.

Standardized drop tests simply do not replicate the SIG problem.

[blackrat]

Originally Posted by ar15barrels

The details are spelled out in California Penal Code sections 31900-32110.

Read it, doesn't seem to be any thing specific that would keep an AR/AK etc pistol from being added like needing a physical firing pin block. It even allows for light primer strikes that could happen with floating firing pin bolts.