AB-1478 Firearms: unsafe handguns.(2021-2022)

[abinsinia]

In the prior legislative session the morons in Sac town disabled microstamping from a requirement for roster inclusion ..

This bill was queued to fix the mistake and require microstamping in two places till July 2022 (instead of no places till then)

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...02120220AB1478

[faris1984]

cool

[BaronW]

Wait what? So by the letter of the law, microstamping isn't a requirement again until 2022?

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...r=4.&article=4.

31910. As used in this part, “unsafe handgun” means any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, for which any of the following is true:
(a) For a revolver:
(1) It does not have a safety device that, either automatically in the case of a double-action firing mechanism, or by manual operation in the case of a single-action firing mechanism, causes the hammer to retract to a point where the firing pin does not rest upon the primer of the cartridge.
(2) It does not meet the firing requirement for handguns.
(3) It does not meet the drop safety requirement for handguns.
(b) For a pistol:
(1) It does not have a positive manually operated safety device, as determined by standards relating to imported guns promulgated by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
(2) It does not meet the firing requirement for handguns.
(3) It does not meet the drop safety requirement for handguns.
(4) Commencing July 1, 2022, for all centerfire semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015, it does not have a chamber load indicator.
(5) Commencing July 1, 2022, for all centerfire or rimfire semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015, it does not have a magazine disconnect mechanism if it has a detachable magazine.
(6) (A) Commencing July 1, 2022, for all semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015, it is not designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters used to identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched or otherwise imprinted in one or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired.
(B) The Attorney General may also approve a method of equal or greater reliability and effectiveness in identifying the specific serial number of a firearm from spent cartridge casings discharged by that firearm than that which is set forth in this paragraph, to be thereafter required as otherwise set forth by this paragraph where the Attorney General certifies that this new method is also unencumbered by any patent restrictions. Approval by the Attorney General shall include notice of that fact via regulations adopted by the Attorney General for purposes of implementing that method for purposes of this paragraph.
(C) The microscopic array of characters required by this section shall not be considered the name of the maker, model, manufacturer’s number, or other mark of identification, including any distinguishing number or mark assigned by the Department of Justice, within the meaning of Sections 23900 and 23920.
(7) The Department of Justice shall, for each semiautomatic pistol newly added to the roster pursuant to Section 32015, remove from the roster exactly three semiautomatic pistols lacking one or more of the applicable features described in paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of subdivision (b) and added to the roster before July 1, 2022. Notwithstanding those paragraphs, each semiautomatic pistol removed from the roster pursuant to this subdivision shall be considered an unsafe handgun. The Attorney General shall remove semiautomatic pistols from the roster pursuant to this subdivision in reverse order of their dates of addition to the roster, beginning with the semiautomatic pistol added to the roster on the earliest date and continuing until each semiautomatic pistol on the roster includes each of the applicable features described in those paragraphs.
(Amended by Stats. 2020, Ch. 292, Sec. 2. (AB 2847) Effective January 1, 2021.)

Also, is it just me or does 31910 section 7 make no sense? "A handgun is unsafe if it is a pistol and the following is true: the DOJ shall remove 3 pistols for every 1 added."

[Rivers]

Originally Posted by BaronW

Also, is it just me or does 31910 section 7 make no sense? "A handgun is unsafe if it is a pistol and the following is true: the DOJ shall remove 3 pistols for every 1 added."

I'd like to hear the CA AG explain to Judge Benitez how a handgun that was "safe" last year, through no action of its own or its manufacturer, suddenly now becomes "unsafe".

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by BaronW

Wait what? So by the letter of the law, microstamping isn't a requirement again until 2022?

Yeah, I agree "Wait what ?"

Microstamping is not required by law till July 2022.

[Uncivil Engineer]

Is this just an attempt to moot the case before Benitez ? I bet we won't have any of it. But it could give cover to the 9th.

[NorCalRT]

Does this not also include chamber indicator and magazine disconnect?

To me there is no reason Glock could not apply to get all gen 5 handguns added...

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by NorCalRT

Does this not also include chamber indicator and magazine disconnect?

To me there is no reason Glock could not apply to get all gen 5 handguns added...

There is another code section 32010 which prevents a gun from getting drop tested which doesn't have LCI, magazine disconnect, and external safety.

The changes didn't change that other code section, so this only effects micostamping.

[cz74]

Seem this person Assembly Member Chiu is obsessed with handgun roster, anyone know why he is so nuts?

[BaronW]

If I were Sig Sauer, I'd get the 320 FCG in a CA-compliant body on the roster ASAP.

[nick]

Originally Posted by cz74

Seem this person Assembly Member Chiu is obsessed with handgun roster, anyone know why he is so nuts?

He's a Californian anti-gun leftist.

[abinsinia]

A while ago I asked in the "How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me" section if someone could make a gun with microstamping.

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1637167

In the thread RickD427 stated that because of the way the law is written a non-FFL can make a gun and submit it for the Roster.

Originally Posted by RickD427

Yes, it would be possible.

But you would have to build at least three copies and submit them for DOJ-certified lab testing. Please refer to Penal Code section 31905 and note the absence of any special provision exempting personal builders.

So it's possible for a private person to make a gun and apply for roster inclusion.

[seaweedsoyboy]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

A while ago I asked in the "How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me" section if someone could make a gun with microstamping.

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1637167

In the thread RickD427 stated that because of the way the law is written a non-FFL can make a gun and submit it for the Roster.



So it's possible for a private person to make a gun and apply for roster inclusion.

Anyone know how to incorporate a magazine disconnect into a Polymer80 or P320 FCU?

[Bt Doctur]

The only thing "unsafe" is a democrat on the loose. My gun sits ready for action on a table. in 30 years is has not jumped to attention and has shot no one.
Can you define a "safe" handgun for humans to use?

[Flintlock Tom]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

A while ago I asked in the "How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me" section if someone could make a gun with microstamping.

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1637167

In the thread RickD427 stated that because of the way the law is written a non-FFL can make a gun and submit it for the Roster.

So it's possible for a private person to make a gun and apply for roster inclusion.

If I were Sig Sauer, I'd get the 320 FCG in a CA-compliant body on the roster ASAP.

So, is it ONLY the manufacturer that can submit a gun for testing or can a private citizen submit a gun he did not manufacture?

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by Flintlock Tom

So, is it ONLY the manufacturer that can submit a gun for testing or can a private citizen submit a gun he did not manufacture?

I can't say for certain, but I think you have to be the manufacture.

[Scratch705]

Originally Posted by BaronW

If I were Sig Sauer, I'd get the 320 FCG in a CA-compliant body on the roster ASAP.

only issue is will CA recognize that only the FCG is the "firearm"

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by Scratch705

only issue is will CA recognize that only the FCG is the "firearm"

It has to be a complete gun with all the features required, less microstamping.

[BaronW]

They'd need a grip frame and slide combination with a LCI and magazine disconnect safety to sell it in CA. Maybe a .22lr version to keep it cheaper. You could then pop out the FCG and build whatever 320 you want.

[franklinarmory]

It is a trap ladies and gentlemen. The first company that does get their model on the list will create a need for three pistols to be removed. However, those manufacturers that had their pistols removed can reinstate their pistols by retesting. As each one does, then 9 more pistols come off the list. The insideously unconstitutional process is designed to exponentially eat our options away from within until there is nothing left.

I do not care to be the one to start the chain reaction. I would not encourage any other manufacturer to do so either. Other options are en route. Hang on.

[cire raeb]

SIG should not give an inch by making a roster compliant P320 to appease Kalifornia. Instead they should support the average gunowners behind the line by promoting the 80%, by making slides and frames more readily available. God bless America and f**k Gavin Newsom.

[M1NM]

Originally Posted by Rivers

I'd like to hear the CA AG explain to Judge Benitez how a handgun that was "safe" last year, through no action of its own or its manufacturer, suddenly now becomes "unsafe".

Or how a gun becomes unsafe because the manufacturer doesn't pay an annual extortion fee.

[seaweedsoyboy]

Originally Posted by franklinarmory

Other options are en route. Hang on.

You people really know how to blue ball a guy

[franklinarmory]

Originally Posted by seaweedsoyboy

You people really know how to blue ball a guy

LOL! Sorry. That was a breadcrumb for CADOJ. Think of it as FUD for their consumption (except we are sincere and always follow through.) Its kind of like saying "check" before you're done moving your pawn.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by franklinarmory

It is a trap ladies and gentlemen. The first company that does get their model on the list will create a need for three pistols to be removed. However, those manufacturers that had their pistols removed can reinstate their pistols by retesting. As each one does, then 9 more pistols come off the list. The insideously unconstitutional process is designed to exponentially eat our options away from within until there is nothing left.

Yep. If a democrat in CA is trying to pass a law that, on it's face, seems to be pro-2A, it's a trap. This bill is no exception. It's a backdoor scheme to further cripple our handgun availability as much as they can. Hopefully, every manufacturer will see this for what it is, and none of them submit anything new for the roster.

[lordmorgul]

Won’t renewals trigger the same thing if that renewed design meets the new requirement set it becomes an “enhanced roster entry” or whatever. So we really need to petition the manufacturers to not start adding these features or it all snowballs.


Andrew - Lancaster, CA
NRA Life Member, CRPA member, Calguns.net contributor, CGF / SAF / FPC / CCRKBA / GOA / NAGR / NRA-ILA contributor, USCCA member - Support your defenders!

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by franklinarmory

It is a trap ladies and gentlemen. The first company that does get their model on the list will create a need for three pistols to be removed. However, those manufacturers that had their pistols removed can reinstate their pistols by retesting. As each one does, then 9 more pistols come off the list. The insideously unconstitutional process is designed to exponentially eat our options away from within until there is nothing left.

I do not care to be the one to start the chain reaction. I would not encourage any other manufacturer to do so either. Other options are en route. Hang on.

Thank you for seeing through this veil.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by Bt Doctur

The only thing "unsafe" is a democrat on the loose.

You have plenty of them in CA.

My gun sits ready for action on a table. in 30 years is has not jumped to attention and has shot no one.
Can you define a "safe" handgun for humans to use?

Yes, they are the ones outside of CA.

[abinsinia]

Queued for Public Safety Commitee 04/20/21

They also duplicate the fix in AB-876

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1695440