Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-12-2020, 11:48 PM
Flentye Flentye is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 14
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Why was the CA gun roster introduced?

I donít want this question to start political discord and turmoil. Sounds ridiculous, but we all know what politics+keyboard can do to people. Anyway...

#1 Why was the CA gun roster introduced?
A. What was the reason the politicians were using?
B. What do you think the real agenda was? (Obviously confiscation is an easy answer, however, did they have an end game? An immediate goal? A 10 year plan?)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-13-2020, 12:38 AM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,393
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flentye View Post
I donít want this question to start political discord and turmoil. Sounds ridiculous, but we all know what politics+keyboard can do to people. Anyway...

#1 Why was the CA gun roster introduced?
A. What was the reason the politicians were using?
B. What do you think the real agenda was? (Obviously confiscation is an easy answer, however, did they have an end game? An immediate goal? A 10 year plan?)

#1....To "F" gun owners by limiting choices/availability and drive up prices.

A....For the Children.

B....[refer to #1]
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-13-2020, 12:42 AM
Master_Prestige Master_Prestige is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 149
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

My guess is to make the gun companies pay for the submissions to get money any way possible.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-13-2020, 1:12 AM
DentonandSasquatchShow's Avatar
DentonandSasquatchShow DentonandSasquatchShow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Just down the street from Mickey
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Always follow the money!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-13-2020, 4:38 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 1,263
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flentye View Post
I don’t want this question to start political discord and turmoil. Sounds ridiculous, but we all know what politics+keyboard can do to people. Anyway...

#1 Why was the CA gun roster introduced?
A. What was the reason the politicians were using?
B. What do you think the real agenda was? (Obviously confiscation is an easy answer, however, did they have an end game? An immediate goal? A 10 year plan?)
You ask about an inherently 'political' tool, but don't want a 'political discussion' involved in the answer? Good luck with that.

In an overall sense, the thought process which was publicly touted and continues to be was the idea of 'safety' or, more specifically, 'public safety.' You can see it in the original bill...

Quote:
The bill also would require any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person manufactured in this state, imported into the state for sale, kept for sale, or offered or exposed for sale, to be tested by an independent laboratory certified by the Department of Justice to determine whether that pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person meets or exceeds specified standards defining unsafe handguns.
The problem is multi-fold. As written, implemented, and updated, there are inherent contradictions and nonsensical standards/regulations if 'safety' was, in fact, the primary concern. Thus, the roster, as it exists, gives lie to any of the claimed 'safety' benefits and, thereby, leaves one to derive their own rationale based on how the roster has been used/abused.

Confiscation is not the 'easy' or even an 'immediate' answer in most cases insofar as the roster, at least in an overall sense. In fact, in many respects, that's one of the inherent contradictions; i.e., the grandfathered firearms were 'safe' yesterday, but became 'unsafe' the day the roster was implemented, yet there is no call for confiscation of the 'unsafe' firearms? Oh... That would be an unconstitutional taking?

The 'real agenda' is, primarily, two-fold and both are discussed regularly on this site. "Short term" is to create sufficient hassle so as to persuade both consumers and retailers/manufacturers that California is not a suitable market place for handgun sales or ownership. This has resulted in things such as the charge for testing, unavailability of numerous models (not simply 'new'), ever more Draconian requirements to meet the 'safety' standard (think 'microstamping'), etc. It's also resulted in exceptions and work arounds which create their own, unique laws and enforcement; i.e., creates new classes of 'criminals' which the Government, if it so chooses, can actually 'get at' for a time and, thereby, feed the PR machine.

"Long term" is what many consider to be the 'real' agenda; e.g., a long fuse 'ban' on handguns. You will find numerous threads and articles batting about numbers, with some saying there are fewer models available than claimed, others claiming a consistency, still others claiming we're quickly running short of options, and some even trying to claim all three at once.

The real problem and, for the last 6 years along with the foreseeable future, insurmountable problem was the 2013 decision by Kamala Harris to claim that microstamping was now considered viable. It has severely reduced the number of handguns which can be added to the roster. By default, that means a gradual reduction in the number of options available on the roster as models are discontinued, manufacturers refuse to create models specifically for sale in California, et al. One of the concerns being an eventual fight under the Heller standard of how "in common use" is defined.

Unfortunately, the State and, thus far, the Courts don't see that as a 'problem.' Their thinking or, at least, their publicly declared rationale is that so long as we have options, our rights have not been infringed. It's simply our choice and/or a business decision, not actions by the Government which 'limits' our options. In fact, there ARE ways 'around' the roster; but, it does add considerable cost to the firearm, noticeable hassle to obtaining it, and does not make them 'equally available' to everyone. Such exceptions also lend credibility to the claim(s) that 'safety' was not the paramount issue motivating the roster; despite public pronouncements to the contrary.

Thus, the roster has become a political weapon where gun owners/manufacturers can be 'punished/harassed' or the time frame to the end game enhanced or similar with new requirements added and, effectively, with little if any recourse through the courts. But, you don't want this to devolve into a political discourse. So...

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 01-13-2020 at 4:40 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-13-2020, 8:01 AM
ronlglock's Avatar
ronlglock ronlglock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,354
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

The original reason was safety, to prevent cheap and unsafe "Saturday night specials" from being sold -- that was the drop test. Later additions were the loaded chamber indicator and magazine safeties, which were supposed to prevent accidents by A) making it super obvious when a pistol was loaded; and B) preventing tragedy when a dummy assumed the firearm was unloaded after the magazine was dropped.

Initial $ and forced re-evaluation when a major change is made or if a part is changed from manufacturing process A (e.g. forged) to manufacturing process B (e.g. MIM) seem reasonable since there is a cost for the state to do the re-evaluation work.

However, $ and forced re-evaluation for different colors, immaterial change (grip materials, change in manufacturing location) are BS, as is micro-stamping.
__________________


NRA Patron, CRPA Life, SAF Life, GSSF Life, NRA RSO and pistol instructor, ILEETA instructor. Stop me before I join something else!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-13-2020, 9:10 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 14,241
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

To limit gun sales. It has been effective.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-13-2020, 9:22 AM
Sutcliffe Sutcliffe is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Campbell, CA
Posts: 6,381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default nothing more than this

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Jah View Post
To limit gun sales. It has been effective.

The idea that a firearm is determined to be unsafe for me to use, but perfectly safe for the government to use says all you need to know.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-13-2020, 9:38 AM
Bigdog68 Bigdog68 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 145
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flentye View Post
I donít want this question to start political discord and turmoil. Sounds ridiculous, but we all know what politics+keyboard can do to people. Anyway...

#1 Why was the CA gun roster introduced?
A. What was the reason the politicians were using?
B. What do you think the real agenda was? (Obviously confiscation is an easy answer, however, did they have an end game? An immediate goal? A 10 year plan?)
Because progressive politicians have deep psychological issues with citizens owning firearms and the roster was the best way, they felt, to eventually ban handguns. Erect enough barriers to purchasing them and eventually no one will be able to buy a new handgun. Add another 15 years and no one will own them anymore. Also add in some ignorance about how firearms work and too many hours watching CSI and you have the roster program.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-13-2020, 9:40 AM
Bigdog68 Bigdog68 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 145
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I have not noticed this in the past, but is this a thing, in the new year a flurry of people sign up and then start asking broad, open ended questions to gather opinions held by gun owners?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-13-2020, 10:30 AM
Tarmy's Avatar
Tarmy Tarmy is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,079
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdog68 View Post
I have not noticed this in the past, but is this a thing, in the new year a flurry of people sign up and then start asking broad, open ended questions to gather opinions held by gun owners?
Either that or...

They are trolls/trolling...

They are DU minions trying to get info...opinions of evil people...or, see item above...

They are truly new to the sport/issue...and are curious...
__________________
Wilson Protector .45, Springer 9mm Loaded, Franchi Instinct SL .12ga. and some other cool stuff for the kiddos...
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-13-2020, 11:16 AM
9Cal_OC's Avatar
9Cal_OC 9Cal_OC is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Orange County
Posts: 655
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sutcliffe View Post
The idea that a firearm is determined to be unsafe for me to use, but perfectly safe for the government to use says all you need to know.
And +10 round magazines.
__________________
Freedom isn't free...
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-13-2020, 11:26 AM
Deedle Deedle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: America
Posts: 1,145
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sutcliffe View Post
The idea that a firearm is determined to be unsafe for me to use, but perfectly safe for the government to use says all you need to know.
This. If the idea really is safety, then sure as sh*t no one should be OK with LEOs acquiring and using those dangerous firearms.
__________________
"No personal computer will ever have gigabytes of RAM" - Scott Nudds
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-13-2020, 11:54 AM
Abenaki Abenaki is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 732
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Never forget that gun control is not about crime or safety!
It's about control.....total control!

So, what is the next question from the DOJ?

Take care
Abenaki
__________________
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

I'd rather be a Boomer, than generation crybaby!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-13-2020, 12:55 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 39,399
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Moved to CA Politics and activism.

See also the wiki article, http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...e_Handgun_List and read the analyses at http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...=199920000SB15
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrookís ďLaw of DoomsayingĒ: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away ó soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Last edited by Librarian; 01-13-2020 at 12:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-13-2020, 1:09 PM
nick nick is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,783
iTrader: 163 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronlglock View Post
The original reason was safety, to prevent cheap and unsafe "Saturday night specials" from being sold -- that was the drop test. Later additions were the loaded chamber indicator and magazine safeties, which were supposed to prevent accidents by A) making it super obvious when a pistol was loaded; and B) preventing tragedy when a dummy assumed the firearm was unloaded after the magazine was dropped.

Initial $ and forced re-evaluation when a major change is made or if a part is changed from manufacturing process A (e.g. forged) to manufacturing process B (e.g. MIM) seem reasonable since there is a cost for the state to do the re-evaluation work.

However, $ and forced re-evaluation for different colors, immaterial change (grip materials, change in manufacturing location) are BS, as is micro-stamping.
The fun part is that quite a few of those "Saturday Night Specials" made it to the roster and are still on it, while a lot of modern (and "non-unsafe") handguns are not. Then again it's CA - the land of victorious idiocracy.
__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
"Thou shalt not interfere with the Second Amendment rights of "law-abiding" citizens who want AK-47s only to protect hearth and home." - Paul Helmke finally gets it :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJgunguy24 View Post
Some people are so open minded, their brains have fallen out.


Selling a bunch of C&R and other guns here: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...php?p=23683474
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-13-2020, 6:39 PM
93chipper 93chipper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

#1 backway to a gun ban (it’s kinda like pulling a table cloth off the food table very slowly the dumb people won’t notice it until it gets pulled all the way off every year more guns slip off the table only the smart people will question while the dumb won’t)
#2 money California likes money and will find anyway to screw someone or some company in to getting there money
#3 to give the most updated guns to cops, after all shooting a person 22 times says that they are all good to handle “unsafe firearms” although a lot of them aren’t gun savvy or check the camber to see if their gun is unloaded before they clean it but hey what can I say I’m a civilian...
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-13-2020, 7:14 PM
Gowking's Avatar
Gowking Gowking is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Riverbank/Modesto area
Posts: 3,453
iTrader: 193 / 100%
Default

It’s just a part of the left’s war of attrition against the CA gun owner.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-13-2020, 8:00 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 27,003
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

The CA gun Roster was introduced for the supposed reasons that there were unsafe "Saturday Night Special' guns
on the market that could fire when dropped.

However, the modern versions of these guns passsed the tests just fine (Jennings, Lorcin, Davis, etc).

Once a law is in place, however, it becomes FAR EASIER to tack things on (vs generating a fresh new law to control that
additional aspect). Thus we got things like mag disconnect safeties, loadec chamber indicators, and microstamping.

BTW, passage of the Unsafe Handgun Act (UHA) was only by a narrow margin at the time. NRA had gunned up lots of opposition.
However, the SASS cowboy group hired their own lobbyist - NRA traitor Richard Feldman - as their lobbyist. When fence-sitting
legislators saw that supposedly "not all gun groups" were opposed to the UHA, some voted for it.

SASS was so willing to protect their precision cowboy guns they sold us down the river on ALL modern handguns.

I will never, ever give SASS money, and I love single action revolvers esp Ruger Bisleys.

During the 20XXs under the far more gun favorable AG Brown administration, Roster regulations were fairly clear. Once Kamala
Harris stepped in all sortsa new interpretations of "what a Rostered handgun is" started floating outta DOJ BoF, the "minor
changes to parts == a new gun ==> must be Re-Rostered" standpoint started occurring.
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.

Last edited by bwiese; 01-13-2020 at 8:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-13-2020, 8:09 PM
vino68's Avatar
vino68 vino68 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 733
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Seriously, you cannot use Google? Me thinks someone is gathering data for their assignment, work or academic.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-13-2020, 8:48 PM
M1NM's Avatar
M1NM M1NM is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: West Covina
Posts: 6,336
iTrader: 48 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronlglock View Post
The original reason was safety, to prevent cheap and unsafe "Saturday night specials" from being sold .
It wasn't about safety like they said. It was about the Saturday Night Specials though. They wanted to get rid of the $40 guns that were cheap enough to throw away and soft enough to destroy the serial number easily after you shot that other gang banger.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-14-2020, 12:06 AM
Flentye Flentye is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 14
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default I see your point.

The words I used word discord and turmoil. That said, political discussion is this forum. It was my effort to get some thoughtful answers. Thatís all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
You ask about an inherently 'political' tool, but don't want a 'political discussion' involved in the answer? Good luck with that.

In an overall sense, the thought process which was publicly touted and continues to be was the idea of 'safety' or, more specifically, 'public safety.' You can see it in the original bill...



The problem is multi-fold. As written, implemented, and updated, there are inherent contradictions and nonsensical standards/regulations if 'safety' was, in fact, the primary concern. Thus, the roster, as it exists, gives lie to any of the claimed 'safety' benefits and, thereby, leaves one to derive their own rationale based on how the roster has been used/abused.

Confiscation is not the 'easy' or even an 'immediate' answer in most cases insofar as the roster, at least in an overall sense. In fact, in many respects, that's one of the inherent contradictions; i.e., the grandfathered firearms were 'safe' yesterday, but became 'unsafe' the day the roster was implemented, yet there is no call for confiscation of the 'unsafe' firearms? Oh... That would be an unconstitutional taking?

The 'real agenda' is, primarily, two-fold and both are discussed regularly on this site. "Short term" is to create sufficient hassle so as to persuade both consumers and retailers/manufacturers that California is not a suitable market place for handgun sales or ownership. This has resulted in things such as the charge for testing, unavailability of numerous models (not simply 'new'), ever more Draconian requirements to meet the 'safety' standard (think 'microstamping'), etc. It's also resulted in exceptions and work arounds which create their own, unique laws and enforcement; i.e., creates new classes of 'criminals' which the Government, if it so chooses, can actually 'get at' for a time and, thereby, feed the PR machine.

"Long term" is what many consider to be the 'real' agenda; e.g., a long fuse 'ban' on handguns. You will find numerous threads and articles batting about numbers, with some saying there are fewer models available than claimed, others claiming a consistency, still others claiming we're quickly running short of options, and some even trying to claim all three at once.

The real problem and, for the last 6 years along with the foreseeable future, insurmountable problem was the 2013 decision by Kamala Harris to claim that microstamping was now considered viable. It has severely reduced the number of handguns which can be added to the roster. By default, that means a gradual reduction in the number of options available on the roster as models are discontinued, manufacturers refuse to create models specifically for sale in California, et al. One of the concerns being an eventual fight under the Heller standard of how "in common use" is defined.

Unfortunately, the State and, thus far, the Courts don't see that as a 'problem.' Their thinking or, at least, their publicly declared rationale is that so long as we have options, our rights have not been infringed. It's simply our choice and/or a business decision, not actions by the Government which 'limits' our options. In fact, there ARE ways 'around' the roster; but, it does add considerable cost to the firearm, noticeable hassle to obtaining it, and does not make them 'equally available' to everyone. Such exceptions also lend credibility to the claim(s) that 'safety' was not the paramount issue motivating the roster; despite public pronouncements to the contrary.

Thus, the roster has become a political weapon where gun owners/manufacturers can be 'punished/harassed' or the time frame to the end game enhanced or similar with new requirements added and, effectively, with little if any recourse through the courts. But, you don't want this to devolve into a political discourse. So...
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-14-2020, 12:08 AM
Flentye Flentye is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 14
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Well put.

That seems to be super accurate. Maybe these same politicians came out of the Vietnam war era and think guns are evil. Idk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdog68 View Post
Because progressive politicians have deep psychological issues with citizens owning firearms and the roster was the best way, they felt, to eventually ban handguns. Erect enough barriers to purchasing them and eventually no one will be able to buy a new handgun. Add another 15 years and no one will own them anymore. Also add in some ignorance about how firearms work and too many hours watching CSI and you have the roster program.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-14-2020, 12:11 AM
Flentye Flentye is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 14
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default The only way to know of things, is to ask for others knowledge.

Itís a genuine question. I care for no opinion. ďBut thatís what youíre asking for newbie, you new scum!Ē Lol. Read every other answer. They are all very good. I am also a gun owner...shocking.

Asking questions is important. Donít stifle other people with their desire to learn.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdog68 View Post
I have not noticed this in the past, but is this a thing, in the new year a flurry of people sign up and then start asking broad, open ended questions to gather opinions held by gun owners?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-14-2020, 12:14 AM
Flentye Flentye is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 14
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I am new to firearms. I own a ruger 10/22 a ruger 556 that i had to just send back for repair. A springfield XD 9 (boo Springfield right?) and Iím getting a ruger mark iv and sig 365 for carry. Do you suggest any particular mark iv for this particular DOJ person? Lol

[/PHP]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abenaki View Post
Never forget that gun control is not about crime or safety!
It's about control.....total control!

So, what is the next question from the DOJ?

Take care
Abenaki
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-14-2020, 12:16 AM
Flentye Flentye is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 14
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

80% great answers. Thank you. 20% paranoid people thinking Iím someone other than genuinely asking a question. I HATE THE ROSTER. There are so many guns i want to buy. But why do I need to explain this? We all hate the roster. Donít be paranoid folks, at the end of your days conspiracies true or not wonít matter. Enjoy life, its too short to think everyone (besides politicians, lol) have a terrible agenda.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-14-2020, 12:17 AM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
retired Goon
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 24,763
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flentye View Post
I don’t want this question to start political discord and turmoil. Sounds ridiculous, but we all know what politics+keyboard can do to people. Anyway...

#1 Why was the CA gun roster introduced?
A. What was the reason the politicians were using?
B. What do you think the real agenda was? (Obviously confiscation is an easy answer, however, did they have an end game? An immediate goal? A 10 year plan?)
1. To reduce the amount of accidental/negligent shootings due to "unsafe" handgun designs/construction.

A. As "common sense" gun control laws that prevented "unsafe" handguns from being sold to the public.
As soon as certain "pro-gun" groups were able to acquire exemptions for their special interests, they switched from opposing the legislation to either supporting it or becoming neutral to it. Anti-gun politicians then used that cooperation to sell to the voting public that the legislation was so "common sense" that "pro-gun" groups were for it.

B. Elimate the amount of handguns available for public sale.
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.Ē - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-14-2020, 2:51 AM
TheGood's Avatar
TheGood TheGood is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 136
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flentye View Post
I HATE THE ROSTER. There are so many guns i want to buy..
Calguns Private Party. Anything that is already owned by the public aside from AW/FA is available to PPT. Yes the prices are higher, but think of it as an investment.

The new laws in 2020 restricts to 1 gun purchase per month. So plan ahead on your monthly gun DROS.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-14-2020, 7:00 AM
Sutcliffe Sutcliffe is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Campbell, CA
Posts: 6,381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Someone else sorta touched on the Single action exemption

I forgot to mention that the one firearm guaranteed to fail the drop test (Colt 1873 SAA) was specifically exempted from the safety testing requirements.

The law, as enacted, has ZERO to do with safety.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-14-2020, 9:15 AM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
retired Goon
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 24,763
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sutcliffe View Post
Someone else sorta touched on the Single action exemption

I forgot to mention that the one firearm guaranteed to fail the drop test (Colt 1873 SAA) was specifically exempted from the safety testing requirements.

The law, as enacted, has ZERO to do with safety.
The single-action revolver exemption to CA unsafe handgun laws was payment to cowboy action shooting groups to switch from opposing the unsafe handgun legislation to supporting it.

The fixed tubular magazine on lever-action firearm exemption to CA large capacity magazine laws was payment to cowboy action shooting groups to switch from opposing the large capacity magazine legislation to supporting it.
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.Ē - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 01-14-2020, 5:51 PM
aklon's Avatar
aklon aklon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Leandro, Alameda County
Posts: 2,447
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

First they made it hard to buy a gun in California. Then they made it hard to sell guns in California.

The problem is, while there's fewer guns on the roster every year, Californians are still armed to the teeth and are buying more guns every day.
__________________
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see."
- Arthur Schopenhaur
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:02 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2020, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.
Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Tactical Gear Military Boots 5.11 Tactical