Single Shot Exemption Explanation/Database Thread

[LBDamned]

Can we not rehash this again in this thread? We can make the 232342323th thread asking about what ammo to use, what trigger modifications, what sights in a HD situation.

and what do any of those opinion based subjects have to do with the legal based question ScApE had?

[code_blue]

Civil suit is a very real possibility for anyone in any self defense/defense of life situation, firearm related or not.

If you are a CCW holder and intend to utilize your firearm as a tool when the situation calls, then you will face criminal charges without a doubt and possible civil charges.

The best thing to do is be as prepared as possible as you should be fully aware of the consequences for deploying your permitted tool.

LE Rangemasters recommend to their Officers that they keep a binder full of their training certs, quals, hours, and even paper targets for this event. It would be wise to have one of your own if you're a permit holder.

Anyways, that's not the point of this thread. Moving on.

[grabalnog]

Looking for an FFL's in SoCal that will do SSE for Smith Revolvers

Appreciate anyone with this knowledge...tis my understanding the revolver can be altered via removing the DA sear, making it compliant as a single shot...however would need an FFL that will accept the gun as-is from an out of state shipper then convert, or at the very least allow an already converted revolver be sent to them...

[seainc]

Try OC Armory.

[Cyc Wid It]

and what do any of those opinion based subjects have to do with the legal based question ScApE had?

Same line of reasoning. Same unsubstantiated claims. Same deal. A simple search will yield some hundreds of threads on the subject on this forum alone with zero cases cited.

Looking for an FFL's in SoCal that will do SSE for Smith Revolvers

Appreciate anyone with this knowledge...tis my understanding the revolver can be altered via removing the DA sear, making it compliant as a single shot...however would need an FFL that will accept the gun as-is from an out of state shipper then convert, or at the very least allow an already converted revolver be sent to them...

This is a single action exemption, which is different, but accomplishes the same goal.

[LBDamned]

Same line of reasoning. Same unsubstantiated claims. Same deal. A simple search will yield some hundreds of threads on the subject on this forum alone with zero case cited.

with all due respect - it's not at all the same... and in this thread there were no "claims" much less "unsubstantiated claims"...

it was a simple question regarding liability and potential legal problems. You don't have the answer and neither does anyone else - because you are correct, there is no case law (that we know of). This does not mean it isn't a valid question or concern.

[grabalnog]

Here's a peculiar question: If you find yourself using an SSE weapon in a home defense type situation and happen to fire off a couple of shots, it goes without saying there will be some kind of investigation, so could you get in trouble when upon inspection, your gun is no longer in SSE form?

when I picked up my HK 45 C in Single shot mode..all legal....then put the original barrel back in....all legal....there was no issue....and never will be

many people confuse the "roster" as a prohibition of ownership or possesion...it is not

its a prohibition of importation or transfer through ffl's.....you can't buy an off roster gun from a dealer.....of course we all know you can buy any off roster gun in a ppt....

the idea that you shoot someone with a weapon you purchased though a SSE and then face charges because the weapon is no longer a SSE is simply ignorant of the law, the way it is written, and the way legal principles function.

[LBDamned]

when I picked up my HK 45 C in Single shot mode..all legal....then put the original barrel back in....all legal....there was no issue....and never will be

many people confuse the "roster" as a prohibition of ownership or possesion...it is not

its a prohibition of importation or transfer through ffl's.....you can't buy an off roster gun from a dealer.....of course we all know you can buy any off roster gun in a ppt....

the idea that you shoot someone with a weapon you purchased though a SSE and then face charges because the weapon is no longer a SSE is simply ignorant of the law, the way it is written, and the way legal principles function.

I think you are missing the point... No-one has suggested it would be deemed illegal... The concern (at least for me) is the fabricated bs that would most likely be used by a prosecuting attorney to sway a jury... The fact that "the gun is unsafe because it is not on the roster" - or "the defendant found a loophole to buy an unsafe gun"...

Think about it - take a look at De Leon's blunder... Complete fabrication of nonsense - which very well may change laws regarding non- serialized lowers... To think the same type of tactic could not be used in a court of law is plain foolish.

You might want to re-evaluate your idea of "ignorance"... Because living in CA and assuming you have certain rights as it pertains to firearms is borderline ignorant. You can sit on a computer with all the bravado you want - but to to insist that there would be no issue is a nice thought - however, simply not guaranteed... Keep convincing yourself otherwise if it makes you feel better.

btw, I have two SEE pistols - so I'm not advocating against them... But I'm not naive enough think it won't be used against me in court.

[36Ford]

The concern (at least for me) is the fabricated bs that would most likely be used by a prosecuting attorney to sway a jury... The fact that "the gun is unsafe because it is not on the roster" - or "the defendant found a loophole to buy an unsafe gun".

Funny how non-roster "unsafe guns" are carried and used daily by LEO's. Are they held to that standard?

[LBDamned]

Funny how non-roster "unsafe guns" are carried and used daily by LEO's. Are they held to that standard?

is this a real question?... they aren't held to the same standard in any aspect of many firearms issues... I trust you realized this before the post though...

do you honestly think they would see the same prosecution techniques that you or I would in a court of law?

Would a prosecuting attorney have any ability to suggest the officer used a gun that the state deemed unsafe?... you don't really believe that wouldn't happen to you though - do you?

some of you guys are very short-sighted on this issue... we can go in circles about this for days - but it's futile.

[kemasa]

A firearm not on the list is not unsafe.

The certified list shows that the firearm has not been deemed to be unsafe. If you look at the wording, it is a bit strange, but no doubt there is a reason for this since you can't say that a firearm which is not on the list is unsafe.

[36Ford]

is this a real question?... they aren't held to the same standard in any aspect of many firearms issues... I trust you realized this before the post though...

do you honestly think they would see the same prosecution techniques that you or I would in a court of law?

Would a prosecuting attorney have any ability to suggest the officer used a gun that the state deemed unsafe?... you don't really believe that wouldn't happen to you though - do you?

some of you guys are very short-sighted on this issue... we can go in circles about this for days - but it's futile.

Ok your not good with sarcasm, so will they no, should they yes. The roster/CA has created a two tier system. A protected class (exempted) and the rest of us..

[36Ford]

A firearm not on the list is not unsafe.

This is a great point!

There are a lot of firearms owned and used in CA not currently on the list for a multitude of reasons.

I offer these four reasons I'm sure there's more.
1. It was bought some years ago and fell off.
2. The owner moved to CA from out of state.
3. It's a pre roster gun.
4. You inherited it.

Are these unsafe guns, no, can you use them? Of course you can..

It looks like about 30% of the guns currently on the roster (mostly S&W & Ruger) are going to fall off this year. So if you already own one is it now unsafe?

[kemasa]

One reason is that the firearm is not on the list is that it has not been tested by CA. If the manufacturer does not submit the firearm for testing, then it won't be on the list.

Any manufacturer who sells an unsafe firearm will be sued out of existence. The manufacturer tests the firearm.

[ke6guj]

A firearm not on the list is not unsafe.

actually, the PC says that they are basically all unsafe unless they meet the requirements to be rostered.

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 January 1, 2006, for a center fire semiautomatic
pistol that is not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section
32015, it does not have either a chamber load indicator, or a
magazine disconnect mechanism.
(5) Commencing January 1, 2007, for all center fire semiautomatic
pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section
32015, it does not have both a chamber load indicator and if it has
a detachable magazine, a magazine disconnect mechanism.
(6) Commencing January 1, 2006, for all 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.
(7) (A) Commencing January 1, 2010, 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 that identify the make, model, and serial number of the
pistol, etched or otherwise imprinted in two 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, provided that the Department of Justice certifies that the
technology used to create the imprint is available to more than one
manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions.
(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.

The certified list shows that the firearm has not been deemed to be unsafe. If you look at the wording, it is a bit strange, but no doubt there is a reason for this since you can't say that a firearm which is not on the list is unsafe.

potential grammar argument, looks like you placed the not in the wrong place. I read the PC that they have been deemed that it is not an unsafe handgun, not that it was not deemed that is an unsafe handgun (the difference is that they already deemed all handguns to be unsafe, the roster is to shoaw that some handguns have been determined that they aren't unsafe.

32015. (a) On and after January 1, 2001, the Department of Justice
shall compile, publish, and thereafter maintain a roster listing all
of the handguns that have been tested by a certified testing
laboratory, have been determined not to be unsafe handguns, and may
be sold in this state pursuant to this part. The roster shall list,
for each firearm, the manufacturer, model number, and model name.

note that they haven't been determined to be safe handguns (that could potentially expose the state to liability if someone was injured/killed with a handgun that the state determined was safe.

thats why some of us will refer to the roster as the "roster of NOT unsafe handguns" to show the double-speak that occurs as it applies to firearms law.