CA DOJ Handgun Roster

[Firerescuebatt07]

just like everything in the world its all about the greenbacks... I have foamed at the mouth plenty of times because I wanted a certain color gun but found its not on roster... Next year though I will be SSE'ing a few of these guns... Damn Ca and their **** roster

[dsfloyd]

just like everything in the world its all about the greenbacks... I have foamed at the mouth plenty of times because I wanted a certain color gun but found its not on roster... Next year though I will be SSE'ing a few of these guns... Damn Ca and their **** roster

This^^^^^ I am planning on a SSE for my next gun.

[Trenchfoot]

I covered some of my thoughts in a recent blog post. Since Governor Brown pretty much stated that the only reason he vetoed the bill that would have ended SSE, was because it limited PPT's of non-rostered guns to two per year, I have no doubt that it will return next year and be signed into law.

I foresee a great rush on non-rostered guns in CA over the next 10 months.

[Virus55]

Got my hands on a Smith & Wesson 66-6 SKU 162703 / Stainless Steel .357 Magnum Revolver 2.5" 11/6/2013

[Tiberius]

In light of the recent Supreme Court decisions, the roster's days are numbered, and the pending case (I think its Pena v. Cid) looks poised to get rid of it. The roster is an outright handgun ban, nothing more. And it has nothing to do with safety - guns that are safety recalled by the manufacturer still get on the roster.

Due to the new microstamping requirement, no new guns will ever get on the roster. This helps us, by showing that it is an unconstitutional ban.

[Kilibreaux]

In light of the recent Supreme Court decisions, the roster's days are numbered, and the pending case (I think its Pena v. Cid) looks poised to get rid of it. The roster is an outright handgun ban, nothing more. And it has nothing to do with safety - guns that are safety recalled by the manufacturer still get on the roster.

Due to the new microstamping requirement, no new guns will ever get on the roster. This helps us, by showing that it is an unconstitutional ban.

I wondered when someone would mention the microstamping requirement. All those who've let their guns expire from the roster will have to have microstamping to get back on.

I'm not sure the microstamping requirement will meet the test of an outright ban. Manufacturers are free to submit samples for approval, and the record shows that those who do generally end up on roster. While an outright ban is unconstitutional, States do have the authority to enact regulatory laws, and just like everybody else I don't like it, but as long as a manufacturer is free to submit for approval, and as long as Californians can walk into a gun store and walk out with a pistol, it's gonna be tough to say a microstamping requirement constitutes a ban.

I think it's about time Californians started actively working to change the face of the State legislature, but with so many polarizing issues in play, and political pandering that goes on, we'll likely be seeing an ample supply of liberals for the foreseeable future.

[SMR510]

I wondered when someone would mention the microstamping requirement. All those who've let their guns expire from the roster will have to have microstamping to get back on.

I'm not sure the microstamping requirement will meet the test of an outright ban. Manufacturers are free to submit samples for approval, and the record shows that those who do generally end up on roster. While an outright ban is unconstitutional, States do have the authority to enact regulatory laws, and just like everybody else I don't like it, but as long as a manufacturer is free to submit for approval, and as long as Californians can walk into a gun store and walk out with a pistol, it's gonna be tough to say a microstamping requirement constitutes a ban.

I think it's about time Californians started actively working to change the face of the State legislature, but with so many polarizing issues in play, and political pandering that goes on, we'll likely be seeing an ample supply of liberals for the foreseeable future.

They metaphorically shot themselves in the foot by including microstamping. While the technology does exist it is not in use by anyone that I am aware of. That right there is basically a ban on adding new handguns to the roster. Combine that with the fact that if a manufacture changes something as simple as the grips (as they often do to freshen up an older model) that handgun is no longer the same in the eyes of the CA DOJ even though as we all know the grips don't make the gun safer or less safe at all.

[Catch]

What about combat grips?

J/k, agreed.

[soutthpaw]

They metaphorically shot themselves in the foot by including microstamping. While the technology does exist it is not in use by anyone that I am aware of. That right there is basically a ban on adding new handguns to the roster. Combine that with the fact that if a manufacture changes something as simple as the grips (as they often do to freshen up an older model) that handgun is no longer the same in the eyes of the CA DOJ even though as we all know the grips don't make the gun safer or less safe at all.

But the roster has nothing to do with safety. It's all about money. The fact that an approved gun that has no changes falls off the roster because the manufacturer does not pay the yearly bribe... err fee proves that!

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[rm1911]

While an outright ban is unconstitutional, States do have the authority to enact regulatory laws.

The impact of the law will reveal the intent of the law.

Regulation is aligned commercial activity. Thats why the roster doesn't prohibit ownership of non rostered guns. Ffl's can't sell them. So possession is fine. However, the law can be shown as a prohibitive one rather than a commercial one as non safety feature changes suddenly exclude a pistol. And in doing that, the true nature of the law is revealed.

It's why I don't expect dros and registration to get tossed, at least under 2A grounds. However I think a very good 4th ammendment argument can be made regarding privacy and even a better case on 5th amendment grounds for depriving one of due process.

[Librarian]

All those who've let their guns expire from the roster will have to have microstamping to get back on.

Maybe.

That isn't how it has worked in the past; a gun expires off the Roster through some timing error, and the manufacturer merely sends in the $200 per model annual fee and a note -- 11 CCR 4070

(e) A manufacturer/importer or other responsible party may submit a written request to list a handgun model that was voluntarily discontinued or was removed for lack of payment of the annual maintenance fee. The written request must state that no modifications have been made to the model and be submitted to the DOJ together with the annual listing fee as set forth in section 4072 of these regulations. If approved, the listing will be valid for one year from the date the model was added to the Roster, and shall be renewed as set forth in section 4071 of these regulations.

However, the bolded bit shows it is not automatic - some assessment of the gun is made.

[soutthpaw]

Just noticed my Beretta Neos is not on the roster. Maybe they only paid to put the most popular or biggest profit making guns in it

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[Sandiegosurf1]

11/7/13. Attorneys for Glock, Inc. have filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the Second Amendment Foundation’s case in California, Pena v. Lindley, a lawsuit challenging the state handgun roster requirements that include microstamping and magazine disconnects.
Glock produces some of the most popular pistols in the world, and their guns are carried by law enforcement professionals and legally-armed private citizens across the United States.
“We are proud of Glock for stepping up to the plate,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Glock believes, as do we, that California’s requirements place an undue burden on both consumers and manufacturers.”
According to the brief filed by attorneys Erik S. Jaffe of Washington, D.C. and John C. Eastman of Orange, Calif., Glock pistols are like the majority of semi-auto pistols manufactured today, because they do not include the magazine disconnect. Indeed, the brief notes that “the overwhelming majority of law enforcement agencies require pistols that do not have a magazine disconnect mechanism.”
Glock pistols, nor any other handgun in common use, can comply with California’s “microstamping” mandate, the brief notes. As a result the newest generation of Glock pistols is not on the California roster, and therefore cannot be sold to private individuals in that state.
“Under the First Amendment,” Gottlieb observed, “California is not allowed to compile a list of books you can read, and under the Second Amendment the state should not be allowed to compile a list of handguns you can own.”
Both Jaffe and Eastman clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Gottlieb noted. Mr. Eastman has considerable experience in civil and constitutional litigation, and was a candidate for California attorney general in 2010. He is a law professor at Chapman University. Mr. Jaffe also clerked for Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg of the U.S. Court of appeals in the District of Columbia. He has litigated in Washington, D.C. and has considerable experience in constitutional challenges.
“Glock definitely has an interest in this case,” Gottlieb said, “and their expertise could be crucial at this point. We’re glad they have chosen to weigh in.”
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. In addition to the landmark McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court Case, SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; New Orleans; Chicago and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and numerous amicus briefs holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

[boukca]

Please get the Ruger SR22 back on.

[dsfloyd]

I like this quote from the post above

“Under the First Amendment,” Gottlieb observed, “California is not allowed to compile a list of books you can read, and under the Second Amendment the state should not be allowed to compile a list of handguns you can own.”