The Roster Tax

[abinsinia]

I'm not sure what you mean, the "cost" from the distributor for a CA vs non-CA model of most firearms is the same. There are exceptions to that of course.

For example using XD9101 as an example:
Free State Model: $X
CA Model: $X

exactly the same. What you pay at retail of course is going to be higher..just like gas is higher, real estate is typically more, etc... It's the cost of California.

I can't speak for all models, but the ones I looked at the California price and the free state price are different. Even when it's the exact same gun, California prices are about $60 more.

[anonymouscuban]

I think some you are taking the word "tax" to literally. I believe the OP is just referring to the higher rate we pay as a tax. And just because we pay more for other stuff doesn't discredit his point.

What is crazy to me is the off-roster "tax" or premium guns sell for here. Minimum of 80% markup. Many are 100%. ****, I've seen some sell for more.

And yeah, I understand it's the market value and if you don't like it, you don't have to buy it. Agree with all that. But it's a totally artificial, beurocratic induced economy that drives it. The roster is bull****. I think we can all agree on this. I hope.

Sent from my SM-G930U using Tapatalk

[Jimi Jah]

Supply and demand. Less supply, greater demand = higher prices. Sort of like how the gas is priced here.

[OlderThanDirt]

[TurboS600]

I can contribute with an anecdotal story of my own. I bought a Ruger LCP in a PPT. I paid $400 which is pretty standard for an LCP in this state. My father came to visit and he liked it a lot. He wanted to get one to carry on his CCW in Idaho. He found one on sale earlier this year at Sportsman's Warehouse for $180. It is now his daily carry.

[abinsinia]

I can contribute with an anecdotal story of my own. I bought a Ruger LCP in a PPT. I paid $400 which is pretty standard for an LCP in this state. My father came to visit and he liked it a lot. He wanted to get one to carry on his CCW in Idaho. He found one on sale earlier this year at Sportsman's Warehouse for $180. It is now his daily carry.

I noticed something similar .. The Ruger LC380 California model is about $400 , but outside California you can get the LC380 for about $200 .. As far as I can tell it's the same gun 7+1 capacity, and I don't think it has the California safety features.

[93chipper]

Probably due to the fact the gun manufacturers don’t want to keep making a gun that is obsolete for example Glock making gen 3s just for California even though they are on gen 5 glocks or certain other guns not to be slightly updated other wise they could fall off roster or changed colors of guns.

[DNA]

Kimber K6S (Deluxe Carry Revolver) N/A 380.00

Where did you find this? I need a kimber...

Dan

[Milsurp1]

I misunderstood the original post. It compared rostered guns with rostered guns, so it actually measures a California premium that has nothing to do with the roster.

For a roster premium the analysis would need to compare off roster guns in California with the same model in a free state. That would show the impact of the roster on prices (e.g. the financial impact of a limited supply).

[bohoki]

the hipoint can be had cheaper out of state most dealers are really sticking and wont budge off the MSRP well i found one that would go -$10
but i attribute that to CA hi cost of living ,rent ,CA dealers additional requirements

[abinsinia]

I misunderstood the original post. It compared rostered guns with rostered guns, so it actually measures a California premium that has nothing to do with the roster.

For a roster premium the analysis would need to compare off roster guns in California with the same model in a free state. That would show the impact of the roster on prices (e.g. the financial impact of a limited supply).

It's Rostered guns vs. identical non-roster guns, that's what it's suppose to be. For example the California rostered version always have crippled magazines, free state version always have standard capacity magazines.

[EricT71]

You really can't blame the mfg's or the retailers. Part of the process of getting a gun model on the roster is that the mfg had to pay the state for the BS "drop testing" -which is basically a $1 million CA seller's permit. The mfg has to recoup this investment by marking up the wholesale cost of the gun. That is why they rarely add new models to the roster. It has been proven to be very risky that the investment will ever show a return. The roster law is worded so that nothing about the gun model may be changed without a new drop test fee, not even the color, and each individual catalog number is subject to its own drop test.

FWIW, guns are not the only thing CA does this with. I know for sure they do it with catalytic converters, wouldn't be surprised of other consumer goods being "taxed" in this manner.

But the roster lawsuit is being heard by Judge Benitez, so there's that.

[Oldmandan]

Why didn’t you include the “Defender” package in your results? That would have been some real BS...