Californians not able to get warranty work?

[Gryff]

Read my post again! I clearly said "for them" if the gun is not in the Roster then it is not legal to send it back to the owner, you know? for them meaning SIG as "them"

My mistake. You wrote, "for them if the gun is not in the Roster then it is not legal to send it back to the owner," which states that there is a law that prevents them from sending it back. Of course, a company can't make laws, only policies. I simply didn't realize that you use English less precisely than I do.

[Casual_Shooter]

Posted this in your other thread too. It appears from the sigtalk thread, there has been some clarification:

Sorry it took me awhile to get back. Sig finally got it all situated. The person who I dealt with at Sig obviously didn't know what he was talking about.

Now here's what I was told.. "off roster guns are able to be ship back if repaired, If it's being replaced we will ONLY ship it to the gun shop where you purchased it. Therefore, it's up to them to decided if they will charge you to SSE, DROS etc."

Now my next concern is what if the shop don't SSE anymore??? Just saying for the future..

[CSACANNONEER]

Really?

It's not about Legality, it's SIG's policy, here is another thread for it, let me know if you need my address to send me the 22LR's although I don't need it as I have 35k rounds sitting in my closet.

http://sigtalk.com/sig-sauer-pistols...-warranty.html

I'll let your words speak for themselves.

They don't care how you acquired it! for them if the gun is not in the Roster then it is not legal to send it back to the owner.

See, you used the term "not legal" not the term "against company policy". So, yes, your claim was only about the legality.

Actually, it is still completely legal for Sig/Taurus/whoever to ship a replacement gun to a California FFL. The law affects the FFL's ability to transfer the gun to the intended owneer. It has nothing to do with the company shipping the gun into the state.

Agreed but, assuming that it is the exact same gun (replaced part/frame with one with the same SN or original frame), Sig does not need to go through a CA FFL. They can legally ship it directly to the owner without worrying about the roster.

[majtom94]

They don't care how you acquired it! for them if the gun is not in the Roster then it is not legal to send it back to the owner.

Nah, wrong. You own it it goes back to ya. There has been no legal transfer of title, only the return of an item for warranty work. They will only send back complaint mags though.

[Speedpower]

Nah, wrong. You own it it goes back to ya. There has been no legal transfer of title, only the return of an item for warranty work. They will only send back complaint mags though.

I know it's wrong, SIG is being stupid with their policy!

[Battleicious]

Quit spreading FUD! Of course it is legal to return a legally owned firearm to it's legal owner in CA. I'll give you a +1000 rounds of .22lr if you can cite any law which makes it illegal. Hell, I'll give you an entire 5000 round case if you can prove your claim. If your claim was true, no one could ever leave any off roster handgun with a gunsmith for work. Sorry, that simply is not the case. Well, I've put my money where my mouth is. I have a case of CCI Blazer here for you if you can prove your claim. I'm willing to bet that you aren't going to post a retraction to your statement or even post in this thread again because, most people simply can not admit they are wrong.

You get testy really quick. Take a chill pill.

[wildhawker]

FYI that CGF and CAL-FFL are on this. We'll circle back when there's an update.

[Donk310]

You get testy really quick. Take a chill pill.

LOL! I was thinking the same thing.

What's funny is with all this bickering... it doesn't really matter who is wrong or who is right. If Sig decides they won't sent it back, then guess what... YOU ain't getting it back, and that's that. Look for a plan B.

[FatCity67]

The Big Brother Chill Pill

[Maddawg46]

The main issue is Single shot exemption. They will not perform warranty work on one period. I can see a lot of loopholes with this policy. For those that think it's not true, give thema call yourself.

[SMR510]

Anyone who tells someone calling out FUD on this forum to "chill out" needs to chill out. There is so much BS completely wrong information floating around and someone has to put an end to it.

You know they have lawyers on staff, why dont they just call the CA DOJ and clear up any misunderstanding they might have?

The main issue is Single shot exemption. They will not perform warranty work on one period. I can see a lot of loopholes with this policy. For those that think it's not true, give thema call yourself.

How are they going to know the difference? I didnt like Sig before this mess but I certainly wont buy anything they make now. That said if I spent my hard earned cash on one of their pistols on or off roster and they denied me warranty work for no reason there would be a problem.

[Custom ii]

They will only send back complaint mags though.

I don't have any complaint magazines, I have a couple that I complain about and a lot of compliant mags that work quite well.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[Ordnance1]

Total FUD. I sent my Sig 938 back to them to replace the spring under warranty and they never mentioned a thing about "the list" just went ahed and fixed it then sent it back. Besides, what if it was an LE officer that had an off roster pistol? Are they going to say NO to servicing it then?

[benjamin101677]

Sounds like a case when someone called Sig that they may have given them too much information. Seems to me that this person told Sig that they had the gun shipped or sold to them under the single action exemption rule in California. Which was way too much information and made Sig start to question the legal of shipping the gun back.

I don't see Sig refusing to do gun work and ship it back off rooster or not. California buys 80% of all guns sold in the USA so they don't wanna hurt this market.

[Hoooper]

My mistake. You wrote, "for them if the gun is not in the Roster then it is not legal to send it back to the owner," which states that there is a law that prevents them from sending it back. Of course, a company can't make laws, only policies. I simply didn't realize that you use English less precisely than I do.

See, you used the term "not legal" not the term "against company policy". So, yes, your claim was only about the legality

amazing, even when you find out you interpreted it incorrectly you still try to pass the blame. If you try again, it clearly says "for them it is not legal", kind of like, "for the ninth circus, the second amendment is a collective right". They might be (are) wrong, but that doesnt change their interpretation.