3 for 1 rule triggered? Which "unsafe" handguns will CA remove from roster?

[Tere_Hanges]

By now some of you may be aware that HK just added 4 "safe" centerfire semi-auto pistols to the roster.

These additions are the first centerfire semiauto pistols to be added to the roster this year and should trigger the 3 for 1 rule that CA changed last year and became effective this year. The rule states that for every new "safe" semi-auto centerfire handgun added to the roster, CA can remove 3 "unsafe" handguns from the roster.

NOTE: renewals of guns that were on the roster last year, rimfire handguns, and revolvers DO NOT trigger the 3 for 1 rule.

So the question is, which 12 "unsafe" handguns will CA remove from the roster?

My guess is Glocks.

[RickD427]

So the question becomes, which 12 "unsafe" handguns will CA remove from the roster?

None. Please refer to the Preliminary Injunction in Renna v Bonta.

[Tere_Hanges]

None. Please refer to the Preliminary Injunction in Renna v Bonta.

I saw that but don't know if it is still applicable.

CA changed the law last year to remove microstamping to define a "safe" vs. "unsafe" handgun, thus putting 3 for 1 back in effect.

SB452 amended PC31910 to remove microstamping so 3 for 1 can take effect as soon as any new "safe" centerfire semiauto pistol is added to the roster in 2024. HK just added 4. 4x3=12 handguns the DOJ can remove now.

https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB452/id/2842861

SEC. 7. Section 31910 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
31910. (a) 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:
(1) For a revolver:
(A) 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.
(B) It does not meet the firing requirement for handguns.
(C) It does not meet the drop safety requirement for handguns.
(2) For a pistol:
(A) 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.
(B) It does not meet the firing requirement for handguns.
(C) It does not meet the drop safety requirement for handguns.
(D) Commencing July 1, 2022, for all centerfire semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015, it does not have a chamber load indicator.
(E) Commencing July 1, 2022, for all centerfire or 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.
(b) The Department of Justice shall, for each semiautomatic pistol newly added to the roster pursuant to Section 32015, remove from the roster exactly three semiautomatic pistols lacking one or more of the applicable features described in subparagraphs (D) and (E) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) and added to the roster before July 1, 2022. Notwithstanding those subparagraphs, each semiautomatic pistol removed from the roster pursuant to this subdivision shall be considered an unsafe handgun. The Attorney General shall remove semiautomatic pistols from the roster pursuant to this subdivision in reverse order of their dates of addition to the roster, beginning with the semiautomatic pistol added to the roster on the earliest date and continuing until each semiautomatic pistol on the roster includes each of the applicable features described in those subparagraphs.

[RickD427]

I think you are mistaken/confused. If you are referring to microstamping not triggering 3 for 1, that is old news.

CA changed the law last year to remove microstamping to define a "safe" vs. "unsafe" handgun, thus putting 3 for 1 back in effect.

SB452 amended PC31910 to remove microstamping so 3 for 1 can take effect as soon as any new "safe" centerfire semiauto pistol is added to the roster in 2024. HK just added 4. 4x3=12 handguns the DOJ can remove now.

https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB452/id/2842861

I was not referring to any statutory changes in law.

I was referring to the Preliminary Injunction issued by Judge Sabraw on March 31, 2023 in the Renna v Bonta case preventing the state from enforcing the 3 for 1 rule.

SB 452 did amend PC 31910 after the Preliminary Injunction was issued, but the state cannot circumvent a Preliminary Injunction simply by re-arranging the statute that was enjoined.

[sbo80]

since they're supposed to remove the oldest first, in date order, then it seems they don't get to "pick". It's just the longest on the roster, are out. I don't know if that's something we can look up (as in, is the original listing date included in the searchable roster, or is that just something DOJ has in their books only). That is if/when they start doing the removing. I'll let you all discuss that part.

[Tere_Hanges]

since they're supposed to remove the oldest first, in date order, then it seems they don't get to "pick". It's just the longest on the roster, are out. I don't know if that's something we can look up (as in, is the original listing date included in the searchable roster, or is that just something DOJ has in their books only). That is if/when they start doing the removing. I'll let you all discuss that part.

The problem is a lot of guns including Glocks, Sigs, Berettas, 1911s, etc... were added at the same time. So they have plenty to choose from to inflict the most damage.

Somebody posted a list a couple months ago. I don't know where that thread is now.

[Tere_Hanges]

I was not referring to any statutory changes in law.

I was referring to the Preliminary Injunction issued by Judge Sabraw on March 31, 2023 in the Renna v Bonta case preventing the state from enforcing the 3 for 1 rule.

SB 452 did amend PC 31910 after the Preliminary Injunction was issued, but the state cannot circumvent a Preliminary Injunction simply by re-arranging the statute that was enjoined.

I hope you are correct and 3 for 1 is still enjoined until the case is finally resolved with the roster being abolished.

[foothillman]

The problem is a lot of guns including Glocks, Sigs, Berettas, 1911s, etc... were added at the same time. So they have plenty to choose from to inflict the most damage.

Somebody posted a list a couple months ago. I don't know where that thread is now.

First year

abinsinia

Default PSA: Which CA Roster Pistols Get Ejected First ?
Here is a partial list of dates when which pistol was first added to the CA Roster. Sorted by oldest date first.

All 1/1/2001 so what will the order be?

Pistol Beretta 96 .40 S&W 4.9" 1/1/2001
Pistol Beretta 92FS 9mm 4.9" 1/1/2001
Pistol Kimber Comp. Stnls II .45 ACP 4" 1/1/2001
Pistol Kimber Custom Target II .45 ACP 5" 1/1/2001
Pistol Kimber Stnls Target II .45 ACP 5" 1/1/2001
Pistol Kimber Pro Carry II .45 ACP 4" 1/1/2001
Pistol Kimber Stnls Pro Carry II .45 ACP 4" 1/1/2001
Pistol Kimber Ult Carry II .45 ACP 3" 1/1/2001
Pistol Kimber Stnls Ultra Carry II .45 ACP 3" 1/1/2001
Pistol Kimber Pro Carry HD II .45 ACP 4" 1/1/2001
Pistol Ceska Zbrojovka (CZ) CZ 75 B (Black) 01120 .40 S&W 4.58" 1/1/2001
Pistol Ceska Zbrojovka (CZ) CZ 75 Compact (Black) 01190 9mm 3.765" 1/1/2001
Pistol Ceska Zbrojovka (CZ) CZ 75 D (Black) 01194 9mm 3.763" 1/1/2001
Pistol Ceska Zbrojovka (CZ) CZ 75 B SA (Black) 01150 9mm 4.593" 1/1/2001
Pistol Ceska Zbrojovka (CZ) CZ 75 B (Black) 01102 9mm 4.593" 1/1/2001
Pistol Ceska Zbrojovka (CZ) CZ 97 B (Black) 01401 .45 ACP 4.658" 1/1/2001
Pistol Heckler & Koch USP9 V1" 9mm "4.25" 1/1/2001
Pistol Heckler & Koch USP40 V1" .40 S&W "4.25" 1/1/2001
Pistol Heckler & Koch USP45 V1 (Black Frame)" .45 ACP "4.41" 1/1/2001
Pistol Heckler & Koch Comp USP9 V1 (Black Frame) 9mm 3.58" 1/1/2001
Pistol Heckler & Koch Comp USP45 V1 .45 ACP 3.8" 1/1/2001
Pistol Heckler & Koch Comp USP40 V1 .40 S&W 3.58" 1/1/2001
Pistol Glock 20 10mm 4.60" 1/1/2001
Pistol Glock 31 .357 SIG 4.49" 1/1/2001
Pistol Glock 30 .45 ACP 3.78" 1/1/2001
Pistol Glock 21 .45 ACP 4.60" 1/1/2001
Pistol Glock 23 .40 S&W 4.02" 1/1/2001
Pistol Glock 26 9mm 3.46" 1/1/2001
Pistol Glock 36 .45 ACP 3.78" 1/1/2001
Pistol Glock 22 .40 S&W 4.49" 1/1/2001
Pistol Glock 33 .357 SIG 3.46" 1/1/2001
Pistol Glock 17 (Black) 9mm 4.49" 1/1/2001
Pistol Glock 32 .357 SIG 4.02" 1/1/2001
Pistol Glock 27 .40 S&W 3.46" 1/1/2001
Pistol Beretta 92FS Brigadier 9mm 4.92" 1/1/2001
Pistol Beretta 96 Brigadier .40 S&W 4.92" 1/1/2001
Pistol Beretta 92FS Inox 9mm 4.92" 1/1/2001
Pistol Glock 19 9mm 4.02" 1/1/2001
Pistol Glock 35 .40 S&W 5.32" 1/1/2001
Pistol Springfield Armory PB9108L .45 ACP 5" 2/9/2001
Pistol Springfield Armory PB9108L (Integrated Locking System) .45 ACP 5" 7/19/2002
Pistol Springfield Armory PX9109L (ambi safety) .45 ACP 5" 7/19/2002
Pistol Springfield Armory PX9628L (ambi safety) .45 ACP 6" 7/19/2002
Pistol Sig Sauer P239 (Blued) 9mm 3.6" 1/1/2001
Pistol Sig Sauer P239 (Blued) .357 SIG 3.6" 1/1/2001
Pistol Beretta 3032 Tomcat Inox .32 ACP 2.4" 1/1/2001
Pistol Beretta 96 Inox .40 S&W 4.92" 1/1/2001
Pistol Beretta 96 Brigadier Inox .40 S&W 4.92" 1/1/2001
Pistol Beretta 96G Elite II .40 S&W 4.7" 1/1/2001
Pistol Beretta 92FS Brigadier Inox 9mm 4.92" 1/1/2001
Pistol Beretta 92FS Compact Type M 9mm 4.3" 1/1/2001
Pistol Beretta 92G Elite II J92GE20 9mm 4.7" 1/1/2001
Pistol Heckler & Koch USP 40 Exp.V9 .40 S&W 5.20" 1/1/2001
Pistol Heckler & Koch USP 45 Exp.V1 .45 ACP 5.20" 1/1/2001
Pistol Sig Sauer P232 (Stainless) 232-380-SSS .380 ACP 3.7" 1/1/2001
Pistol Glock 20C 10mm 4.60" 1/10/2001
Pistol Glock 17C 9mm 4.49" 1/10/2001

Thanks....

I was not referring to any statutory changes in law.

I was referring to the Preliminary Injunction issued by Judge Sabraw on March 31, 2023 in the Renna v Bonta case preventing the state from enforcing the 3 for 1 rule.

SB 452 did amend PC 31910 after the Preliminary Injunction was issued, but the state cannot circumvent a Preliminary Injunction simply by re-arranging the statute that was enjoined.

[2761377]

according to DOJ, Renna is not case involved for additions to the roster.

An asterisk (*) next to the model name below indicates that the handgun was added pursuant to the court's order in Boland v. Bonta. C.D. Cal. Case No. 8:22-cv-1421-CJC-ADS [Dkts. 60, 61]; 9th Circuit Case No. 23-55276 [Dkt. 7].

[Tere_Hanges]

First year

Thats the list I saw, thanks for finding and posting.

[Capybara]

RickD is pretty knowledgable about these things, I think it's his hobby ;-) Hope you are right Rick, nice to get four H&Ks and not lose any others.

[Dvrjon]

according to DOJ, Renna is not case involved for additions to the roster.

An asterisk (*) next to the model name below indicates that the handgun was added pursuant to the court's order in Boland v. Bonta. C.D. Cal. Case No. 8:22-cv-1421-CJC-ADS [Dkts. 60, 61]; 9th Circuit Case No. 23-55276 [Dkt. 7].

Renna:

Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction against the State?s enforcement of those three provisions, which operate to prohibit the commercial sale of these arms, as well as the three-for-one roster removal provision, which depends on the enforceability of those provisions.

Boland:

Because the plain text of the Second Amendment covers Plaintiffs? proposed course of conduct of purchasing state-of-the-art handguns, and the UHA?s CLI, MDM, and microstamping requirements are not consistent with this Nation?s historical tradition of firearm regulation, Plaintiffs? motion is GRANTED.

[Tere_Hanges]

Thanks. That makes sense, just hoping that when CA changed the law last year to remove microstamping it didn't circumvent the injunction on the 3 for 1 provision.