Gun not on CA roster question

[Im4Glock]

I'm looking for a FFL to be able to explain how this makes sense. I am in CA and am trying to purchase a Glock 23 RTF2. I have called local dealers and they all say that it is not on the roster so they cannot obtain and sell it. I can understand that part, but why the heck not. Based on the law:

12131.5. (a) A firearm shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of
subdivision (a) of Section 12131 if another firearm made by the same
manufacturer is already listed and the unlisted firearm differs from
the listed firearm only in one or more of the following features:

(1) Finish, including, but not limited to, bluing, chrome-plating,
oiling, or engraving.

(2) The material from which the grips are made.

(3) The shape or texture of the grips, so long as the difference in
grip shape or texture does not in any way alter the dimensions,
material, linkage, or functioning of the magazine well, the barrel,
the chamber, or any of the components of the firing mechanism of the
firearm.

(4) Any other purely cosmetic feature that does not in any way alter
the dimensions, material, linkage, or functioning of the magazine
well, the barrel, the chamber, or any of the components of the
firing mechanism of the firearm.

So, my question is this...The 17RTF2 and 22RTF2 are on the list yet the 19RTF2 and 23RTF2 are not, but according to the letter of the law in CA these 4 are not required to be on the list as they fall under the same model under condition 3 as the physical dimensions nor any of the internals are changed. Why is this the situation that has not been addressed or why is it not possible to purchase this gun?

[tenpercentfirearms]

I'm looking for a FFL to be able to explain how this makes sense. I am in CA and am trying to purchase a Glock 23 RTF2. I have called local dealers and they all say that it is not on the roster so they cannot obtain and sell it. I can understand that part, but why the heck not. Based on the law:

12131.5. (a) A firearm shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of
subdivision (a) of Section 12131 if another firearm made by the same
manufacturer is already listed and the unlisted firearm differs from
the listed firearm only in one or more of the following features:

(1) Finish, including, but not limited to, bluing, chrome-plating,
oiling, or engraving.

(2) The material from which the grips are made.

(3) The shape or texture of the grips, so long as the difference in
grip shape or texture does not in any way alter the dimensions,
material, linkage, or functioning of the magazine well, the barrel,
the chamber, or any of the components of the firing mechanism of the
firearm.

(4) Any other purely cosmetic feature that does not in any way alter
the dimensions, material, linkage, or functioning of the magazine
well, the barrel, the chamber, or any of the components of the
firing mechanism of the firearm.

So, my question is this...The 17RTF2 and 22RTF2 are on the list yet the 19RTF2 and 23RTF2 are not, but according to the letter of the law in CA these 4 are not required to be on the list as they fall under the same model under condition 3 as the physical dimensions nor any of the internals are changed. Why is this the situation that has not been addressed or why is it not possible to purchase this gun?

Glock didn't submit it. If Glock doesn't submit it, then it doesn't go on. That is your answer.

[Im4Glock]

Thanks Tenpercentfirearms. Appreciate the response. That really seems like a stupid rule. Actually, it sounds like the usual CA greedy hands syndrome. I know that dealers around here have sold the 19RTF2, those individuals are lucky to have gotten those. And they were NIB models.

[kemasa]

You need to read the COMPLETE section of the law, not just part of it, keep reading to the end of the PC section.

(b) Any manufacturer seeking to have a firearm listed under this
section shall provide to the Department of Justice all of the
following:
(1) The model designation of the listed firearm.
(2) The model designation of each firearm that the manufacturer
seeks to have listed under this section.
(3) A statement, under oath, that each unlisted firearm for which
listing is sought differs from the listed firearm only in one or more
of the ways identified in subdivision (a) and is in all other
respects identical to the listed firearm.
(c) The department may, in its discretion and at any time, require
a manufacturer to provide to the department any model for which
listing is sought under this section, to determine whether the model
complies with the requirements of this section.

Under the letter of the law, they ARE required to be on the list. How they get on the list is what the above is about. There seems to also be the issue of paying, which is most likely why Glock has not submitted them. The section you quote is in regards to not having to test the firearms and provide multiple copies of the firearms.

This is the referenced section:

12131. (a) On and after January 1, 2001, the Department of Justice
shall compile, publish, and thereafter maintain a roster listing all
of the pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being
concealed upon the person 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 title. The roster
shall list, for each firearm, the manufacturer, model number, and
model name.

It involves the testing by a certified testing laboratory, which is bypassed, if it meets the conditions AND the letter is submitted, as well as the fees.

[gump45]

Glock 19 RTF2...

So, hypothetically speaking, if someone owns a Glock 19/23 RTF2, purchased NIB from a licensed FFL, what are the legal repercussions for the owner? I spoke to someone yesterday at a gun shop who indicated there could be adverse legal issues for the owner, and probably the dealer, if the gun is used in a self-defense scenario.

I checked again and see the G19/23RTF2's are not on the CA DOJ Approved List, not on the list of Recently Removed Handguns, and not on the list of Recently Added Handguns. Link here: http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/safeguns.asp.

Two more questions:

1.) What might be the legal issues for someone in possession of one of these two pistols attending a training course here in CA?

2.) If the Approved Handgun List goes away in the (near-ish) future, what legal repercussions might the owner face, if any?

Thanks in advance!
-gump45

[tenpercentfirearms]

So, hypothetically speaking, if someone owns a Glock 19/23 RTF2, purchased NIB from a licensed FFL, what are the legal repercussions for the owner? I spoke to someone yesterday at a gun shop who indicated there could be adverse legal issues for the owner, and probably the dealer, if the gun is used in a self-defense scenario.

I checked again and see the G19/23RTF2's are not on the CA DOJ Approved List, not on the list of Recently Removed Handguns, and not on the list of Recently Added Handguns. Link here: http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/safeguns.asp.

Two more questions:

1.) What might be the legal issues for someone in possession of one of these two pistols attending a training course here in CA?

2.) If the Approved Handgun List goes away in the (near-ish) future, what legal repercussions might the owner face, if any?

Thanks in advance!
-gump45

I am not sure of the consequences. I would think it is really on the dealer. The dealer is responsible for not selling non-rostered guns. I think when everyone sold the Glock 21SF with picatinny rail they actually had to take those pistols back.

A Glock 19 RTF in itself is not illegal because you might have bought it as a PPT. So in a self defense shooting, odds are no one is going to care as they are going to check to see if it is registered to you and even though the model number will say Glock 19, the serial number will match. The smartest thing to do would be to keep your mouth shut. Your lawyer could always argue that you had it sent off somewhere and they made a 19 RTF out of it using the same serial numbered frame.

As far as your training course goes, unless the training people are checking handgun registration, no one will care. I have NEVER heard of anyone checking registration on handguns nor do I even know if that is possible. You do have rights to privacy.

If the list goes away, then you probably have nothing to worry about.

If it were me, I would consider going back to the dealer and trading it back in and I would request that it shouldn't cost you anything. Really, this is a dealer issue. A dealer should be able to look at the list, see the Glock 17 RTF2 on there, see the Glock 19 RTF2 is not, and they shouldn't sell them. This one is really black and white.

[gump45]

Ok. So, hypothetically, the owner will be calling the dealer in very near future.

[ke6guj]

I am not sure of the consequences. I would think it is really on the dealer. The dealer is responsible for not selling non-rostered guns. I think when everyone sold the Glock 21SF with picatinny rail they actually had to take those pistols back.

IIRC, those that bought one of those off-roster glocks just got a letter from CADOJ asking them to have the dealer exchange the glock for a listed model. But it wasn't a requirement. I also do seem to recall that CADOJ tried to claim that the owner couldn't sell it because it was off-roster.

[gump45]

IIRC, those that bought one of those off-roster glocks just got a letter from CADOJ asking them to have the dealer exchange the glock for a listed model. But it wasn't a requirement. I also do seem to recall that CADOJ tried to claim that the owner couldn't sell it because it was off-roster.

Ahh, the curse of actually getting what you want...