Ruger LC9 (courtesy The Truth About Guns)

Yesterday, we reported that Ruger had decided to let all of its semi-automatic handguns slip off the California Department of Justice Approved Handgun List. Dan the Man finally caught up with a Ruger rep, who confirmed the story and provided a more complete (if not complete) explanation. “California law requires micro-stamping technology that does not exist,” Mark Gurney said. “We cannot meet the new requirement. Even though our handguns haven’t changed in any other way, they will fall off the Approved list.” Which is currently being challenged in court. Meanwhile, make the jump for a calgunsfoundation.org‘s chart of CA handgun availability, proving that the “approved list” is just another way for Big Government to disarm its citizens, little by little, year by year . . .

(courtesy calgunsfoundation.org)

95 Responses to BREAKING: Ruger Confirms CA Semis Slip Sliding Away

    • And given the announcement published here this morning about new legislation being proposed in NY (that includes microstamping), it sounds like the Empire State could be next.

    • Yes, my guess is that Ruger is doing this for mainly political purposes and I do think it will help overturn the Roster. It makes no sense economically, and the microstamping has NOTHING to do with their handguns already on the Roster. It has to be something else. Hopefully that’s a political statement and they’re just not saying that publicly.

      BTW — CalGuns Foundation thinks this will help! Check out the graphic and the blurb: http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/roster/

      • It is more than just politics, it is the intransigence and stonewalling by the Attorney General and her minions. under California law, a handgun can stay on the roster as long as there are no substantial changes to the design; only material/substantial changes required recertification. Typically this meant that a manufacturer could add a model with a different color slide or frame with no issues. But that has changed under Harris. According to Ruger sources, just changing the material of a part from the SR22 from cast to MIM was declared by the DOJ to be a significant change requiring recertification, even though the function of the gun was completely the same. Other changes designed to simplify manufacturing but not affecting safety or function have met the same fate. And of course, ever since May of last year, recertification means compliance with the microstamping mandate.

        From what we can tell so far, from reports from SHOT, Glock and Springfield have not yet announced their positions, waiting to consult with counsel. Glock has stated that it intends to keep selling Gen III Glocks (Gen IVs are not on the roster). Colt is a nonissue, since its revolvers are exempt and its 1911s grandfathered. Taurus has almost eliminated pistol sales in the state. H&K won’t play, but they hate you any way. Sig has been inconsistent, announcing Cal compliant models but taking years to bring them to market. On the other hand, I don’t think that any of them plan on building microstamping pistols.

        • HK loves me, thank you very much. The last time I needed parts it was an 8-minute conversation and they sent them to me for free via fedex 2-day.

    • Micro stamping?

      I know, I’ll go out to the range, scoop brass with other peoples stamp on it.
      So I can throw some red herrings on my crime scene and make sure my gun doesn’t have a micro stamp.

    • I don’t know Matt. In MA we’ve had our AG institute a bunch of regs under consumer protection statutes mandating that semiautos have certain features in order to be approved for retail sale. For instance, all semis must have loaded chamber indicators, manual safeties, mag disconnects, and certain metallurgical compositions in order to qualify.

      That isn’t to say we can’t own them but their retail sale is prohibited. Glocks are a perfect example. They are not allowed to be sold in Massachusetts though you can purchase used ones for about 40% more than they go for new elsewhere.

    • Yeah fuck these assholes down here in the communist state of California, I’m getting fed up with all these stupid laws that don’t deter gangs and criminal activity, they don’t give a shit about Micro stamping, get real people someday they’ll be a revolt down here in California and Diane Feinstein will be the first bitch on my list

  1. Commifornia is asking for something that has no basis whatsoever in reality…. I find that a bit hard to believe.

    /sarc/

  2. can’t help but think of the movie escape from l.a.

    this is about to happen to us in a few decades if those POS kalifornians start migrating

    • Wadaya mean start. They’ve been migrating for jobs or what have you for a long time; ever hear of Seattle or Denver or ___(name a big city near you)? It’s not just Californian progressive liberals with programmed hoplophobic tendencies either. Progressive liberal statist utopian types from all sorts of democrat ruled metros and supporting suburbs have been migrating for years bringing their progressive and antigun attitudes with them. Then just like developers and homeowners buying property under an airport flight pattern or next to a working livestock ranch, they try to impose change through politics to suit their own desires.

      I’m glad Ruger is pulling the plug. I hope other Mfgr’s follow suit and push the issue. Harris and the Democrats in Sacramento need to be spanked by court action before it’s too late – and not just for CA.

  3. my father lives in California and is thinking of buying another handgun (first one in 25+ years) he is under the impression that gun laws are the same in ca as everywhere else cause he hasn’t bought one in 20+ years

  4. Ruger’s explanation makes no sense. The new microstamping requirement only applies to new guns being added to the Roster. It does NOT affect guns already on it. Ruger could renew the guns already on the Roster if they wanted to ($200 per model to renew). They are making a choice not to and it has nothing to do with their guns being forced off the list due to microstamping.

    • Well, to the general public, it doesn’t matter. They’re making the “we’re not dealing with this shit anymore” decision, and the microstamping gives them something to point to that the average person will understand. It’s not like the antis are going to come back and say, “Nuh uh.”

      • Its like Springfield and Massachusetts. The AG says submit your guns for testing if they pass (ie we can’t find an excuse to fail them) then they make it on the approved roster. Springfield just said no thanks. So now those of us in MA can’t buy new Springfield’s from a dealer.

    • Manufacturers are required, under the current law, to file with the CA DOJ and pay fees. They do not want to do that.

      • That’s a different explanation and you’re just making your own assumption, as Ruger didn’t say that at all. If Ruger said, “we don’t want to pay the $200 fee per model to renew any of our handguns so we’re ceasing sales in CA” that would be understandable. That’s not what they said. They claimed it’s due to microstamping requirements that they cannot meet, but they have a whole crap ton of handguns on the roster already that are exempt from this requirement entirely.

        • It’s kind of common knowledge that manufacturers are tired of going through these hoops and paying fees for every new model.

        • “manufacturers are tired of going through these hoops and paying fees for every new model.

          We aren’t talking about new models. We’re talking about existing models. Literally the ONLY hoop they have to jump through is paying $200. There is no process and no testing and no whatever else. Just $200 check and “please renew this model for another 12 months.” Ruger is making a clear sacrifice doing this and purposefully losing the profits on the handguns they sell in the CA market. They have to have another motive. $200 isn’t a motive to walk away from hundreds of thousands of dollars in profit.

        • I think they’re doing it for political reasons. To make a statement and to try and help overturn the Roster. I agree with it. I’m 100% behind it.

          I’m only pointing out that dropping the guns that are already on there and are continuing to be produced nationally after they drop from the CA Roster makes NO sense on an economic basis for Ruger and it has absolutely nothing to do with microstamping.

          So, yes, I believe they’re doing it in the hopes that it will benefit them in the future by getting the Roster overturned entirely. Which is an economic upside. It’s a huge sacrifice short term on a gamble, though. I’m glad they’re doing it.

        • The $200 is probably a small fraction of the real cost to renew. Often the reason it costs $2000 to buy a hammer is that you pay a engineer to pick the hammer, someone to place the order 10 people to approve the order, etc.

          So someone, probably a lawyer type, has to know all the regs process all the forms. Even if it’s a low wage clerical person or part of higher wage persons time, that’s $20k-$40k just to sell your guns in one state.

        • They certainly wouldn’t drop CA if they couldn’t afford to do so. Ruger must answer to its shareholders. Period.

        • There is truth in rugers statement. The roster does not allow for any type of update to a gun on the roster. If ruger even wants to change the finish they need to resubmit to get on the roster. That means they are stuck never being able to update their wares without having to meet all the stupid micro stamping requirements. The roster is ridiculous and needs to end.

        • As I said above (after your postings): It is more than just politics, it is the intransigence and stonewalling by the Attorney General and her minions. under California law, a handgun can stay on the roster as long as there are no substantial changes to the design; only material/substantial changes required recertification. Typically this meant that a manufacturer could add a model with a different color slide or frame with no issues. But that has changed under Harris. According to Ruger sources, just changing the material of a part from the SR22 from cast to MIM was declared by the DOJ to be a significant change requiring recertification, even though the function of the gun was completely the same. Other changes designed to simplify manufacturing but not affecting safety or function have met the same fate. And of course, ever since May of last year, recertification means compliance with the microstamping mandate.

          Ruger also told an interviewer that it has been submitting guns for recertification, but the DOJ has been consistently denying it. Ruger claims its hands are tied.

        • Actually, that is exactly what Ruger said yesterday. They were told to pay $500 per model/variation to get “compliant” and they decided on No.

        • So why would they want to incur the costs of making two different models? Keeping an old model in production when they need the capacity to make new ones does not make economic sense.

        • @Sez Eye

          Because its not just changes to models for aesthetic or design purposes. The article mentions that any changes that would cheapen or simplify the production process (I.e. changing the cast materials) were considered major enough by California DOJ to require recertification.

    • However, they will not commit to producing older models of handguns already approved in California forever. This is the inevitable outcome for -all- manufactures. S&W is already letting pistols fall of the Roster as well, along with a few other major companies. Wait til Glock Gen 5 comes around.. You really think they are going to dedicate resources for Gen 3 forever? Not happening.

      Don’t blame Ruger. Blame the Legislators for this.

    • You have to understand the economic basis for Ruger.

      If they make a new version of an existing rostered gun, they would have to produce the grandfathered, obsolete model alongside the “49 state legal” updated gun.
      Since certifying the updated gun is impossible thanks to Microstamping, they’re forced to either duplicate their capital assets to maintain an entirely separate parts and manufacturing line for every gun they make , and do so in perpetuity, or they can cut their losses and leave the CA market.

      It would be like Ford being legally forced to sell the 1997 F150 in California.They could keep building obsolete trucks alongside the 50 state legal 2014 F150, or they could stop production and just ignore that market.

      • Your comments and emfourty’s comments make perfect sense when a manufacturer has stopped otherwise producing a handgun. You said, “If they make a new version of an existing rostered gun, they would have to produce the grandfathered, obsolete model.” Fine. BUT… that simply isn’t the case here. They are allowing current models to drop off the Roster instead of renew them. Models that they ARE manufacturing for the rest of the country and that ARE selling in large quantities in CA and in the rest of the country. CA is an absolutely massive gun market and Ruger sells many many thousands of handguns in CA. Your point is correct, but Ruger is doing it way before the actual scenario is happening. These guns are current. They are NOT making them just for the CA market.

        At they point when they ‘move on’ and would have to produce these models only for CA what you say makes sense. But they have literally dozens of handguns that are on the Roster and are identical to the guns being sold and manufactured for the rest of the country and they are dropping them from the Roster despite this fact. Keeping them on requires no special effort at all, whatsoever besides sending a check for $200 to renew them.

        • This also hints that there might be a major change in their upcoming lineup that will require recertification? Think outside the box a little.

        • The problem is ANY change is starting to be called a “new design”, if they want to upgrade the triggers, new design, modify the extractor, new design, thicken the barrel, new design, add a different pigment to the polymer parts, new design.

          Anything like that triggers the requirement to have micro stamping.

        • So y’all are suggesting that they are making material changes to their entire lineup such that renewing any of the guns for $200 is not economically worth it? These are the guns they sell in CA. Some expire today. Many next month. You’re saying that they are going to change 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” (<<< those are the things that retrigger certification. Color or anything else purely cosmetic does not) so soon that spending $200 to continue selling the model in CA until the change takes place isn't worth it? LC9 (Blued) 03200 / Alloy; polymer Pistol 3.12" 9mm 3/7/2014 LC9-CF 03211 / Alloy; polymer Pistol 3.12" 9mm 1/16/2014 LC9-LM 03206 / Alloy; polymer Pistol 3.12" 9mm 1/16/2014 LC9-NRA 03209 / Alloy; polymer Pistol 3.12" 9mm 1/16/2014 LC9-P 03205 / Alloy; polymer Pistol 3.12" 9mm 1/16/2014 LC9-R 03220 / Alloy; Polymer Pistol 3.12" 9mm 3/14/2014 LC380 (Black) 03219 / Stainless Steel; Polymer Pistol 3.40" .380 Auto 3/14/2014 BSR40C-9L (Black) 03479 / Steel Slide; Alloy Frame Pistol 3.5" .40 S&W 4/17/2014 BSR9C-10-CT 03329 / Alloy Steel Slide; Poly Frame Pistol 3.5" 9mm 1/16/2014 BSR9C-10L (Black) / Alloy Steel Slide; Polymer Frame Pistol 3.5" 9mm 3/17/2014 KSR40C-9L (Two-Tone) 03478 / Stainless Steel Slide; Polymer Frame Pistol 3.5" .40 S&W 4/17/2014 KSR9C-10-CF 03333 / Polymer; Stainless Steel Pistol 3.5" 9mm 3/14/2014 KSR9C-10-CT 03328 / Stainless Steel Pistol 3.5" 9mm 1/16/2014 KSR9C-10L (Brushed Stainless) / Polymer Frame; Stainless Steel Slide Pistol 3.5" 9mm 2/3/2014 KSR9C-NRA 03325 / Stainless Steel Pistol 3.5" 9mm 1/16/2014 KP95PR / Stainless Steel, Polymer Pistol 3.9" 9mm 5/27/2014 P95PR / Steel, Polymer Pistol 3.9" 9mm 5/27/2014 P4MKIII / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4" .22 LR 2/24/2014 SR9B-10-L (Black) / Alloy; Polymer Pistol 4.14" 9mm 2/9/2014 KP345 / Stainless Steel; Polymer Pistol 4.2" .45 Auto 9/15/2014 KP345PR / Stainless Steel and Polymer Pistol 4.2" .45 Auto 8/10/2014 P345PR / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.2" .45 Auto 5/27/2014 KMKIII45H (Stainless) / Stainless Steel Pistol 4.5" .22 LR 6/25/2014 KMKIII45HCL (Stainless) / Stainless Steel Pistol 4.5" .22 LR 5/29/2014 KP45HMKIII / Stainless Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.5" .22 LR 1/31/2014 KSR45 03801 / Stainless Steel; Polymer Pistol 4.5" .45 ACP 3/14/2014 P45GCMKIII / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.5" .22 LR 4/25/2014 MKIII4 / Steel Pistol 4.75" .22 LR 2/24/2014 KMKIII512 / Stainless Steel Pistol 5.5" .22 LR 8/20/2014 KP512MKIII / Stainless Steel, Polymer Pistol 5.5" .22 LR 2/24/2014 MKIII512 / Steel Pistol 5.5" .22 LR 8/10/2014 P512MKIII 10107 / Steel, Polymer Pistol 5.5" .22 LR 2/3/2014 Target MRKIII P512MKIIIRPBLK 10158 / Steel; Polymer Pistol 5.5" .22 LR 6/26/2014 MKIII6 / Steel Pistol 6" .22 LR 2/24/2014 KMKIII678H / Stainless Steel Pistol 6.87" .22 LR 2/3/2014 KMKIII678GC / Stainless Steel Pistol 6.875" .22 LR 2/3/2014 MKIII678 / Steel Pistol 6.875" .22 LR 2/24/2014 LCR (Black) / Stainless Steel, Alum., Polymer Revolver 1.87" .38 Spl 5/29/2014 LCR-LG (Black) / Stainless Steel, Alum., Polymer Revolver 1.87" .38 Spl 5/29/2014 LCR-XS (Black) 05405 / Stainless Steel; Aluminum Polymer Revolver 1.87" .38 Spl. 6/21/2014 LCR-22 (Black) 05410 / Stainless Steel; Alum Alloy; Polymer Revolver 1.875" .22 LR 4/11/2014 LCR (Matte Black) 05401 (no lock) / Alloy; Steel Revolver 1.877" .38 Spl. + P 6/13/2014 LCR-F / Alloy; Steel Revolver 1.877" .38 Spl. + P 7/24/2014 LCR-FR / Alloy, Steel Revolver 1.877" .38 Spl. + P 7/24/2014 KLCR-357 (Black) 05450 / Stainless Steel; Polymer Revolver 1.88" .357 Magnum 7/28/2014 LCR-22 (Matte Black) 05410 (no lock) / Alloy; Steel Revolver 1.9" .22 LR 6/13/2014 LCR-22MAG (Matte Black) 05414 (internal lock) / Alloy; Steel Revolver 1.9" .22 Magnum 6/13/2014 LCR-22MAG (Matte Black) 05414 (no lock) / Alloy; Steel Revolver 1.9" .22 Magnum 6/13/2014 KSP-321X / Stainless Steel Revolver 2.25" .357 Magnum 12/31/2014 KSP-321XL / Stainless Steel Revolver 2.25" .357 Magnum 12/31/2014 KSP-321XL-LG (Satin Stainless) / Stainless Steel Revolver 2.25" .357 Magnum 12/3/2014 KSP-821X / Stainless Steel Revolver 2.25" .38 Spl 9/10/2014 KSP-321X-CT (Stainless) / Stainless Steel Revolver 2.28" .357 Magnum 2/9/2014 KSRH-2 / Stainless Steel Revolver 2.5" .44 Magnum 11/30/2014 KSRH-2454 / Stainless Steel Revolver 2.5" .454 Casull 8/11/2014 KSRH-2480 / Stainless Steel Revolver 2.5" .480 Ruger 7/24/2014 KGPF-331 / Stainless Steel Revolver 3" .357 Magnum 12/31/2014 KSP-32731X (Satin Stainless) / Stainless Steel Revolver 3.06" .327 Fed. Mag. 12/16/2014 KSP-331X / Stainless Steel Revolver 3.06" .357 Magnum 12/31/2014 KGP-141 / Stainless Steel Revolver 4" .357 Magnum 12/31/2014 KRH-45-4 (Satin Stainless) / Stainless Steel Revolver 4.166" .45 Colt 2/9/2014 KRH-444 (Satin Stainless) / Stainless Steel Revolver 4.177" .44 Magnum 2/9/2014 GP-141 (Blue) / Alloy Steel Revolver 4.19" .357 Magnum 2/9/2014 KGP-4327-7 (Satin Stainless) / Stainless Steel Revolver 4.2" .327 Fed Mag 2/3/2014 KSP-242-8 (Satin Grey) 05765 / Stainless Steel Revolver 4.20" .22 LR 9/22/2014 KSP-341X (Satin Stnls) 05771 / Stainless Steel Revolver 4.20" .357 Mag 4/11/2014 KNR-5-10 (Satin Stainless) 08100 / Stainless Steel Revolver 5.5" .22 LR 9/22/2014 KRH-445 / Stainless Steel Revolver 5.5" .44 Magnum 5/21/2014 KRH-455 / Stainless Steel Revolver 5.5" .45 Long Colt 12/31/2014 GP-161 / Blue Steel Revolver 6" .357 Magnum 12/31/2014 KGP-161 / Stainless Steel Revolver 6" .357 Magnum 12/31/2014 KRH-44 / Stainless Steel Revolver 7.5" .44 Magnum 12/31/2014 KRH-44R / Stainless Steel Revolver 7.5" .44 Magnum 12/31/2014 KSRH-7 / Stainless Steel Revolver 7.5" .44 Magnum 12/31/2014 KSRH-7454 / Stainless Steel Revolver 7.5" .454 Casull 12/31/2014 KSRH-9 / Stainless Steel Revolver 9.5" .44 Magnum 12/31/2014

        • Jeremy, you’re still not getting it. What if, within the next few months after the SHOT show, they decide to address the horrid trigger pull of the LC9/LCP? Or they decide that they want to modify the SR9’s firing pin to make it more stronger? What if they have decided that they want to change some of the serrations on the slides of the models? Different colors? All this would require recertification.. As in, doing the drop test and all what the DOJ requires. Microstamping will now be a requirement to have the firearm reintroduced into the recertification. So now only is it going to cost the manufacture the full price of recertifying the firearm (Not the $200 renewal fee), they are forced to employ microstamping to even have it considered.

          Your list also contains a large amount of revolvers.. Which Ruger has stated they will continue to sale.

          This is the issue here. And in case you havent noticed, there hasn’t been a new pistol added to the drop list for quite a while in California. Hopefully this clears it all up for you.

        • I’m not confused. We’re talking about different things. I agree with you that IF Ruger decides to make those theoretical changes that they might in the future, then they should drop the gun. That would make sense. They wouldn’t be able to certify the new version anyway due to the new requirements. But why wouldn’t they renew while they’re still currently producing the model!?!?! You’re suggesting they drop current models because they *might,* in the future, change it and therefore won’t be able to sell it anymore. That’s crazy. From a $$$ standpoint they should continue selling them as long as they’re still making them. AND THEY ARE. The models on the Roster are current, nationally produced models!

        • Ruger can’t meet current demand in the other 49 states without tooling up new facilities. Thryre making an economic decision that they could keep the California market with its unfriendly climate and starve all 50 states, or dump the one onerous outlier state and reduce the scarcity in the other 49 where no additional hoop jumping is required. As a business owner, which makes better financial and long term viability sense? Yeah, that’s the road they just chose.

        • Which comes full circle with my theory that changes are to be made on current production models. Ruger, like any company, has competition, as well as R&D to do. They’re not going to announce changes without first having something ahead of time, really. Granted, this is still all speculation, but given the circumstances this is still just one of many that will follow suite. As stated in previous comments, they are already at max capacity and backlogged heavily, and they have a bigger picture on what they are doing than the rest of us do anyways. Sucks, but they arn’t necessarily harming themselves by simply being the first one to step out of the gate and drop the semis from the list. I’m sure it would be the same story if Glock, or S&W, or anybody else was the first one out the gate to do the same exact thing.

        • I wan’t aware of scarcity with their products. They seem to keep up with demand fine. They can also renew the guns for $200 and not sell in CA if they don’t want to. For instance, S&W added the Shield in a CA-compliant version but has chosen to manufacture basically none of them since they are at full capacity making the normal Shields for the rest of the country. However, they’re keeping it on the Roster because it’s only $200 and when production catches up they’re going to recoup the investment in spades. So if Ruger is adding capacity and would be able to fully meet demand soon, they would pay a nominal fee and start sales up in CA again when production was higher. But, above all, it really isn’t more onerous for Ruger to distribute guns already on the Roster to CA. The hard stuff is already done. They don’t make more or less money now selling a gun to CA than anywhere else. Aside from $200 per year to renew. They ship their guns to their distributors and their distributors, you know, distribute them. Any guns that are on the Roster are allowed to ship to dealers in CA. Guns that aren’t, aren’t. That’s as complicated as it is, and Ruger doesn’t even deal with it. All they have to do is write a check for two bills.

          They’re taking a long-term gamble and hoping this will help overturn the entire Roster and get it thrown out in court. I applaud them for that. I wish they’d say it. The claim that these current guns must fall off due to microstamping is a red herring. They should have said, “since we will never be able to sell a new handgun in CA or make changes to our existing ones, we hereby refuse to sell any firearm in CA until the laws change.” And not only should they allow the guns on the Roster to expire, they should IMMEDIATELY stop their distributors from sending them to CA.

        • Ruger is backorder for millions of guns that will sell easily in the other free states. Why would they pay thousands of dlollars to California commies when it won’t effect how many guns they sell? At THIS particular time california is a net loss to their bottom line. Of coarse this could backfire if sales cool down to the point that they need calif again. Once you fall off list can that same model get back on for 200 $ or does it now have to meet new guidelines?

        • Apparently it has happened before where a gun accidently fell off and CA DOJ allowed it to be put back on without retesting. But, the way it’s expected to work is that if you allow it to expire then it’s off the list and would have to be tested again to be put back on. Well, tested (reliability test plus drop test) and meet all of the specific physical requirements (loaded chamber indicator, magazine disconnect safety, microstamping).

    • It sounds like they are planning on updating all of their current models enough that they have to reapply.

      They won’t slip off immediately, but over time, yes. And no new CA-approved models.

    • I just looked at the existing roster of handguns from the California state site and almost every single gun on that list is expiring in 2014. I am willing to bet that the state is pushing for any semi-auto to have microstamping to be put back on that list, or at the very least that’s the way it’s being presented to Ruger.

      • Almost every gun on the list expires in 2014 because it’s January and registration and renewals are in 12-month increments. No new legal requirements must be met in order to renew a gun already on there. Microstamping only applies to new models trying to be added to the list. There are also hundreds of guns that went on the Roster prior to 01/01/2006 that don’t have loaded chamber indicators or magazine disconnect safeties but are still on there because the companies keep renewing them. For instance, Gen 3 Glocks. No gun added after Jan 06 lacks those features, though, as they were mandatory to get added just as microstamping is now. But every gun on the Roster can be renewed if the company wants to pay the $200 and renew it.

        • Jeremy… You’re over thinking this. CA is too difficult to do business with, period. Making profit elsewhere is easier and more profitable as a percentage return on equity. Regardless of industry, their capital is better invested elsewhere.

          Kind Regards!

    • In theory you are correct. In theory cosmetic changes do not require a recertification. By law, the CA DOJ decides what is cosmetic and what is a new firearm. In practice, the CA DOJ is making manufactures recertify for ANY change.

      For example, Ruger SR-22 was on the roster. Ruger SR-22 slide was manufactured using a forging process. The tolerances were causing rubbing on the brass. Ruger changed from a forge process to one with tighter tolerances, same slide design, no other change. CA DOJ said it was new gun and needed micro-stamping. Result, SR-22 could not be renewed.

      This is not Ruger, they are recertifying anything they can. That said, CA DOJ is using the roster as a de-facto ban and not letting manufactures renew guns on the roster in violation of CA law. Those are the benefits of being the ones that write the laws.

    • So they should pay out the ass to maintain two production lines for each model pistol? You don’t think that’s a problem? And of course due to current interpretation of the laws practically ANY change mandates revert indication meaning billions invested in micros tamping.

    • No one is required to do business in California! Beyond guns, truck drivers can’t drive their trucks due to AB32. Dairies are moving their cows out of state due to H2O regulations.

      Ruger is smart! Why invest in technology today which will be regulated out of existence tomorrow. Doing business in CA is like riding a yoyo. Put your time and tresure elsewhere.

  5. You know Israel has the big long fence between itself and the Palestinian controlled territory in the West Bank, to specifically keep Palestinians out and reduced the suicide bombings?

    I think we need to build a fence around California to keep their whacky ideas from spreading.

  6. If the gun manufacturers let all guns fall of the approved list it would be a de facto ban on all handguns. Thus it would be easily challenged under Miller.

  7. I for one am for models dropping off. Let them all drop off, then we can prove in court that this extortionist list has no basis and is complete bullshit and it will be null and void. I can’t say I would act any differently if I was in their shoes.

  8. Manufacturers should *NOT* cooperate with demands for entirely new products that are being imposed by fiat. Microstamping is obviously NOT aimed at criminals — as a criminal would avoid such a weapon. Other “new technology” is even worse — ANY electronic control of a firearm will mean that there will be a backdoor way to turn it OFF — perhaps “globally”.

  9. They had been blocked from a lawsuit over the roster for years but it’s finally gonna get a day in court. If a manufacturer changes even the slightest thing or one part on a pistol, it has to be retested under all the new requirements like microstamping. That happened with Ruger’s Sr22. It was paid and tested, but then they had to fix an issue and now it will never be allowed back on. The laws here are ridiculous but for those outside of the state that want to keep it contained rather then help us stuck here to fight. Just look at Colorado.

  10. I think the following is probably true:

    1. Ruger is certainly tired of dealing with the CA bullcrap.
    2. Ruger’s sales of semi-autos to CA are not a big part of their revenue.
    3. Demand for Ruger semi-autos outstrips their ability to meet it.
    4. Any potentially lost sales in CA will likely be made up in other locales.
    5. It’s helpful to poke at the idiotic requirements coming out of the CA legislature and makes a convenient explanation for their actions.

    Ruger is a very, very successful manufacturer. Their management team is first rate. They very rarely make stupid or self-destructive moves. And the end of the day, they will never say, “We simply didn’t need CA to be even more successful,” though that’s what their numbers probably show.

  11. Regarding New York, I Googled and don’t see anything about microstamping occurring right now in New York state. They pushed for it in 2012 but it died. I wouldn’t be surprised if they push for it again however.

  12. Personally this only makes me like Ruger more.

    If micro-stamping ever becomes a reality, I will officially become a revolver guy. And I can’t see any electronic devices ever existing that couldn’t easily be removed or deactivated by the owner without radical changes like electronic primers. Firearms are mind bogglingly simple machines. They work just fine without batteries or microchips.

  13. Isn’t possible, among some of the other theories being offered here, that this is a protest aimed at proving definitively that “new” Ruger is firmly on the side of the Pro 2A crowd. After Bill Ruger’s disastrous testimony and subsequent actions surrounding the ’94 AWB, his company lost a lot of customers and earned no shortage of ill will. Since Mike Fifer took over, they’ve been sprinting back from those stances; just look how their product lineup has evolved with the additions of an AR platform rifle, factory 30 round magazines for the Mini series, polymer framed, striker fired semi’s, etc.

    I believe this is a marketing strategy as much as a political one, designed not just to force the hand of the courts but to win back the hearts of every responsibly armed civilian.

    • I agree on the marketing part. The fact this came out whike the SHOT Show was on lends creedence to the ide that for whatever else is going on, part of this is theater designed to give Ruger a favorable light. Which doesn’t bother me in the slightest.

  14. Manufacturers should refuse to sell firearms to law enforcement agencies in CA if they otherwise cannot sell them to the civilian market. I bet police departments would love to have to explain in court why only casings with their department stamps show up at shootouts or have guns with mag disconnects and LCIs. (The CA law exempts LEO)

  15. Robert and Dan,
    I would like if possible for you guys to get some clarification.
    First off I hope Smith and Wesson and GLOCK follow suit.
    Will these companies also stop selling off roster firearms of any type to California State Agencies?
    This is critical that they do so. If we the law abiding citizens can’t have them, neither can the police.
    This will cause the Police unions, and Sheriffs to put pressure on legislature to end the insanity.
    They clearly have little regard for the citizens point of view.

    • 1. Wouldn’t work. All you need is a few FFLs who would still sell to LEO’s. A manufacturer might get away with no direct LEO sales. They could not stop distributors from sending them via CA FFLs to LEO’s. And they would lose in court if they denied warranty over this

      2. I actually hope Glock remains….it lacks an LCI and mag disconnect. It could, as the sole survivor, exemplify the stupidity of the law, and how it is a restraint on trade. After all, if they can sell their gun that meets none of the requirements, but another manufacturer cannot, there is a problem.

      • Joshua,
        Our guys over at NorCal Medtac are in Shot show. CLOCK stated last year no more new models. We fully expect for them to cease production of current GEN 3 soon.
        If the old models are dropped off the list, and no new models are sold, then that means no more guns.

        If they refuse to sell to state agencies, off roster or anything for that matter it will work.
        The only method we would have, you or I at the moment to get a GEN 4 for example is through single shot exemption. That is the only method. It will work if the big three take a stance.

        We are hoping to get a ruling here by the end of fist quarter 2014 on the issue.

  16. Several points

    1. Jeremy S is quite correct that all Ruger would have to do is pay $200 per model to keep in on the roster. No mircostamping. However, the previous explanation gave a better reason. Ruger is committed to continual improvement. The DOJ takes any slight change as substantial, requires retesting and mircostamping. They did that with the SR22.

    Here is a change they are making. No more internal locks (the LCR-X, e.g., doesn’t have one). Not required by CA of course anyways, but that is a change, require retesting and meeting current requirements (mircostamping). Since they are phasing that out, they are stuck keeping it only for CA models to keep it rostered, or dropping off the Roster

    2. Mircostamping technology does exist. I wish people would not make blatantly false claims. Indeed, Lizzotte used a Mark III which he microstamped to demo thousands of rounds. What is the case is

    a. Since firing pin and breech face would need to have serial number mircostamped, they would need to be matched with frame. Which is not how guns are mass produced

    b. I can buy a new firing pin, even a new slide without “registering” them.

    c. Oh, it can be done cheaply but unreliably, or very expensive and reliable (until emery paper is applied). Several studies contradict Lizotte’s claims, and he threw back the line that you much “optimize” the laser engraving for every individual pistol. It is not simply engraving that would cost a lot per gun, it is this optimization

    d. Did I mention that while this Lizotte let his patent expire, thus enabling California to mandate it, he still has patents on “optimization”

    e. So possible, but prohibitively expensive

    3. California is easily 10% of the firearm market. We spend more than TEXAS on gun related stuff. “Not being a big market for them” is not the reason at all. In fact, that is patently false. They bent over backwards for so long because CA is such a big market. If Ohio, with a third of the target shooters CA has and far less money spent, made the same BS, there would be less incentive to hoop jump. New York is less than half the spender of California. No, this is more like “despite California being a big market, the laws/burden/crminal liabilities (SR22) are so bad we have to leave.”

  17. This is what the Commerce Clause was meant to stop, not how much water we can flush with and what kind of light bulbs we use. California is impeding interstate commerce.

    • Yep. But the current Justice Department isn’t going to go after them. That’s the problem with living in a nation where the rule of law has broken down. Unenforced laws are meaningless. And the public doesn’t seem to be willing or able to hold government accountable for not enforcing the law.

      You only have to follow the rules if someone is going to come after you. Heck, sometimes you can get an exemption from the rules (see Obamacare) if they are inconvenient and you have the right political allies. And of course if you are ‘special’ in some way (a politician or an LEO – or a “protected class”) then naturally you have additional protections and carve outs.

  18. The issue of micro-stamping will be heard in the Fresno County Superior Court on a date to be announced . Article regarding case appeared in the Fresno Bee ,Wednesday ,January 15,2014

  19. Glock won’t sell new guns in MA and told the MA AG to piss up a rope over his phony “safety” regulations. I can understand a manufacturer writing off a small market like MA, but CA is a big market. This is a really ballsy move by Ruger, and I hope it works out better than Bill Ruger’s cynical collaboration with the Federal gunhaters back in the day.

  20. This might also be a different legal issue with recalls. The submission process would also seem to make a safety issue recall/reconfiguration automatically qualify the new [fixed] version of the gun to be microstamp required, as it is an engineering change.

    I don’t blame them.

  21. as a ca resident i don’t want them to do it, but as a person who really doesn’t like ca I’m glad they are. i have mixed feelings about it. but if they ever sell a semi auto to a ca leo but not to us ca peasants, they will never see a dime of my money ever again.

    • Your attitude here makes perfect sense. You understand why they are doing it, but you also know you will take collateral damage from it.

      I do hope things get better in CA.

  22. POINT OF CLARIFICATION
    This was posted on CalGuns, and is a letter from Mile Fifer of Ruger:

    Re: California Approved Handgun List

    We are now being forced to retest all of our guns (pistols and double
    action revolvers) as their time on the roster expires. And we are having
    them all retested. But we cannot meet the micro-stamping requirement for
    the pistols. These guns are passing all the tests they passed the first
    time around, but there is no technology that can pass the micro-stamping
    requirement, so the CADOJ is refusing to recertify the pistols and
    consequently they are not getting renewed on the list. The CADOJ will not
    even accept the data from the test labs that shows the guns passed every
    test except the microstamping.

    The net result is that the double-action revolvers are getting renewed on
    the list, and the pistols are not. But we are trying everything we can to
    get them back on the list.

    Also, as voting members of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, we
    have been instrumental in pushing them, as the representative of our
    industry, to take the lead in initiating litigation in California to
    overturn the microstamping regulations. They filed suit last week to do
    just that.

    Sincerely,
    Mike Fifer

    • Assuming this is true, and I have no reason to suspect otherwise, I wonder if the other manufacturers are going through the same rigamarole. If so, this would, in my view, an abuse of the power of the DOJ and contrary to the laws discussed at length above that require retesting ONLY if there has been a modification to the firearm. Maybe this is pay back for filing suit against the Roster through the NSSF? After the GW Bridge fiasco in NJ, I would believe it.

  23. Jeremy S. demonstrates the extent of how out of touch he is with one simple statement he made: “I wasn’t aware of scarcity with their products. They seem to keep up with demand fine.”

    I buy Ruger hardware exclusively…lots of it. And they, evidenced personally by the backorder situation of many of their popular models and by their own admission, are way, WAY behind in fulfilling orders, going so far as to purchase a new manufacturing facility just to catch up
    .
    http://www.nhbr.com/November-15-2013/Ruger-backlog-nears-2-million-guns/
    http://www.guns.com/2013/05/01/sturm-ruger-firearms-backlog-hits-a-record-breaking-2-million/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *