(courtesy oag.ca.gov)

Tom S. sent us a link to the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms De-Certified Handgun List. Click here to peruse the lengthy document, which includes reams of Rugers and more than a smattering of Smiths (the two companies that have announced their decision to let the remainer of their CA-approved pistols fall off the list as they fail to meet the Golden State’s microstamping mandate). Tom also sent us a link to the guns added to the Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms Newly Added Handgun Models. Click here for a list without a single entry (as above). The Second Amendment Foundation has contested the whole DOJ approved list misegos in court. While we await the court’s decision, one list grows longer while the other . . . doesn’t.

76 Responses to Full List of Handguns Recently Added the CA DOJ’s Approved List

      • Yeah, Schwarz wasn’t much of a Republican. I did vote for him, though. Thought about voting for the pornstar, but decided against it.

        Still, CA and NYC are solidly under D control. Compare the gun laws amongst red and blue states, and I bet you’ll see a pattern.

        • And yet the republicans in both states that are happy to vote for “common sense gun control” are supported by the national party and get to put (r) next to their name. No difference to me.

        • He married a Kennedy, didn’t expect him to be much of a Republican but he was better than the alternative, not by much but he was better. Now we have Moonbeam that is doing a great job screwing things up. Can’t wait till he is gone, Feinstein, Boxer, Lee and all their other POS’s ilk are no longer our representatives.

        • He was married to a Kennedy so we all knew he wasn’t going to be much of a Republican, he was still better than the alternative. Now we have to deal with Moombeam and how much he is screwing things up. Can’t wait till he is gone and Feinstein, Pelosi, Boxer, Lee and all their other POS ilk are no longer our representatives.

    • On the larger picture for RKBA, the argument I believe in Heller was that you can disallow either open or concealed carry but not both. That being a violation of the 2A to give no option for bearing arms.
      If this is the logic and being able to ban certain models, could California keep eliminating options till the only gun allowed is a S&W 642 and claim people can carry “a” gun so we are not in violation of the 2A.
      If they can eliminate one pistol, legally, why can’t they elliminate all but one? Structuraly, what is the difference.
      Any legal eagles with an opinion?

      • No. This issue comes from the Miller “sawed-off shotgun” case, which reasoning was reaffirmed in Heller. Essentially, the supreme court has said that the state is free to ban “dangerous and unusual” weapons that would not be in common use with the militia. Of course, the antis want to use this to ban semi-automatics, but I hope that the Supremes have the numbers to tell the ban states to shove it. The AR15 is THE weapon of choice for the organized militia, so I just don’t see how states can ban this weapon for the unorganized militia. If they refuse to take the SAFE Act lawsuit, or the CT lawsuit, then we’ll know that they just don’t have the numbers, and we’ll have to bide our time for the makeup to change.

    • The DNC and the GOP are the same in CA…. dare I say in Washington DC and the White House.

      Honestly, how can anyone ignore that George Deukmejian (R) passed the AWB (that will never end unless it is overturned) in ’89 in CA and Reagan passed the Mulford Act while governor of CA. Selective partisan politics perpetuates the two party, one system lie. It’s so easy to maintain the status quo when the line in the sand is easily drawn and the sheep fall to either side accordingly. And it will never change.

    • I live in California and purchased my first handgun in November of 2013. I followed the California Handgun Roster closely since then to see what handguns the state allowed me to purchase. For example, on November 21st of 2013 there were 1236 handguns that we were allowed to purchase. As of today there are 1141 handguns available on the California DOJ Handgun Roster.

      90+ handguns have been removed in the last 66 days. 9% of available handguns have been removed in just over 2 months!
      http://oag.ca.gov/sites/oag.ca.gov/files/pdfs/firearms/removed.pdf

      During the month of January 2014 41 handguns were dropped from the roster.

      During the month of January 2014 0 (zero) new handguns have been added to the roster.

      This past week, Smith & Wesson as well as Ruger announced that they will not be selling handguns in California starting this year due to California’s ridiculous and unworkable micro stamping requirement. This will drop dozens and dozens of guns from the Roster.

      This microstamping requirement is nothing but a slow motion – and VERY effective handgun ban for California. It’s also a clear violation of the 2nd amendment.

      THE SECOND AMENDMENT
      “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

      Anyone else feeling a bit “infringed” out there in the great state of California?

      • There is a clear violation of the Sherman Act, destroying Intersate Commerce by a monopoly device which
        is the microstamp scheme. Nobody has thought about that????It is a felony comitted by kamala harris and the california state legislature using the 10th amendment as a functional cover up.

    • Was at a local Gun shop, looking at purchasing another kahr k40 to replace my aging one, to my suprise, the very same gun I own ,legally, is now LEO only?
      I asked why?mthe shop owner, well it’s ” not a safe gun” wtf? A DAO gun is not safe? What constitutes a safe gun? There is no such thing as a safe gun.
      Well he couldn’t answer, been on the DOJ site, but I don’t see that model on the “not safe list”.
      Can ya pls enlighten me if you know of this.
      Meanwhile the work around the law, is selling what’s known as a a blemished gun.
      That very same gun on multiple sites , selling CA legal gun, off the “not safe list” as a blem, so I called, well the law says it cannot be sold as new. So the workaround, is to put a nick or simply third party sell this as a used gun.
      It’s works around the very law that prohibits sale, so in theory, one can buy any gun on the banned list, as a third party,mor as a blemished.
      Wtf California

  1. The list is so large they had to use micro-font, to go along with the micro-stamping, that’s why you cannot see it.

  2. “While we await the court’s decision…”

    How silly is it that we seek repreave from the very same organization that enslaves us? They’re all on the same team, folks!

    • The fine print…. “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms (on the “approved” list) shall not be infringed (inappropriately, as defined by the state)…”

      • In many ways this is no different than the decision of the trial judge in Connecticut: you have a right to bear arms, but the government retains the “right”/power/authority to decide which ones.

    • The cattle rancher had An American Militia stand up to that JungleBunny in the whitehouse and the government backed down Because the miltia HAD guns and this obammi government does not want a shoot out of militia Americans versus his dhs goons……califarcia is a giveaway welfare state for the illegal alien leaches and their “anchor babies” to provide cheap labor for the evil rich

    • All double action revolvers and semi-auto handguns must go through the list. It isn’t about capacity or safety… it’s just about control.

  3. S&W and Ruger (along with Glock and Sig) need to announce that effective immediately, they will no longer sell to LEO’s and will not service LEO firearms in CA . . . . . Let’s see how long this BS lasts or they will end up using Taurus as their go-to firearm of choice.

    • You’re assuming the Cali politicos don’t want to transition their LEO’s to 6-shot revolvers, followed by a UK-style, partially armed PD.

      • They don’t want that at all. Most cycle cops around my area have a 12ga AND an AR slung on the bike, and not long ago I saw those two plus a tear-gas launcher inside a beat-cop SUV. They’re tooled up to the max. And don’t even get me started on the Orange County Sheriffs, they’re more dangerous than the vast majority of the people they arrest.

        • “They don’t want that at all.”

          So they say now. Progs are too predictable. To think they will stop at non-LEO civilian disarmament is naive.

      • California police are exempt from the roster, as well as the restrictions on “assault weapons” and NFA items (the latter if only approved by their department). Upon retirement, cops become just regular citizens, much to their chagrin. (It used to be that they could keep ARs and M-16s obtained during their service, but no longer. They can keep any non-roster handguns.)

        • Don’t forget that California is also rather generous about who counts as an LEO. Corrections officers also get the same exemptions.

    • First, the manufacturers do not sell directly to governmental entities, and the government can order from any distributor they want. I don’t think that any manufacturer could prohibit its entire dealer network from selling to California.

      Second, Taurus doesn’t have any microstamped pistols (though with pending changes in Brazilian law, discussed here yesterday, that may change). As it is, Taurus sells only five models of pistols in California at the current time, and its newer designs do not comply with roster requirements even without microstamping.

      Third, police agencies are roster exempt any way, and the microstamping mandate does not apply to them.

      So what you gonna do? Boycott manufacturers until they start making microstamping pistols? There are no alternatives, and a boycott makes no sense at all.

      • It is rather backward to exempt LEO’s from the microstamping: Since they are the only shooters CA employs, they are the only ones whose every bullet CA should want (and have the right) to track.

        CA is clearly stuck with an upper economic and political strata terrified of the lower (for the moment) orders. I suppose this is somehow tied to the fact that CA state and local government will soon have to send the cops door-to-door to confiscate entire paychecks for a few years, just to make good on the pensions and benefits? Completely understandable! And those either too poor to maintain arms or already in the prohibited persons category? Of course they want ‘no guns.’ It all makes sense.

      • Glock advertises and promotes sales to law enforcement. Don’t pretend that they’re just making guns and distributing them to whomever can afford one.

    • you won’t be hearing s&w saying they won’t sell to a leo. a friend of mine tried buy a s&w in ca that dropped off the list and the lgs said only if you are a cop.

      • My favorite nearby LGS has a section of the display case marked “Qualified LEO and Military Only”. Every morning, a clerk has to check the Cal-DoJ website to see what guns fell off the roster. Those get moved to that special area. The potential market for those products has significantly narrowed, and therefore the LGS inventory has overnight lost monetary value. The LGS can’t even sell them to an out-of-state FFL (who’s still allowed to sell them to non-LEO and non-military ordinary mortals), because they’re equipped with California-specific features nobody else wants.

        Cal-DoJ is reaching in the front door and taking money out of the till.

        I have asked whether the LGS owners’ accountants recognize that decrease in inventory value as a capital loss on their books, and on their tax returns. Nobody will say…

  4. “While we await the court’s decision…”

    …That the list, and all the laws and practiced policies attached to it, will be found Constitutional. Again. Still.

    • “It’s for your own safety! Promise!

      I used be very confused about how California turned into such a confused mess of (mostly) suck and fail … Until I spent some time in LA and drove I-5 to San Diego and back. What a strange, ignorant (can’t legitimately say uneducated) mistrusting, consumerist bastion of new American society.

      I feel like those last two are the important ones – if you love your stuff too much, and you worry about other people taking your stuff too much, you’re gonna have some serious trust issues from day one. Lack of trust in our common man is why the grabbers feel justified. The really strange part is my failing to understand why they look so confused when one tries to explain the inherent mistrust in government central to (and for good reason) at the core of our Constitutional system, and why things like persistent surveillance and a totally monitored internet are terrible for us as a free people. I just got looked at like some kind of paranoid whacko … And this was before I got into guns.

      We, as Americans, need to shift away from loving our things to the detriment of our neighbors, and to give the intelligence community a serious smackdown. They do important work every day, but the continued releases from the likes of Snowden definitely justify the use of the term “Orwellian” as a possibility when describing the near future – or even today.

      Consistently reelecting Fienstien & Co. doesn’t help either. That lady is seriously nuts.

      • To summarize … California has an entitlement mentality, combined with the belief that somebody (other than them) should be doing something.

        I know not everyone in the state is like that … But enough are.

      • The Vast majority of “californians” are by nomenclature Only were taught What to Believe Not How to think.
        People here in califarcia are herded sheople and love it as long as it is politically correct and tastes good.
        These people are souless cardboard moronic nincompoops, of course they stared at you that way.

  5. I’m pleased to see no names on that list. I hope that no manufacturer is even bothering to implement microstamping in their products. A defacto ban on new guns will be easier to overturn if nobody can say that at least you can buy (brand name/model).

    • While I agree that it indeed will be easier to overturn this shenanigans if no pistols are available, it really is a pain in my ass. Plus, I can’t help but worry that in this back asswards state it might not ever be overturned. And that is a scary thought.

  6. Smith & Wesson and Ruger are not letting “the remainer of their CA-approved pistols fall off the list”. They are submitting their slightly modified CA-approved pistols for approval and being denied because they cannot (and do not want to) deliver pistols meeting the micro stamping requirement. The difference is between a protest and becoming a party to a lawsuit with standing.

  7. A lot more than just Ruger and S&W falling off of there. Tons of Tauruses, Springfields and Sigs too. (No P226 or P229 of any sort for y’all in CA..)

    Even the Browning Buckmark Camper .22LR. *The* primary choice for criminals and thugs everywhere, don’t cha know.

    • Most of the Tauruses fell off the list because they are no longer being manufactured, and the new ones do not pass the requirements for inclusion even without the microstamping edict. I can’t remember what they are lacking: the primary features are sear disconnects, external manual safeties (except for DOA pistols), LCIs and mag disconnects.

      The roster vis-à-vis revolvers is kind of ridiculous. The only safety feature (the now discontinued S&W locking key device notwithstanding) is a transfer bar, and even that is not really required because many if not most of the designs are “grandfathered” in, e.g. Colt SAA style revolvers that have absolutely no safety features (unless you only load five).

      • “the primary features are sear disconnects, external manual safeties (except for DOA pistols), LCIs…”

        I know it was probably from an aggressive smell-checker … but a DOA pistol, especially in the context of the Cali not-unsafe handgun roster, is just plain funny. 🙂

  8. At 35 pages long and about 23 firearm models per page, that’s about 800 firearm models that are no longer approved in California. The actual terminology they use is “may no longer be sold, manufactured, etc., within California”. “Etc”? It seems like there could be a pretty broad interpretation of what “etc” means.

    • Might want to actually look at the dates on that list of “recently” removed. It goes all the way back to Dec. 2001. Many of those guns may have dropped off because they were no longer being made, or for a variety of reasons other than the manufacturer deciding to not renew the certification.

  9. James Madison, 1788 – “There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

  10. That’s the list of SKUs that were once approved for sale but since lost (for whatever reason) their approval status, dating back over the decade+ of this regime. That’s an even more dismal list than only the recent losses.

    Due to the new microstamping requirement, there can be no additions. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nyet. Nada. This hardly reflects the pace of safety improvements and innovation in the industry. For example, we can only gaze wistfully from afar at the Remington R51 reviews.

    No soup for you, California!

    • Why son, if a revolver was good enough for your grand pappy, it’s good enough for you. Same with them fancy semi-auto rifles; one shot should be all you need.

  11. On the larger picture for RKBA in California, the argument I believe in Heller was that you can disallow either open or concealed carry but not both. That being a violation of the 2A to give no option for bearing arms.
    If this is the logic and being able to ban certain models, could California keep eliminating options till the only gun allowed is a S&W 642 and claim people can carry “a” gun so we are not in violation of the 2A.
    If they can eliminate one pistol, legally, why can’t the eliminate all but one? Structurally, what is the difference.
    Any legal eagles with an opinion?

    • Well, if you buy the argument of the federal judge in Connecticut, as long as you have access to “some” handguns, there is no impermissible intrusion onto the 2Aright to keep and bear, and that therefore the State has the right, in its infinite wisdom. to decide which arms are “too dangerous” for citizens to possess. Legally, two issues are presented: 1) what does “intermediate scrutiny” really mean? This has varied widely between various courts, with some giving lip service to the standard but really applying a “rational basis” analysis, with the conclusion that as long as there is some evidence that the Legislature considered the “facts,” the courts will not intervene, and others applying a more exacting standard, imposing a burden on the State to come forward with actual facts and not mere opinions and conclusions to support a restriction. The 2d, 3d and 4th are firmly in the rational basis disguised as intermediate scrutiny camp, the Seventh Circuit (Illinois cases) clearly applying a higher standard. The Ninth has not yet weighed in–although it did apply intermediate scrutiny in one case, that decision was later mooted and cannot be cited, and again, we cannot tell yet how strictly the court will apply intermediate scrutiny. The second issue is one of fact: is there evidence that supports the imposition of the restriction, not just mouthing the old saw “public safety.” On the east coast, “public safety” is enough, without more; and while those courts would deny it, the fact of the matter is that there is simply no evidence that the banned weapons, other than a few mass shootings, are implicated in any broad threat to the public weal. Just look at the FBI stats of use of rifles, and the facts are clear: these governmental entities are banning millions of rifles in common use for no other reason than that a few hundred children have been killed, ignoring the fact that these mass shootings are not preventable by banning firearm, only by safety measures taken in the gun free zone itself.

  12. At least we still can buy off rostered handguns in pivate sales. And those moving here can bring all they want (threaded barrels are the only exception). And there are still SSE and SAE ways of buying off roster new. Though that last might get axed.

    When CA first passed the roster, with its drop testing, the manfacturers should have threw a fit then. If it were only about safety, heck even if it were only about “Saturday night specials” and driving out the “ring of fire” manufacturers, there wouldn’t have been a need to pay a yearly fee of $200 per model. Just test it and done. Te ability to retest up to 5% a year would allow any to be removed that did become unsafe. The only reason for that fee, which amounts to small beans in revenue, is so that they could add new requirements, not have to deal with legal challenges that might result if they made such laws retroactive, but then have the models eventually fall off, because even a small fee will not be paid by a manufacturer that no longer makes said model. Same reason for treating every little change as substantial. Some models will be around decades, but with no changes at all? Unlikely. The law allows only purely cosmetic changes, and even those you pay for.

    The annual renewal, and the any change is a new model rule exist only to that old pistols can slowly fall off. That is the only logical reason for them. Ruger and SW are just accellerating the process

  13. All my handguns have been taken off the list if they were ever on it. Thank god I do not live in CA. Regretfully, I do have to visit family there on occasion.

  14. For those of you who suggest that the largest handgun manufacturers should “Stop selling to LEOs”, they are already don’t sell to LEOs. They sell to a multitude of distributors who sell to LEOs. So this would therefore be an impossible strategy, not going to happen. We Californians are hosed as far as the evil overlords of this state letting us have handguns. I am sure that on someone’s white board in their office in the capital, there is a procedural diagram that shows the end game of total civilian disarmament in California in less than 10 years. Might even be five years. Constitution and God given rights be damned, they think they can do this.

    All they are doing is driving law abiding citizens to begin ignoring the laws and that is their goal. Then, for every gun owner they pop for breaking any of these retarded laws, voila, felon and no more 2A rights for life. It’s a brilliant strategy and it is the fault of all of the otherwise engaged, infighting and pre-occupied California gun owners who let it get to this point.

  15. I read some details on HR 218 many months ago, and it seems that there is some leverage. States cannot stop police officers from other states that are traveling through their state from carrying firearms, but these states can restrict what firearms they can legally carry. If all other states enact laws prohibiting government employees from other states from carrying weapons that are illegal for citizens to carry, own, or purchase from the LEO’s state of residence, government workers from California would not be able to carry within these other states. I believe it would send ripples throughout the California LEO community, and it could force the LEOs to confront their legislators. Anyhow, just my 2 cents on the argument.

  16. This really gets to me about our rights as us citizens in California is so much less than rest of our states. Freedom to keep and bear arms, but they can choose the only ones we can own and use. Well that’s like saying yes you have free speech but you can only say what they approve. This is why our founding fathers thought so long and hard to word our rights so they would not be taken away from us. But in California it seems they can take anything from us because we will allow it. I have worked in law enforcement, raised my children, own two houses here in California but now it’s time to get out of California and rejoin the United States with the rights that goes along with it.

  17. I currently live in California with my wife and her family. And this place sucks. On the one hand, I live in San Bernardino County, which has one of the best sheriffs in the state as far as gun rights go. On the other hand, it’s still California. The paperwork for a CCW itself is going to leave me minus half a bottle of Tylenol. Then it’ll be perusing the gun stores for a rather slim selection of pistols for me and my wife. All because the great majority of “Angelinos” have no idea how to handle or operate a gun of any sort. Seriously thinking of moving to Texas. Or back to Oregon. Things haven’t gotten too out of hand back home yet. Yet.

    I’d also like to give a quick shout out to Senator DeLeon for being the shining example of anti-gun dumbasses that the rest of us can briefly chuckle at before we remember these are the idiots that have been put into positions of power by the ignorant many.

  18. There is a way to do micro stamping without micro stamping. Every rifled barrel gun has a unique rifling signature. By firing a test bullet through each firearm and sending that bullet and the associated serial number tot eh state one woudl seem to have met the objectives of Micro stamping. And it’s better than micro stamping becasue cases don’t kill people Bullets do.

  19. Why? Why must you stupid ignorant people always blame this shit on blue or red D this R did that it’s CA as a whole we need to do something we need to fix it we live here we deal with it I dislike people who are always blaming demo or repubs it’s your fault they are paid to sign shit they don’t read shit that’s why laws slip in with education bills for kids

Leave a Reply

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