California’s Disappearing Handguns Explained

(Republished with permission from the California Rifle and Pistol Association)

There are less handguns available for sale in California in 2016 because of another ill-conceived gun law. Since January 1, 2001, California’s so called “Unsafe Handgun Act”(“UHA”) law has mandated that all handguns sold at retail in the state must be listed on the California Department of Justice’s Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale (“the Roster”). Originally, handguns only needed to pass a drop test and other performance tests to be added to the Roster. The law was later amended to require . . .

that all centerfire semi-automatic pistols to be added to the Roster had to have a loaded chamber indicator and magazine disconnect. And more recently, notoriously anti-gun-owner and then-Assembly Member Mike Feuer (now Los Angeles City Attorney) pushed a law adding a requirement that pistols be equipped with “microstamping” technology which is supposed to imprint on a casing upon discharge a microscopic code that identifies the handgun from which it was fired.

Anti-gun politicians sold the UHA as a product safety measure that would merely set safety standards for the design of handguns to be sold within the state. But, as predicted by those who opposed its adoption, including the NRA and CRPA, the UHA has in practice become an incremental handgun ban. This is evidenced by the annual removal from the Roster of significant numbers of handguns that are perfectly safe and widely available outside of California.

This year’s loss of 81 handgun models was about 10% of all handguns remaining on the Roster. At this rate, within a decade there will be no more handguns allowed for retail sale in California. Why are these handguns falling off the Roster? To best answer that question requires much explanation.

Essentially, however, once a handgun model is on the Roster it is “grandfathered” until (according to California but never related to manufacturers until recently) it is updated in any minor way, at which point it becomes a “different” gun and must meet the UHA’s new requirement of having “microstamping” technology to be included back on the Roster. But, because implementing such technology is not feasible, for reasons explained below, any handgun that is altered in any way drops off the Roster and cannot be put back on.

The Microstamping Fraud

Following its adoption, implementation of the microstamping requirement was postponed until the California Attorney General could certify that microstamping technology was not encumbered by a patent. Attorney General (now Governor) Jerry Brown did not certify that microstamping was available during his tenure as Attorney General. But on May 17, 2013, Attorney General Kamala Harris certified that microstamping technology was unencumbered by any patent.

Problem is, according to experts, the microstamping process itself is not a viable technology. A U.C. Davis study shows the flaws with this process and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) prepared a summary of the study. Even the patent holder of the mircostamping process acknowledged in a 2012 ATFE Journal article that the concept of microstamping requires further study and should not be mandated. The NSSF has published a set of materials relating to microstamping.

Tellingly, no firearm manufacturer is currently producing a handgun with microstamping. So, ironically, with its mis-named “Unsafe Handgun Act,” California is now making it impossible for gun retailers to sell more refined and more reliable pistols.

The Dilemma for Manufacturers

Conscientious gun manufacturers often make minor changes to their products as new technology or manufacturing processes become available so consumers get the best, most reliable products on the market. Even though these minor changes are made, manufacturers typically do not change the product model numbers. Under California rules, however, handgun models with any such minor changes, even if for the purpose of increasing safety, must be equipped with microstamping capability or the handgun must be recertified before it can be re-listed on the Roster.

Gun manufacturers now face an impossible dilemma. To comply with California’s current interpretation of the UHA, once a minor change is made to a pistol the only way a gun manufacturer can get it back on the Roster is to incorporate microstamping technology into the firearm. But gun manufacturers can’t, don’t, and won’t do so.

This also means that manufacturers cannot modify and improve their pistols in any way if they want to keep the existing models on the Roster unless the change is purely cosmetic. They cannot even make their current models more reliable, more durable, less expensive, or more advanced, unless they include microstamping technology–a flawed technology that manufacturers cannot comply with because it does not work and the technology to implement it does not currently exist. As a result, a large number of handguns have been “delisted” and can no longer be sold by retailers in California. And no new model pistols will be able to pass the test to be sold.

So, ironically, the “Unsafe Handgun Act” now forces California retailers to sell less refined and potentially less safe firearms–all supposedly in the name of safety.

The Consequences for Consumers

The consequences of California’s microstamping mandate are already being felt. Rugerconfirmed in a statement from Ruger CEO Mike Fifer that it is being largely forced out of the California market as a result. Smith & Wesson has also made a similar announcement. Since the microstamping mandate took effect in May 2013, hundreds of handguns have fallen off the Roster, keeping the list of De-Certified Handgun Models ever growing. By contrast, the list of “Newly Added Handgun Models” is fairly stagnant, with only a handful of revolvers and derringers being added periodically (since those don’t require microstamping), but no semi-automatic pistols.

As vividly illustrated in a compelling video from NRA News correspondent Ginny Simone, California’s microstamping law has become a de facto gun ban in the state. The video features accounts from firearms industry professionals, dealers and technical experts, and shows how the microstamping process is an utter failure–except as a way to stop pistols from reaching the consumer marketplace.

As the NRA video shows, firearms are typically manufactured on a type of modern assembly line, with specific parts largely interchangeable. Microstamped firing pins or other microstamped parts require a special batch production. These special microstamped parts then must be segregated from the rest of the firearm parts of the same kind for the California market alone.

After they are separated, the special batch parts must be matched to the specific firearm that it is individually made for. All of this time-intensive work requires a vast amount of supervision and manufacturing technology that doesn’t exist. And this doesn’t even take into account the added complexity in the planning, procurement, logistics, and warehousing aspects of manufacturing firearms with this ill-conceived technology.

Taking Action Inside and Outside the Courtroom

The NRA and CRPA have been actively opposing microstampting ever since it was proposed. They submitted two sets of comments to the California Department of Justice (“DOJ”) opposing DOJ’s decision to propose regulations implementing the “microstamping” requirement before the law had taken effect. And when the law took effect in May 2013, Attorneys for the NRA & CRPA demanded and obtained documents concerning the Attorney General’s decision to implement the law and published a legal memorandum explaining its impact so the firearms community was aware.

The NRA and CRPA have also supported the two lawsuits challenging the Roster and  microstamping schemes.

Unfortunately, a district court judge has, in one of those cases, Peña v. Cid, held that UHA does not violate the Second Amendment. In reaching its decision, the court mistakenly concluded that the Roster doesn’t burden the Second Amendment at all because, based on an erroneous reading of a Supreme Court case, it considered the Roster to be a presumptively lawful condition and qualification on the commercial sale of firearms. The plaintiffs have rightly appealed the misguided ruling to the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the NRA and CRPA filed a brief in support of the appeal.

The other legal challenge underway is in state court. In 2014, the National Shooting Sports Foundation filed a lawsuit challenging California’s microstamping scheme. The NRA and CRPA lawyers are monitoring this suit, weighing in as needed, and are preparing to file a new lawsuit if necessary to help NSSF protect the interests of California gun owners.

The NRA and CRPA are taking action in the legislative and regulatory arenas as well. Our representatives are working with regulators to seek a policy change that would allow improved firearms to get back on the Roster. Legislation is also in the works that would fix the problem of improved guns falling off the Roster.

comments

  1. avatar Kyle says:

    Californians are going to be reduced pretty much to 19th and very early 20th century firearms technology unless anything changes or is stopped: revolvers, pump-action shotguns, lever actions, bolt-actions, and fixed magazine AR-15s and such.

    1. avatar Alexander says:

      They will come for those, too.

    2. avatar WedelJ says:

      Well, the ones who obey the law, anyway.

      1. avatar Fred says:

        Root of the problem.

        The law isn’t reducing crime so they always need a new law.
        They haven’t realized it’s their approach to crime that is flawed.

        1. avatar sagebrushracer says:

          you are mistaken about the not knowing part.

          The state, local and county police force know that this silly collection of laws does nothing to reduce violent crime. Their boss knows it, all the way up to the chain to the AG, and back down the other side to the idiotic law makers who burdened us with it. Try to tell a CHP or sheriff he can only buy guns on that list, they will scream bloody murder.

          Problem is, you have a public political figure with a agenda to push; flailing about on his soap box trying to claw his way up the political ladder, he hits any and all nails with his hammer to impress that he is trying harder then the next guy to fix this mess we are in. So he finds a hot button issue, polarizes the debate and pitches his ideas to the public, where gun owners are a minority. The 60% nod in agreement, cause guns are bad and its better to do something rather then nothing and poof! Worthless laws are born and wielded against whomever the legal system catches, fair or foul, because money.

          Its like the new FAA regs for Unmanned Aerial System (model planes and copters), not many people care, less understand and hey, its better than doing nothing. And it only affects a minority so who cares? If I said I like to fly drones people automatically think your a perv with a flying camera setup that hangs around peoples windows with it. Same as if you go to a art expo and casually remark that you like to shoot your AK 47 alot, you will be placed with the san bernadino shooters in most minds.

        2. avatar Sprocket says:

          Having recently escaped to America from California, I’ve observed a few things regarding the state’s approach to crime. There are large parts of the legislature either represent criminal communities or maintain them as voter farms/diversity petting zoos. They will not realistically address crime because the demographics of crime are politically and philosophically unappealing to them. It is much more congruent with their world view and politically expedient for them to blame guns and the (white, middle class, conservative) NRA. They desire to restrict the rights of the rest of society so that they can allow their ghetto pets to roam free. Guns are a win/win issue for them: it allows them a convenient way to avoid an unpalatable issue whilst scapegoating a group of people they loathe.

  2. avatar John S says:

    Nice summary. Thank you.

  3. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    See…. its true! They aren’t coming for our guns. No one is going to take them from us.

    They are just going to regulate them out of existence so you can’t get any more than you already have. And arrest you if you try to get around any of the laws and remove your rights to even have guns.

    But not take them.

    They would never do that.

    /sarc

  4. avatar Jeffro says:

    Profit before principle. All handgun manufacturers should refuse to do business with ANY official California entity that needs handguns or handgun parts. Of course that won’t happen, because, profit before principal.

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      I’ve long thought that that would be the best way to get rid of all these terrible anti-gun laws. If the manufacturers refused to sell equipment to any government entity that would be prohibited to ordinary citizens by that government, this crap would come to a screeching halt. The consumer market is so much bigger, we probably have the clout to push this with the manufacturers, but I have no idea where you start with such a huge effort.

      1. avatar JimmyDelta says:

        Didn’t Barrett do exactly this in CA?

    2. avatar Mr. AR-10 says:

      Profit is a principle. There is nothing wrong with a manufacturer seeking to make a profit! It’s the reverse, we want these people to make the best gun they can, with the features that we want, at the lowest cost – this is freedom.

      It is not the fault of the gun manufacturer that these laws are being enacted, and not their job to defeat them. We can support and applaud those that do work towards supporting the second amendment of course, and many do, but we cannot fault them for failing to protect our rights.

      It is the people who elect these legislators, and the legislators themselves that create these conditions.

      This is what we need to understand, and to help our friends and neighbors and all citizens to understand; the state does not work to protect your interests, they have no interest whatsoever in keeping you safe, they do not care about your healthcare, they do not care about your jobs, and they do not care to protect you from criminals and those that would do violence against you.

      They may say that they do, but they never say what they really mean – they always lie.

      This law is a perfect example of this. Any thinking man looking at this issue and the reality behind it can easily see that this is only designed to prevent law abiding citizens from owning firearms. Look at what they do, not what they say.

      The state is working against your interests – this is what it comes down to, and this conclusion is inarguable. And their goal is confiscation – confiscation of your money, and your rights. This is not profit, profit is a virtue, confiscation is an evil.

      And we cannot blame the firearm manufacturer for this.

    3. avatar Kevin76 says:

      Actually 147 firearms companies have done just that according to thepoliceloophole.com some of them are even fairly large like LaRue tactical, Barret, Olympic arms, cmmg, wilson combat, magpul, and midway usa. If I remember correctly, it started when NY passed the safe act. I remember looking for a rifle from Olympic because of the story but everybody was already sold out and not taking back orders.

  5. avatar Xanthro says:

    The is one major error in the article. Even cosmetic changes are considered a new firearm for the California Handgun roster.
    Every color of a handgun is considered a separate firearm and is listed on the rooster.
    A minor error in the article is that many of the firearms on the roster are no longer manufacturered and hence are not for sale.
    Reporting from behind enemy lines here.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      This is not true. As the law reads, cosmetic changes, specifically including different colors and grips that do not change the function of the firearm, are exempt from recertification requirements. What the law does say is that any material change to a firearm requires recertification, and the fact is that Kamala has decided to narrowly interpret “material.” For example, Ruger changed a single part (a take down lever as I recall) from forged to MIM–and this was enough, per the DOJ, to constitute a material change.

      1. avatar NineShooter says:

        When the “color” is part of polymer handgun’s frame composition, it requires a separate certification.

        Note that all Glock handguns with different frame colors are separately certified from the otherwise identical standard black-polymer-framed models. Check the approved list for examples.

      2. avatar Xanthro says:

        This is not true. As the law reads, cosmetic changes, specifically including different colors and grips that do not change the function of the firearm, are exempt from recertification requirements.
        ———————-
        The Law doesn’t require Microstamping either, since the law states Microstamping is required when it becomes feasible.
        Every color of a firearm must undergo certification, or it won’t be certified to be on the roster. It’s why Blue and Stainless steel, of every barrel length and combination are listed as separate firearms on the roster.
        Even if only the Slide has a different color, California requires that it be treated as a separate firearm.
        This is simply to make doing business in California as hard as possible and to burden firearm owners as much as possible.

    2. avatar Rad Man says:

      Massachusetts has had a “roster” for years under the guise of consumer protection, rather than second amendment infringement. We can’t have Springfields, Taurus’, Glocks, Kimbers, or a whole host of similar guns whose manufacturers simply can’t be bothered with the Birthplace of Liberty, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. There are no restrictions on ownership, just retail sales. Still, I feel for CA. The end game for anti gunners will always be the complete eradication of private firearms ownership in America and California is, and will likely continue to be, ground zero for all onerous gun legislation.

  6. avatar Michael says:

    “There are less handguns available for sale in California in 2016.”

    Fewer.

    1. avatar BDub says:

      Fewer than less? That is bad.

    2. avatar Rad Man says:

      It’s a small amount of guns too.

  7. avatar styrgwillidar says:

    “….manufacturers cannot modify and improve their pistols in any way if they want to keep the existing models on the Roster unless the change is purely cosmetic.”

    That may be how the law reads, but it appears in practice that isn’t true. For example, if you look at SIG SAUER’s CA compliant 1911’s and non-compliant, several appear to be only cosmetically different.

    I wish all the manufacturer’s would simply refuse to sell anything in California to any California government agencies or personnel at any level. Best way to get many of these retarded laws changed/revoked would be to put the LEOs in the position of explaining why they’re stupid.

    1. avatar Reef Blastbody says:

      One good way to generate pressure would be for manufacturers to discontinue sales to individual LEO and their agencies of non-roster handguns and standard capacity magazines. Sure, the roster and standard cap bans specifically exempt police and other government functionaries. Make them live under the same rules they make everyone else endure.

  8. avatar Bob312 says:

    So, if the product is deemed unsafe for a citizen to own or use, than is it not irresponsible for government employees to use that same product. If a government employee uses that product in the course of their duties and a citizen gets injured from the use of that product, doesn’t that make the government and the government employee subject to civil penalties and perhaps criminal charges? So, if the police use these supposedly “unsafe guns” (their words, not mine) in the line of their duties, why aren’t they being sued out of existence or charged with crimes like Negligent Homicide and whatnot?

    1. avatar Fred says:

      Not quite. The Califonian thinking is guns are unsafe in the hands of average people but that anything that goes wrong in the line of duty by state appointed officers is acceptable. The unsafe gun law is working as designed, they just aren’t transparent with the real utility of the bill.

  9. avatar Nam62 says:

    Thank GOD I don’t live in Kalifornia any more left that HELL HOLE in 2004. Live in the Free State of Idaho!

  10. avatar M/S says:

    Horribly edited video. Looks like senior highschoolers put that together on someone’s basement computer. If the NRA routinely stoops to that low-level of production, they’ve lost the messaging battle.

  11. avatar Fred says:

    This is largely the game plan with Smart Guns, except that the tech does exist and is horrible.

    1. avatar BDub says:

      I don’t care if somebody invents a pair of eye-glass frames that lets me knock a bugler unconscious with a thought. If it doesn’t work 100% of the time, I’m going to insist I be able to shoot them the old fashioned way instead.

      1. avatar billy-bob says:

        Is there a bugler crime spree in your area?

        1. avatar Julian says:

          Bastards are sneaking in and playing Reveille at ungodly hours…

      2. avatar Reef Blastbody says:

        The flaw in that argument is that it presumes firearms are always perfectly reliable, which they’re not. You can get light primer strikes/hard primers, failure to feed or extract, etc. There are a myriad of possible scenarios of what happens other than a BANG! when you pull the trigger.

        Given that, a handgun or long arm still offers the best mix of ease of use and effectiveness in stopping a threat to your person or property by someone who might outmatch you in physical strength, speed and ability to inflict and endure punishment or multiple threats.

  12. avatar Will says:

    California’s gift to you is the petri dish of crummy gun laws.

    To quote Thomas Edison: “I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.”

    That’s California for you. Whenever this stuff tries to blow in to your state, you can point to us and say “See, it doesn’t work.”

    You’re welcome. #stayandfight

  13. avatar Nick L. EMT-P says:

    Manufacturers should do what companies like BCM and a few others do: Not sell any firearms or parts to LEO if other civilians can not own same said firearms or parts.

    BCM will not sell AR-15 pattern guns to the NYPD as they are banned for other civilians in the city as well.

    1. avatar Fred says:

      I’m sure Colt would be more than willing to fill the gap.

  14. avatar brian says:

    Why don’t they focus on getting the “Unsafe Handgun Act” REPEALED in its entirety instead of begging for permission to have new guns?

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Because the Legislature is 65% Dems who vote en bloc on any anti-gun bill.

  15. avatar Ken says:

    The citizens of the State of California voted the clowns in with their resulting laws. It appears that the citizens got what they asked for. If you live there and choose to continue living there, you will get what the majority chose.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      The citizens of the State of California voted the clowns in with their resulting laws.
      The gun owners will get what the majority chose and pay for the idiot government clowns to legislate and enforce all of this stupid crap.

  16. avatar SoloDallas says:

    I live in California but had no idea this was the deal with microstamping.
    As it stands today, it looks like it’s truly unconstitutional.
    I am surprised suing hasn’t worked against it yet.

    1. avatar Sancho says:

      If you live in California and are a gun owner there are ways to support the fight against the unconstitutional handgun roster. Search Peña v. Lindley Calguns Foundation.

      I would post the link but I don’t know if that would be against TTAG comment rules.

  17. avatar geoffb5 says:

    Not “ill conceived,” it is doing all that its conception was meant to do. The enemy is not stupid, they are evil.

  18. avatar Defens says:

    Can the manufacturers just sell kits, minus the microstamped parts? Maybe Defense Distributed needs to make available CAD files for Ghost Gun firing pins or other parts to complete a Ruger or Smith & Wesson pistol on their CNC workstation.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Forget kits. All they have to do is sell spare (unmarked) firing pins. Which they do. The law does not prevent them from doing so.

  19. avatar B Realio says:

    Of course the other problem with these laws is that they always carve out a law enforcement exemption. Doing that then gets the backing of the police union and the bills are always passed.

  20. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    Unless the gun companies are refusing to sell guns to agencies in Cali, I don’t want to hear any grand standing about rights and b*tching about the gun laws from their reps.

  21. avatar Mark N. says:

    There are a few inaccuracies in the article. The microstamping bill was not sold as a safety law, but as a law intended to assist the police in tracing guns from shell casings left at crime scenes. (Which is one reason why it doesn’t apply to revolvers, which leave no casings at crime scenes). Which is what Arnold relied upon when he signed it into law.

    Second, the actual language of the law is that the mandate took effect when the technology for microstamping became “readily available.” Kamala interpreted this as meaning “unencumbered by any patent,” which to me is a misreading of the statutory intent. It is supposed to mean that there is a viable technology available to manufacturers. What there was was a patented experimental process; once the patent expired, Kamala was poised to announce the effectiveness of the statute. A gun rights organization then bought the patent to prevent this, but the inventor waived his patent, and so now anyone can use it. Based on this waiver, Kamala declared the microstamp edict was now in force.

    The other problem with the technology is two fold. First, it only stamps a casing in one place, on the primer, but the law clearly provides that the microstamping must appear in two places, and one of those places is supposed to be on the side of the casing. No technology does this at this time. The State argued in opposition to a motion for preliminary injunction in a pending case that the two places could both be on the primer, but the judge found that argument less than credible. Second, this was an experimental process that has not been applied to a production line, and more importantly, does not prevent tampering to remove the stamp from (or replacing) the firing pin, nor is there evidence that the stamp, being microscopic after all, is able to survive multiple strikes (it doesn’t, actually). And it allows criminals to sow crime scenes with someone else’ used casings. Finally, it becomes impractical with reloads and multiple stamps on the casing itself (assuming a technology could be devised to do so.)

    The problem with the NRA suit was that it attacked the entire roster, not just the microstamping provision. And this is why the judge, seeing (at that time) over 1000 handguns on the roster, found that the law did not impermissibly burden the Second Amendment (i.e., there are plenty of guns to choose from, what are you whining about?). The second suit in state court attacks only the microstamping law, if I recall correctly.

    1. avatar John S says:

      The original lawsuit – Pena v Cid – predates the implementation of the microstamping silliness. It was filed April 30, 2009.

      The bill that imposed microstamping was Assembly Member Feuer’s 2007 AB 1471.

      1. avatar John S says:

        Didn’t get done in 5 minutes …

        Polanco’s 1999 SB 15 in fact sells the Roster as being about safety.

        See the Authors comments for the first committee hearing in the senate, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_15_cfa_19990406_153110_sen_comm.html
        “It requires that weapons fire when they are supposed
        to and that they not fire when dropped. The drop test
        is based on U.S. Department of Justice quality
        standards for law enforcement weapons and the misfire
        test is a slightly more lenient standard than
        currently used by law enforcement agencies. ”

        He was lying, of course.

        Microstamping, however is not about safety.

  22. avatar IYearnforanARinCali says:

    They want us to protect ourselves with bows, crossbows, kitchen knives, frozen slices of cheese, and cans of whip cream, in the home, outside; we’re screwed, run and hide is our only option.

    Stay and fight as long as you can my brothers and sisters, but we are eventually going to have to realize that we need to stop voting for you know who, and start voting out every representative at every level that is a democrat. They lie to get votes and this soft ban is the result. Leave when you can and don’t look back.

    1. avatar Mike says:

      It’ll be like the UK. They will come for your kitchen knives.

    2. avatar James69 says:

      Don’t forget the shoe! When you don’t have a gun use a shoe.

  23. avatar Kay Lovenburg says:

    Someone please help those of us law abiding gun owners that are completely out numbered here in California. Los Angeles and San Francisco unfortunately drive the state. There is a large population (central valley) who don’t stand a chance because our cries for help fall on deaf ears. We are told to write letters, but those letters go directly to those that are anti gun. I vote every election and have been praying that one day I would see a turn over, but nothing yet!!!! It’s only getting worse…..we the minority need help, we are not being heard….

    1. avatar John says:

      Band together. March in parades with empty holsters. Co-opt the left’s tactics. Cary signs of apalling events where someone couldn’t defend themselves. Take on the persona of previous succesful social justice warriers. Create your own empowering rainbow flag.

      The sincere desire to be left alone and go about our business, secure in the knowledge that our rights and lives are protected is no longer working. We’ll have to try something else.

  24. avatar Donald says:

    Really, I don’t care about California. Residents there only have themselves to blame. They voted in these politicians that are passing these gun laws. They embrace the sanctuary policies. Now they can lay in the bed they made.

    1. avatar John says:

      If we don’t help roll back the nonsense on the left coast, they’re coming for you next. If the feckless leaders in Cali aren’t shown of the error of their ways, Statists elsewhere – right in your backyard – will be emboldened.

  25. avatar gipper says:

    I believe that (GRANDFATHERED MODEL /DESIGN) is why/ how
    Ruger brought a model of LC380 back to market in California,.it was previously on the list.

  26. avatar PeterW says:

    Welcome to Havanna…California. The largest consumer of obsolete firearms in the world.

  27. avatar William Ashbless says:

    Other gems contained in this law specifically exempt law enforcement agencies from needing to purchase compliant models. A gun deemed unsafe for me to own is perfectly safe for a police officer to own.
    The law also specifically exempts single action revolvers. Any fans of the Colt Single Action Army knows that it is unsafe to carry with six cartridges(as are the millions of reproductns and clones). The only gun guaranteed to fail this mandated drop test is exempt from the testing process and can be sold to the consumer. Our politicians are not stupid. This is deliberate and evil by design.

    1. avatar Ronald Pottol says:

      I believe individual cops can purchase guns for their own use, and they can then sell these guns, and then you can buy them. The guns are legal to own, you just cannot sell them new. So, a nice minor subsidy for the police.

  28. avatar daveR says:

    This is a disgusting law. Period.

    1. avatar Stuki Moi says:

      Duh! Moses cornered the market on non disgusting ones, eons ago.

  29. avatar Mike says:

    The offending text: “etched or otherwise imprinted in two or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired…”

    It requires gun manufacturers to break the laws of physics. How does such a system reliably make 2 imprints on a shell casing while both surviving the superheated gases and not compromising barrel integrity?

  30. avatar Red says:

    So let me see if I have this right. Californians can own as many SAA’s as they want, but can’t own any guns that are a hundred years newer? That makes sense. So sales of the single action army should be off the charts out there. Anybody make a 3 inch barreled SAA in .44 mag?

  31. avatar James69 says:

    So this is a picture of the new approved firearm for Cali shooters?

  32. avatar Hannibal says:

    Let it drop to the point where there are none left for sale. Then start bringing the lawsuits…

  33. avatar Gary says:

    Once you are on the “list”, you must pay an ongoing fee to keep it there. If you let it expire, you must then go back through the process.
    Some aspects of the process are judgmental and allows California to truly control what is sold there.

  34. avatar John S says:

    “Once you are on the “list”, you must pay an ongoing fee to keep it there. If you let it expire, you must then go back through the process.”

    Can be that way. There is a provision in the law that the manufacturer promises the guns have not changed from the tested version, and the gun can just be restored without testing or new requirements. 11 CCR § 4108 (d)

  35. avatar joninva says:

    I’m curious how this new requirement for microstamping will impact California law enforcement? Will they fall under the same requirements for their firearms?

    1. avatar Reef Blastbody says:

      Nope. The law specifically exempts LEO and other government functionaries from the roster. CA FFLs are free to order and stock whatever firearms they want (barring NFA items, which have their own Byzantine regulatory architecture) and can afford to have sitting in their inventory. They can only sell new ones to police and military with proper permission paperwork from their chain of command. Ordinary citizens are SOL though.

  36. avatar TRP says:

    There’s a term in the English language for this- it’s called a TYRANTICAL GOVERNMENT. I was born and raised in California, but will be moving to another state soon. Not only are the politicians mad, but the majority of the population is as well…

  37. avatar Robert says:

    Well now, that explains why I see all those cars & trucks parked at my favorite Arizona gun stores.
    Thanks for helping our economy California slugs. LOL!

    1. avatar Reef Blastbody says:

      except that while federal law does prohibit handgun sales to out of state residents, but not long arms so long as said long arm is legal in their home state, CA law specifically prohibits CA residents from purchasing firearms out of state and bringing them back into CA. So unless those CA plated cars were owned by people with an AZ ID, they were probably getting things that didn’t require filling out a 4473, like standard capacity magazines and so on. Or ammo.

  38. avatar Benjamin says:

    Man I feel sorry for you California residents. I live in Pennsylvania. Sure laws are flawed here too in many ways. But I can buy a gun a day here if I can afford it. I just picked up a little bersa thunder 380 2 days ago and tomorrow I’ll pick up my glock 19 gen 4. With 3 15 round mags included for a whopping $500 new.

    We are encouraged to carry what our police carry, gun, sights, ammo. We are considered responsible gun owners by modelling ourselves after those who protect and serve.

    The bersa has a mag disconnect, the glock doesn’t. I am grateful for the choice to own both. And the responsibility to understand our laws and gun safety is my burden, not a politicians.

    I hope for change in California for law abiding citizens with ridiculous gun laws preventing your right to protect and freedom of choice.

  39. avatar J Yanik says:

    This law wold have been repealed rapidly if gun manufacturers did as Ron Barrett did when they enacted the ban on .50cal rifles;he cut off ALL sales and service to California gov’t including police,and returned rifles that had been sent to him for repairs,returned UNrepaired.
    But I guess they were gutless and would rather lose their civilian sales than lose the sales to CA gov’t organizations.

  40. avatar Jane says:

    Ⲏi! Someone in my Myѕpace group shared this site with սs
    so I came to look iit ⲟveг. I’m definitelʏ loving the information. I’m book-marking and
    will be tweeting tjis to mʏ followers! Fantastic blog and excеllent
    design.

  41. avatar webpage says:

    I wish to meet a mistress woman or a dominant couple who
    can remodel me into a horny she-male slut, into purchase for me hormones and all women stuff, to assist me with cash.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email