“The only reason I can’t sell the FDE Glock 27 to the public is because it is not on the Safe Handgun Roster and the only reason why it is not on the Safe Handgun Roster is because California claims that the manufacturing process is different than the Black Glock 27. In fact, no civilian can purchase any generation 4 Glocks. For each style handgun that is sold in the State of California, the manufacturer must pay the state $25,000 to be put on the Safe Handgun Roster. Did you get confused and think this was about safety? No, it’s about extortion.” – David Powell in Sac Bee Investigating the Safe Handgun Roster [at guntraband.com]
[h/t DrVino]
It’s still a pipe dream of mine that all manufacurers stop all sales to all kommiefornia .gov agencies until they scrap laws like that.
I’d pay to watch that happen!
I am actually paying to see it happen; staying in California, I am paying for it.
I don’t think that the manufacturers can actually stop law enforcement agencies from buying their guns at the local gun shop. But they can stop giving CA agencies any deals. What really should happen is the manufacturers and distributors should stop shipping any non compliant firearms or magazines to local gun shops so the agencies have no option but to buy from the roster. It makes even less sense to pay the extortion fee when one of your biggest group or customers doesn’t buy those weapons.
What they could do is refuse to service their weapons much in the way Barrett does it. On top of not servicing their weapons, no price breaks on sales for LEO’s in that state, and no deals when the departments want to buy all new batches of guns and I bet things would change real fast. Especially if all of the manufacturers give them the same line.
I agree, also, that limiting law enforcements options to what is available on the list would likely force some changes as well.
I’m sure this is a minority opinion in CA, but cops shouldn’t have weapons civilians can’t have. The whole point of the 2nd Amendment was for the civilian militia to be stronger than the military so tyrannical rule couldn’t be enforced.
+1000 on that opinion by Gov
Er but Gov, as so many here will loudly point out if you call a non-leo a ‘civilian’, cops ARE civilians. And given their paramilitary structure, I’d say they are the closest thing to a civilian militia most states have!
The civilian police have little in common with the civilian militias of the 18th century. They are much more like the army. There were no civilian police forces. There was a sheriff who was typically the leader of the militia. The militia members were not professional soldiers or police, they had day jobs. If a criminal was on the loose the sheriff would call out the militia and form a posse. The king’s laws were enforced by the army.
Today the army is (with the exception of a declaration of martial law) reserved for external threats and the civilian police control civil unrest. In the 18th century both were the responsibility of armies. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that a tyrant would be physically unable to enforce his will by force. Today the force a tyrant would use is the civilian police.
This is why the statists push for more federal control of your local police. Much of the PDs’ budgets comes from the federal government with strings attached. They’ve used the ‘War on Drugs’ to militarize the police and make them addicted to the federal money. They’re loyalties are to their bellies, not their neighbors. They serve the ones that feed them. Now the Democrats want to use justified shootings like the one in Ferguson and the riots that ensued to officially federalize the local police. They are that one small step away from becoming America’s Gestapo.
Isn’t this what California wants? If the gun manufacturers stop selling in California it makes them the reason for California’s disarmament.
Hell, I’d love to see all gun & ammo manufacturers refuse to sell to all levels of government until every unconstitutional law is repealed.
Only way things will change is when that happens. The problem is, that the second that the firearms industry tries that, they government will indict them for “something”
Still, it is the only way that this will stop.
Actually it’s the anti- gun crowd trying to restrict then completely eliminate any California’s access to semi-automatic handguns. While you cannot purchase a new Gen 4 from an FFL, you can buy one from a private party. Go figure… Wonder why the Fed’s can’t keep up with background checks on new pistols? It’s about time for this crazy crap to end!
Why don’t the manufacturers just stop selling to CA entirely? No PD, .gov, wealthy elite?
For the same reason OPEC countries don’t stick to allocated quotas and sell oil at $100/barrel, instead of going bankrupt selling 10% above quota at $25.
More fundamentally, for the same reason free markets always and everywhere work, and “market failures” are nothing but a nonexistent hobgoblin, useful only for scaring at best half literate progressive drones, back into slavery.
Just imagine what would happen to the earnings potential of Smith&Wesson, once every other make decided to withdraw from Cali. Or to the revenue potential of venture funded startup Newsom Arms, if even S&W followed suit……
Sadly, if all manufacturers refused to sell in Califorina, that would be collusion, and likely the ATF would have primary jurisdicion, then the DOJ anti-trust division. But even if not determined to be a form of price-fixing, the free market being profit-driven, some manufacturers would see it as an opportunity to corner the market. The other manufacturers are not going to let that happen. For a model of what you are thinking about, the airlines already suffer from supposed de facto price fixing if they all lower or raise prices on the same day.
Not servicing weapons might be allowed, but the SC already ruled that withholding your product from the market is part of “commerce”, and the government can attack you via the Commerce Clause; making you provide. Not sure the ruling applies to “services”, but wouldn’t take long for that to be included.
Yea, someone will still sell to them,
but wouldn’t it be funny if Cali Leos
were forced to choose between Hi-point
or Cobra ?
That would be just a hoot.
Puzzling thing is that any manufacturer wants to sell in California and places like. Are the sales of restricted sales that big a market? Must be, or manufacturers are just business dumb.
If California hates the Constitution so bad, why don’t they just secede? I know, they want to conquer the US, not secede from it.
“Did you get confused and think this was about safety? No, it’s about extortion.”
It’s about both, implementing restrictions on citizens rights, and revenue.
Like we’ve all heard, ‘it’s a tax!’.
FLAME DELETED
Then how would they help the FSA that live in commie land? They need the feds to provide the free shit instead themselves.
It’s comments like this that add no real contribution to the discussion that should be filtered. When things like this stay on the site it really makes us look like violent gun humpers the Anti groups say we are.
California needs to be divided into smaller states. It is not just to force left wing extremism on a gargantuan area of the state that doesn’t want it.
I’m beginning to agree more and more with this proposition the more I read about it
Long Live the State of Jefferson!
you know, there are parts of texas that we could do without but that might not work out as hoped.
i studied a lot of texas history, but never found an explanation of why the original texicans wanted anything west of the brazos, definitely not west of the colorado. the big bend country is beautiful, but only miles and miles of miles and miles surround it.
To buy from a “private party” you have to go through a licensed FFL Dealer to do all the paperwork and Background Check, and pay the FFL holder a fee (determined by the FFL holder). I do not know if you can buy a pistol prohibited by the list or not via that venue, but the fees usually range from $50 to $75 and both the seller and buyer must have a $25 Firearms Safety Certificate (FSC) obtained from the State. So, unless the seller is giving a really good price on the pistol, it will cost you more than you might think it is worth.
Each purchase requires the FFL’s fees but the FSC is $25 annually and the cost is spread across however many firearms you buy in the year.
Each year the California DOJ adds and subtracts pistols from the list just to make it more difficult. I am surprised as many Manufacturers put up with this aptly labeled “extortion”, but maybe they spread that cost by raising the wholesale prices to the FFL Dealers. I asked that question at a local gun shop and got the answer from a Salesperson, “I really don’t know.”, which I took to mean “I won’t tell you.”. However, I will say there is a better selection available all the time than you might expect, but you definitely cannot buy anything you might want.
The FSC is $25 dollars and is good for 5 years. It is needed to buy a long gun or a handgun. If you still have a valid HSC you gun buy a handgun but not long gun, and if you have a valid hunting licence you can buy a long gun but not a handgun.
Thanks, Matt! It’s been a while since I read through the DOJ’s texts on the subject, but trusted someone on TTAG who knew better would correct me if I was wrong. I had an HSC that expired and have not bothered to get an FSC. I am kind of done buying guns in this POC State, anyway.
According to my economics book any tax is passed on to the consumer.
Thanks, Zora! Good point!
Zora, this former Econ professor thinks you have one crappy text book.
So, what really happens, then? I would have thought a transfer for a Private Sale would not be taxed as in a retail sale.
The maximum fee a dealer may charge for a private party transfer in a face to face transaction is $10 per firearm plus the $25 DROS. There is no cap on fees
Okay, thanks! But I don’t get the last sentence in light of the first. What fees have no cap?
If you buy a gun, say on GunBroker, that is shipped to your designated FFL, it is not a PPT (because it is not a face to face transaction), and therefore there is no cap on the fees charged. In my neck of the Northern California woods, the LGSs charge $75, which usually takes any benefit out of an internet transaction, even if it is a gun they do not sell or cannot get. I have been using a table top FFL whose fees start at $50, and then go down $5 for each subsequent transaction, bottoming at $35. Buying a gun directly from a LGS usually runs $25 on top of the DROS.
Thanks, Mark N! You made me recall that I was mixing information from when I checked into a purchase through an FFL and PPT. I appreciate your time spent on these responses.
Reading the article, it appears that that’s $25,000 per year per firearm. So that effectively takes any firearms out the state that won’t sell at least several hundred units every year.
That’s what the article says, but he is most definitely WRONG WRONG WRONG. The annual listing fee is $200. What costs $25,000 is the testing and certification for a new model, which is a one time deal unless the firearm is modified. The required testing is quite extensive.
Section 4072 of the applicable regulations states:
(a) Pursuant to subdivision (b) of Penal Code s 12131, the DOJ shall recover the full costs of creating and maintaining the Roster of Certified Handguns by collecting fees from manufacturers/importers of or other parties responsible for handgun models that are listed on the Roster of Certified Handguns.
(b) Standard Fees:
(1) Initial annual listing fee: $200 for each model
(2) Annual maintenance fee for listing: $200 for each model
(c) Annual maintenance fees are non-refundable. There is no refund or rebate for discontinuation prior to completion of a full year’s listing on the Roster.
Note: Authority cited: Sections 12131 and 12131.5, Penal Code. Reference: Sections 12126 and 12129-12131.5, Penal Code.
Ah. That makes more sense. At $25,000/year I’d think there’d be a lot fewer guns on the ‘safe’ list.
Here’s a zinger for you: technically, it is not a “safe guns” roster, it is a “not unsafe guns” roster.
Are the not ‘not unsafe’ firearms known to the state of California to cause cancer? And if so, how many times the normal exposure to these firearms does it take to cause an increased risk of cancer in laboratory mice?
MA has the same extortion fees, CA shouldn’t feel lonely.
Simple solution. There is a case winding through the courts that challenges the ban on gun sales to non state residents. An American citizen that lives in Canada was unable to buy a gun in the US because he was not a resident in any US state.
Once that ban is lifted, all state level lists become moot. MA residents will no longer have to buy a 10# trigger gun. They can just go to NH. or Vermont.
Once the AWB and mag limits get overturned, life will get better as well.
By WHICH court?
Have you been watching the news?…..
One wrong “test case” and we see gun rights rolled back 5 decades or more.
Actually rolling gun rights back to 1966 or earlier is a very good thing.
Guns available by mail order, no mag limits, no feature bans, no id or residency requirement, newly manufactured machine guns (both foreign and domestic) are legal, no registration for anything other than NFA items.
Unlike every other civil right, gun rights started out perfect and only got worse as time went on. Rolling back is a very very VERY good thing.
That Armatix smart disaster is actually on the list? Twice?
They paid $50K to get *two* models on that list?
Wow, I’m surprised but glad – bring on more junk people don’t want to buy.
Kudos to the folks working to get this list killed.
More than likely the fee was waived or similar. I can’t see a company with no real revenue stream putting up that kind of capital to get a product approved that isn’t likely to sell enough to break even.
Respectfully Submitted.
THIS IS GUN CONTROL LEFT COAST STYLE. The long march of denying Californian’s law abiding citizens the right to purchase the most effective tool for self defense. It’s estimated that in six years there will be new no maganize fed handguns allowed in CA. Between now and then legislation will be proposed to limit revolvers. All long guns sold legally to be registered retroactively.
The places that have the highest taxes, also have the most restrictions on firearms. This tax sounds eerily close to the Jizya, the tax imposed on infidels by Muslim rulers. If you want to do business, and not be murdered for being a non-believer, you pay the protection tax. In Cali-phate, if you want guns or you want to sell guns, and you’re an infidel, you must pay the Jizya.
The Handgun drop test is all about safety.
Yet, the Legislation signed into law specifically exempts single action revolvers from the testing and allows law enforcement agencies to purchase guns that are deemed ‘unsafe’ by this farce of law.
Anybody who knows anything about Colt Single Actions(and millions of reproductions) is that you keep the hammer on an empty chamber of the cylinder because they are guaranteed to fail if you drop them.
Safety my ass.
They want California to be a gun free state, and have said so, publicly and repeatedly. Anyone in CA that does not understand the state does not want anyone but the state to own guns is not keeping up with current events. California HATES gun owners.
It’s ~$4500 and three (3) guns. Two of which get destroyed in the testing process. Let’s not exaggerate it too much.
It is a gun free state.
Big signs down at the San Bernadino County building proclaimed this.
“For each style handgun that is sold in the State of California, the manufacturer must pay the state $25,000 to be put on the Safe Handgun Roster.”
As they say in the world of software design, ‘it’s a feature, not a bug’.
Seriously: I wonder what federal law says about extortion by state governments. I really do wonder. IMO: this California law violates some federal laws – like federal commerce laws. I do not believe states are immune at that level. Maybe if we all started sending complaints on California’s “accepted firearms list” to the Justice Department, the federal prosecutors might find it actionable.
I’d like to see all manufacturers charge $25,000 per firearm to CA governmental units. Fair is fair.
It has nothing to do with extortion. It is a hidden ban on all new semi auto pistols. The new law said that all new semi auto pistols must have micro stamping in 2 places. NO MANUFACTURER HAS OR WILL DO THIS because it is a useless & and cost prohibitive tech. Ow did I mention that the tech is available only from one place due to a patent and every one how produces a handgun with it has to pay royalties. THIS HOLE THING IS A BAN ON NEW SEMI AUTO HAND GUNS.
+1.
Hey! At least they aren’t coming after our guns…..
….right?
What about the LEO carve-out? Gen 4 glocks stop being grenades in the hands of government badged thugs?
FUD. The fees for testing and certification of a new (or modified) firearm are payable to a private testing agency contracted with and certified by the DOJ. Yes, it is expensive, as it requires the manufacturer to ship three firearms and (I think it is) 1000 rounds of ammo per gun for various drop and reliability testing that uses up all of the ammo. This may indeed cost $25000. The annual fee for listing a firearm on the Roster that is paid to the State is $200.
Second, the Roster did start life as a safety measure, intended to weed out handguns that would fire when dropped, or were prone to failures. Then “features” kept on being added, not to improve the safety of the gun per se, but to protect idiots who “didn’t know the gun was loaded.” (An old song.) Anyway, and aside from older models that were grandfathered in and not required to be modified, what were added with respect to semiautomatic handguns were first a requirement of a loaded chamber indicator, and when that didn’t do the trick, an external manual safety. (Which is why we have (grandfathered Glock Gen #s but nothing newer, as Glocks do not have external safeties). Still not satisfied, the Legislature in its infinite wisdom required a magazine disconnect (for those idiots who thought that dropping the mag meant the gun wasn’t loaded).
And then the Legislature went off the rails, adding a requirement that has nothing to do with safety at all, signed into law by Gubernator Schwarzenneger (who also banned the .50 BMG), the microstamping requirement. The justification for the requirement was that there existed a patented experimental technology for stamping cartridges with a unique identifier, which it was believed would assist the police in investigation shootings where a semiautomatic handgun was used. There are numerous issues with this technology. Probably most importantly for us, the technology of cutting a stamp into the firing pin leaves a mark solely on the primer, but the law requires that the stamp appear in two places on the cartridge. Nonetheless, Attorney General Kamala Harris declared that this technology complied with the law, and mandated that all new semiauto pistols to be certified here employ the technology. Legal challenges are pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals after an attack on the entire roster were denied by the trial court. I believe a separate case challenging only the microstamping law is pending also.
As a Californian, I feel so screwed watching Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom flexing their political ambition. They are the type of politicians that will say whatever it takes to get elected.
Seems to work pretty well.
Maybe the other side should try it.
Not extortion. With extortion, it is not in the perpetrator’s best interests to destroy the source of revenue. No, this is financial warfare, through sanction and regulatory barrier. The goal IS the destruction of the industry, within California, anyways.
Comments are closed.