|
California handguns Discuss your favorite California handgun technical and related questions here. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Glock Gen 4's do not meet the "California safety standards".
The California Department of Justice (“DOJ”) publishes and maintains a roster listing all handguns that have been tested by a certified testing laboratory, determined not to be unsafe handguns, and that may be sold in California.10 DOJ may retest up to five percent of handgun models listed on the roster annually.11 The Attorney General must remove from the roster any model that fails retesting.12 DOJ also maintains a list of handguns removed from the state roster. An “unsafe handgun” also includes: • Any center-fire semiautomatic pistol that is not already listed on the roster as of January 1, 2006, and does not have either a chamber load indicator,13 or a magazine disconnect mechanism;14 • Any rimfire semiautomatic pistol that is not already listed on the roster as of January 1, 2006, and does not have a magazine disconnect mechanism, if it has a detachable magazine;15 and • Any center-fire semiautomatic pistol that is not already listed on the roster as of January 1, 2007, and does not have both a chamber load indicator or, if it has a detachable magazine, a magazine disconnect mechanism.16 Due to a law that became effective January 1, 2010, new models of semiautomatic pistols sold in California are required to have microstamping technology integrated into the pistol design, or the handgun will be deemed an “unsafe handgun.”17 However, this requirement has been challenged by the gun lobby in federal court and the outcome of this litigation is still pending. Last edited by 003; 03-20-2017 at 5:12 PM.. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Micro stamping. Applies to all handguns not grandfathered in.
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
I didnt realize microstamping went all the way back to 2010. No wonder I don't see any new semi autos.
Doesn't a revolver count as semi auto unless strictly built as a single action? How did the Kimberly K6S make it into the roster recently? |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
A revolver is not a semi auto pistol. Semi auto requirements don't apply to revolvers.
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Well Cav Scout, its more of California don't want to deal with Glock or any other firearm manufacturer.
__________________
Im a warmonger baby, I got blood in my eyes and I'm looking at you. |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
S&W entire M&P handgun line (including the Shield but excluding the BodyGuard) were put on the roster before the Micro Stamping requirement was applied. S&W made a corporate decision to continue to improve the M&P handgun line thus losing the grandfather provision. For some reason they continued to produce a CA version of the Shield. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong. |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The Shield's only competition are the 3-4 Kahrs on roster. Only one costs less. |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
CA does not want to deal with Glock anymore.
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Having recently gotten back into guns/shooting from a long hiatus, I am blown away by just how bad it is in CA. I mean I expected it to be bad, but this is far worse than I expected.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk |
#21
|
||||
|
||||
On the contrary, Glock was the ONLY manufacturer to directly file an amicus brief in the Pena v. Cid case to get rid of the roster. None of the other manufacturer's cared enough about us to file separate briefs on our behalf.
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#23
|
||||
|
||||
Gen 4 Glocks
The law was passed with the caveat micro stamping had to be possible. Some Dbag had already patented it but had no proof of concept. He later open resourced the unworkable patents and Kamala "certified" micro stamping was viable without any proof of concept.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong. |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
On a side note I am okay with a Glock 19 Gen 3. |
#26
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The Walther PPK had a loaded chamber indicator for a long time; since at least the 1980's. It was something that made it desirable. I would rally like to know how many lives were saved by a magazine disconnect and LCI. Probably the same amount of crimes that were solved by registering spent cases of brass: Zero. .
__________________
Be sure to ask your doctor if depression, rectal bleeding, and suicide are right for you. In the United States a person's expertise on a subject is inversely proportional to their knowledge of the subject: The less they know about something, the more they become an expert on it. I am being held hostage in a giant insane asylum called Earth. |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
Background
In 2007, Assembly Bill 1471 was passed and signed into law, requiring all semiautomatic pistols to be equipped with microstamping technology—“a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, 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.” (Pen. Code, § 31910, subd. (b)(7)(A).) The legislation further provided that this requirement becomes effective when the Department of Justice “certifies that the technology used to create the [microstamp] imprint is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions.” (Ibid.) Certification of the Microstamping Technology On May 17, 2013, the Department of Justice issued a certification that the microstamping technology is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions. |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
I'm fine with Gen 3's.
If the Gen 4's could be added to the roster, I MIGHT be interested in the G43, but then again, it would have to be close to a blue label deal at that.
__________________
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#30
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The patent isn't even viable. There was no further proof of concept. If some organization can successfully challenge the patent as invalid, then AB1471 becomes invalid. Instead of bashing our collective heads against the 9th and DOJ, pull an end run at the patent office. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong. |
#31
|
||||
|
||||
until the court settles we cannot get any new handguns into the market that are doj approved that includes military surplus but excludes c and rs if you dont mind running around with old muasers you are good to go.
__________________
retreat! we must go comrade we will fight again another day. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|