Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > FIREARMS DISCUSSIONS > California handguns
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California handguns Discuss your favorite California handgun technical and related questions here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-20-2017, 5:06 PM
19D 19D is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 27
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Gen 4 Glocks

Any one have any info or speculation as to why Gen 4 Glocks are not approved? Does Glock just not want to deal with CA anymore?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-20-2017, 5:09 PM
003 003 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,436
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

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..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-20-2017, 5:12 PM
csshih's Avatar
csshih csshih is offline
Casual Plinker
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 667
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

no microstamping, mag disconnect, LCI?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-20-2017, 5:15 PM
steel30's Avatar
steel30 steel30 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Murrieta
Posts: 2,028
iTrader: 211 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 003 View Post
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.
This
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-20-2017, 5:39 PM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,425
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 19D View Post
Any one have any info or speculation as to why Gen 4 Glocks are not approved? Does Glock just not want to deal with CA anymore?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Micro stamping. Applies to all handguns not grandfathered in.
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-20-2017, 5:47 PM
iareConfusE's Avatar
iareConfusE iareConfusE is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: A rabbit hole in the East Bay
Posts: 4,464
iTrader: 65 / 100%
Default

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?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-20-2017, 5:52 PM
91SDLegend 91SDLegend is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 337
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Roster was already bad enough as it is with all the new requirements in order to be able to place a handgun on the roster with the extortion fee. The microstamping was just the icing on the cake.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-20-2017, 5:56 PM
ElvenSoul's Avatar
ElvenSoul ElvenSoul is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: TEXAS!
Posts: 17,432
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

How can they require microstampin when there is no working device?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-20-2017, 6:16 PM
ElDub1950's Avatar
ElDub1950 ElDub1950 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Ohio (Prev. El Dorado Hills)
Posts: 5,688
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iareConfusE View Post
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?
A revolver is not a semi auto pistol. Semi auto requirements don't apply to revolvers.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-20-2017, 6:17 PM
ElDub1950's Avatar
ElDub1950 ElDub1950 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Ohio (Prev. El Dorado Hills)
Posts: 5,688
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvenSoul View Post
How can they require microstampin when there is no working device?
They can't. But they did. And that's why we have lawsuits going.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-20-2017, 6:42 PM
stormvet's Avatar
stormvet stormvet is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Amongst the Ocotillos
Posts: 6,882
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-20-2017, 6:44 PM
skosh69's Avatar
skosh69 skosh69 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: East Bay, CA
Posts: 4,290
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

It's a glock, nuff said.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-20-2017, 6:51 PM
Memnon Memnon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 242
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade Gunner View Post
Micro stamping. Applies to all handguns not grandfathered in.
How did the CA version of the Shield get on the roster?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-20-2017, 6:58 PM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,425
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Memnon View Post
How did the CA version of the Shield get on the roster?


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.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-20-2017, 6:59 PM
ElDub1950's Avatar
ElDub1950 ElDub1950 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Ohio (Prev. El Dorado Hills)
Posts: 5,688
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Memnon View Post
How did the CA version of the Shield get on the roster?
it was added before the microstamping requirement
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-20-2017, 7:27 PM
floogy's Avatar
floogy floogy is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 2,742
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade Gunner View Post
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
They are keeping the SDVE and Shield for CA. There was a press release about why a few years back. The SDVEs probably sell pretty well among everyday Joes who aren't trigger snobs and can get a gun for $200 less than a Glock.

The Shield's only competition are the 3-4 Kahrs on roster. Only one costs less.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-20-2017, 8:49 PM
coachrv's Avatar
coachrv coachrv is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Northern NV
Posts: 101
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by csshih View Post
no microstamping, mag disconnect, LCI?
Yep
I will never own a gun with a LCI. Useless feature required by arrogant leftist who know nothing about firearms.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-20-2017, 9:39 PM
kozumasbullitt's Avatar
kozumasbullitt kozumasbullitt is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: San Mateo, CA
Posts: 2,909
iTrader: 89 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 19D View Post
Any one have any info or speculation as to why Gen 4 Glocks are not approved? Does Glock just not want to deal with CA anymore?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
CA does not want to deal with Glock anymore.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-21-2017, 4:58 AM
BigPimping's Avatar
BigPimping BigPimping is offline
Still in The Game
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Norcal. East Bay.
Posts: 20,808
iTrader: 63 / 100%
Default

Gaston has had enough of Cali regulations and will not comply!!!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-21-2017, 9:33 AM
19D 19D is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 27
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-21-2017, 9:59 AM
madoka's Avatar
madoka madoka is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 2,041
iTrader: 47 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 19D View Post
Does Glock just not want to deal with CA anymore?
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.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-21-2017, 5:53 PM
Memnon Memnon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 242
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade Gunner View Post
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
Ok, someone said 2010 for microstamping and I think Shield came out 2013 or 14. So microstamping was probably required some time after 2013 and not 2010.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-21-2017, 6:14 PM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,425
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-21-2017, 7:06 PM
Che762x39's Avatar
Che762x39 Che762x39 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Shack on the Beach
Posts: 4,468
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by madoka View Post
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.
Very important point indeed.

On a side note I am okay with a Glock 19 Gen 3.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-21-2017, 7:17 PM
solipsism's Avatar
solipsism solipsism is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 1,324
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Gen 4s are too good for California peasants.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-22-2017, 7:30 AM
Carcassonne's Avatar
Carcassonne Carcassonne is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Northern California SF Bay Area East Bay
Posts: 4,848
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coachrv View Post
Yep
I will never own a gun with a LCI. Useless feature required by arrogant leftist who knows nothing about firearms.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-22-2017, 8:38 AM
R-Cubed's Avatar
R-Cubed R-Cubed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 424
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-22-2017, 10:31 AM
onelonehorseman's Avatar
onelonehorseman onelonehorseman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Southern Liberalandia
Posts: 4,882
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-22-2017, 4:48 PM
Memnon Memnon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 242
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade Gunner View Post
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
Seems like a simple concept and certainly viable but requiring it violates "in common use". If someone pursues Kamala to jail, I'd 10x my usual donations.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-25-2017, 12:16 PM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,425
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R-Cubed View Post
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.


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.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-26-2017, 5:54 AM
oc16's Avatar
oc16 oc16 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Orange
Posts: 1,042
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:54 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy