[jnojr]

Since the "drop test" law is clearly not about safety (if it was, why would LEOs be exempted???), it seems like good target for an overturn. What would it take to get one of the good guys to introduce a bill repealing that law?

[Standing Wolf]

Anybody could introduce such a bill; the catch is persuading the self-styled "government" of the People's Republic of California to vote for it.

Tyrants never give up power voluntarily.

[Pendragon]

Too hard to undo safety laws.

Better to ammed it to make LEOs subject to the safety.

Who could object to safer police ;) ?

[Jim March]

Well if THIS info is correct, the subject damn well better be revisted, and soon:

http://www.markii.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=1689

Looks like part of it, the requirement for "loaded chamber indicators", causes 22LR semi-autos to be LESS safe.

Note that this same gun already passed the California DOJ-mandated safety test process! I would guess that's because an entirely new failure mode has been introduced by this "safety legislation" <gag>, one the test procedures weren't set up to test for.

Ruger will test the gun in question but it's dead obvious to me this data will cause a recall. And I don't think it's even possible to design around this.

As you can see, Ruger set up a "probe" that "feels for" the presence of a rim. The probe itself becomes a secondary firing pin.

Even if the loaded safety indicator "probe" is set up to check for the shell's "middle somewhere", that's unsafe because an impact could rupture the shell and on actual firing, spray hot gasses into the gun's innards or blow outward. Spray inside, it could set off the whole magazine - outside, it'll burn somebody's hands, eyes or face. If it "probes" the rear rim, we get this accidental-impact issue. Granted, a lightweight "springy" probe might be possible, but will it stand up for long in the harsh environment of a gun's firing chamber, to both impacts and hot burning gasses?

This is a disgusting example of why guns need to be SIMPLE. Start adding funky bits, things go way wrong.

[jnojr]

Sounds to me like a perfect example that can be used to support the introduction of a repeal.

From my inexpert viewpoint, here's what we need to do:

1) Come up with a bill that either outright repeals the drop-test law, or just guts it through wording (one may be more politically acceptable than the other)

2) Get someone to introduce it (shouldn't be that hard)

3) Identify which committee(s) it needs to go through, and lobby all the potential nays with facts.

4) Identify potential swing votes in the full Legislature, and lobby as above

I think that scaring some Democrats a little might work... "Imagine, Assemblyperson, a headline about a gun that was declared "safe" under a bill you voted for blinding someone, and the cause of the explosion being traced back directly to a "safety device" that you voted to mandate. Let's scrap this bad legislation, and then we can work on good, meaningful safety legislation". Of course, the only "good, meaningful safety legislation" is none at all, but I think we'd need to hold out a carrot for their delicate liberal sensitivities.

I'm seeing a real possibility here. If this can get moving, I would be willing to put the monkey suit on and try to get some "face time" with any San Diego Legislators who might swing, and bring along some prepared talking points.

[50 Freak]

I love the idea of making the safety law apply to the LEO's also. What politician in his right mind would be against that. It would be outright admitting that the police are first class citizens compared to us pheasants.

After all this doesn't apply to AW's, Class III, or NFA type weapons, but rather to applying the same "safety requirements" on the same type of pistols the LEO's carry versus us. After all the whole reason for the law was to promote a more "safe" product.:scrutiny: :rolleyes: :scrutiny: