Ruger LCP: Will it ever be CA approved?


PDA






Surefire
March 21, 2008, 01:35 PM
Looks like a cool pocket sized backup gun. First one Ruger has ever made.

Will it ever be added to the California approved list? If so, when?

If you enjoyed reading about "Ruger LCP: Will it ever be CA approved?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
DWARREN123
March 21, 2008, 04:23 PM
When Ruger submits it and the money for certification.

jocko
March 21, 2008, 04:38 PM
I don't think it has the necessary safety features required for CA approval. so I seriously doubt it.

Zoogster
March 21, 2008, 07:50 PM
All semi auto pistols must have magazine disconnect (a liability) and a loaded chamber indicator to be added to the CA approved list. Guns without those features can remain on the list for an annual extortion fee, but none without them can be added.

Most of the pistols on the approved list do not qualify to be added to the approved list anymore.

Further the materials it is constructed from (glass filled nylon), and the low MSRP of $330, meaning it might go for under $300 new in places and half that used, might cause it to be labeled a "saturday night special"/"junk gun" not safe enough for sale in CA. :rolleyes:
It also has small dimensions, further making the DOJ look for reasons to disqualify it.
Low price, polymer construction, firing a .380 round (never be used for law enforcement) and highly concealable?
They will do thier best to find it unsuitable.

So not likely.

roscoe
March 22, 2008, 03:00 AM
Have a relative from out of CA give you one as a present. It is legal to own them in CA, they just can't be sold. Giving a pistol is completely legal, if you can legally own a firearm.

Quiet
March 22, 2008, 03:17 AM
After CA DOJ denied the Ruger SR9, saying Ruger's LCI (Loaded Chamber Indicator) did not pass, Ruger has no intention of modifying (needs to add a magazine disconnect) and submitting the LCP for testing.

Have a relative from out of CA give you one as a present... Giving a pistol is completely legal, if you can legally own a firearm.
Relative needs to be a either a grandparent, parent, son/daughter or grandson/granddaughter in order to qualify for the interfamily gift exmpetion.
Uncle, aunt, bother, sister, cousin, etc. does not qualify for the interfamily gift exemption.

Since the firearm is coming from another state, the firearm also needs to be sent to a CA FFL dealer and transfered to the CA resident in order to be legal. You can not directly mail/hand over the firearm, it needs to be processed by a CA FFL dealer. Otherwise you are breaking federal law.

HuntAndFish
March 22, 2008, 03:21 AM
Ha. I'm wondering if anyone in California wants to adopt me.

Quiet
March 22, 2008, 03:25 AM
... It is legal to own them in CA, they just can't be sold...
Not exactly true.

It is legal to own them in CA.

Since, it's not on the "approved" list, it can not be sold to civilians by a 01-FFL dealer.

If you can find one in CA, you can still sell/buy/transfer them in CA via a PPT (Private Party Transfer).

So, if you look in the used CA handgun market hard enough you may find one for sale for 2 to 3 times the MSRP.

I believe the expected price point for a "used" Ruger LCP in CA is in the $500-700 range.

icebones
March 22, 2008, 03:32 AM
is it just me, or does the ruger lcp look A LOT liek a kel-tec p3at?

jocko
March 22, 2008, 04:46 AM
yup looks alot alike but one works great and the other--well??

sorry heading meant to be icebones..

guajiro
March 22, 2008, 05:13 AM
Let me get this straight. If my father (lives in Florida) buys one and gives it to me, thats OK? If so, how does he go about sending it to me?

jocko
March 22, 2008, 05:37 AM
u have to understand that komifornia is not a U. S. state:banghead::banghead:

Quiet
March 22, 2008, 06:09 AM
Let me get this straight. If my father (lives in Florida) buys one and gives it to me, thats OK? If so, how does he go about sending it to me?
Yes, it is okay. Because it's an interfamily gift from father to son.

First, you need a HSC or have an exemption to the HSC.

Next, you need to contact a CA FFL dealer that will be willing to do the transfer. Not that many CA FFL dealers are willing to do it, so you need to ask around. Remember to tell the CA FFL dealer this is an interfamily gift and exempt from the approved list.

After you make arraingments with the CA FFL dealer, your father overnights (FedEx/UPS) the pistol to the CA FFL dealer.

You then go to the CA FFL dealer, pay the out-of-state transfer fee and process the DROS.

10 days later, you go back to the CA FFL dealer, pick up your pistol and revel in the fact that you own a Ruger LCP in CA.

Head over to www.calguns.net, join the forum and make a post asking for help in your search for a CA FFL dealer in your area willing to do an out-of-state interfamily gift transfer.

guajiro
March 22, 2008, 06:34 AM
Sweeeeeet!!! I am all over that. Time to start dropping hints to pops.

10-Ring
March 22, 2008, 07:04 PM
I doubt it unless Ruger designs a CA version to meet the mag disconnect, loaded chamber indicator requirements the state has :rolleyes:

Surefire
March 24, 2008, 07:56 PM
After CA DOJ denied the Ruger SR9, saying Ruger's LCI (Loaded Chamber Indicator) did not pass, Ruger has no intention of modifying (needs to add a magazine disconnect) and submitting the LCP for testing.

What was wrong with the SR9's LCI?

I would never buy an SR9 or P345 because of the magazine disconnect design flaw in Rugers (dry firing can damage the gun with the magazine removed). I've never heard of problems with the LCI though.

If DOJ is failing new model guns regularly, I bet the reason is that they don't want to approve any more new models until the dreaded microstamping becomes law in a year.

If we get a liberal president this year, we could see these horse manure laws at a national level. :(

Quiet
March 24, 2008, 08:27 PM
LCI specs are in regulatory code Title 11 Sec 4060 (11 CCR 4060), implemented after SB489's passage:

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/chapter6.pdf


(d)(1) A functioning chamber load indicator must meet all of the following conditions:

(A) Explanatory text and/or graphics either incorporated within the chamber load indicator or
adjacent to the chamber load indicator is/are permanently displayed by engraving, stamping,
etching, molding, casting, or other means of permanent marking.

(B) Each letter of explanatory text must have a minimum height of 1/16".

(C) The explanatory text and/or graphics shall be of a distinct visual contrast to that of the firearm.

(D) The “loaded” indication, that portion of the chamber load indicator that visually indicates there
is a round in the chamber, shall be of a distinct color contrast to the firearm.

(E) Only when there is a round in the chamber, the “loaded” indication is visible on the firearm from
a distance of at least twenty-four inches. When there is no round in the chamber, the “loaded” indication
must not be visible.

(F) The text and/or graphics and the “loaded” indication together inform a reasonably foreseeable adult
user of the pistol, that a round is in the chamber, without requiring the user to refer to a user’s manual.

Willo
April 1, 2008, 12:50 AM
I can see 90% of the guns on the roster dropping off

DPris
April 1, 2008, 01:03 AM
Ruger says the LCP will not be sold in California.
Denis

Pfunk
April 1, 2008, 12:50 PM
is it just me, or does the ruger lcp look A LOT liek a kel-tec p3at?Many parts are interchangeable.

Kel-Tec forgot to patent one of the most innovative handgun designs ever.

Soybomb
April 1, 2008, 01:39 PM
is it just me, or does the ruger lcp look A LOT liek a kel-tec p3at?
Not at all, they're virtually identical, the gun is of keltec design without a doubt.

Kel-Tec forgot to patent one of the most innovative handgun designs ever.
I doubt it was ignorance but perhaps just pragmatism, assuming there is something unique about it that would make it patent worthy. KT is a small company, how much money could they devote to a legal battle? Glock probably spent a tidy sum of money going after s&w, it took years, they had to resort at points to strong arming dealers into chosing between carrying S&W or glock. Could kel-tec successfully battle a company that is as of right now worth $176M? I think it might be difficult. If you don't want to waste your money going after small companies that rip you off like skyy and you don't have the resources to fight larger companies that do...why bother? Make the best product you can and hope your product and price will speak for itself.

Pfunk
April 1, 2008, 02:19 PM
Your concept assumes Kel-Tec knew they would be up against Ruger before they supposedly decided not to patent their design. Your timeline is backwards so the cause-effect you describe doesn't fit. It could just as easily have been another garage operation that decided to copy the Kel-Tec. In fact, I would have expected it more from a garage operation than a Ruger simply because with a copy, all of the hard and risky work that big gun companies specialize in is already done. And at that price-point, it was hard to predict a Ruger or S&W would be interested.

Besides, the patent process is actually easier than designing their guns. And a patent protection lawsuit over a firearm design as unique and profitable as the Kel-Tec in question could easily be fought by a large team of ravenous lawyers on contingency. Or they could easily have secured all the investment in the world to pursue and win. It's virtually a no brainer, with a huge upside. It would have been a tremendous boon for Kel-Tec, with basically no risk.

Your idea that their being a small company contributed to this mistake is totally valid. They either didn't think of it, or were too unfamiliar with the patent process to pursue it. Or maybe it was one of those things they always said they'd get around to but didn't, whereas a big company would patent most every unique idea they came up with.

The Kel-Tec design is totally unique and, engineering inconsistencies aside, totally awesome. Fear of a big fight is no reason not to patent it because there's virtually no way to lose a fight like that, and it would have had the potential to double the value of Kel-Tec overnight.

Besides, with a patent you can pick your fights unlike with a trademark. If you hold a patent and don't want to go after Ruger, you can still go after smaller companies.

Soybomb
April 1, 2008, 04:12 PM
Your concept assumes Kel-Tec knew they would be up against Ruger before they supposedly decided not to patent their design.
Not really, pick a big company with money that you can't afford to fight, the name of the company is irrelevant. It happened to be ruger, but could have just as easily been s&w or beretta. The end result is the same. Pick a small company that isn't worth the money to fight even if you win, once again the name is irrelevant and the end result is the same.

I would have expected it more from a garage operation than a Ruger simply because with a copy
That has been done before too, see skyy pistols.

And at that price-point, it was hard to predict a Ruger or S&W would be interested.
Have you looked at the sales numbers kel-tec has? The unit cost might be low but kel-tec sells an amazing number of guns. Who wouldn't want a slice of that?

If you hold a patent and don't want to go after Ruger, you can still go after smaller companies.
Once again, to what benefit? How many pistols does skyy sell? Have you even heard of them before? What return would you see from suing them?

We can speculate all day but at the end of it george kelgren has been designing things for many years. I don't think this is the case of someone just falling off the turnip truck and making a terrible mistake. I wish I were an IP lawyer and could speak with more authority but I would imagine that the design either is near enough to other browning linkless locked breech pistols that they didn't think it would be an easy patent to uphold or that they just never a benefit to them from litigation. In the gun world we see the same thing with holster makers.

jocko
April 1, 2008, 04:25 PM
oops started to double post..;

jocko
April 1, 2008, 04:27 PM
ur dead right. Kt just missed the boat. kinda hard to say sour grapes after the horse is out of the barn. They could and should have protected their design. I am told G. Kellgren patented his knife, now if your gonna do that why not patent something of value and quanlity.. Can't see to many people wanting to copy his knife but he protected it. He could have also sold his rights to ruger to produce the lcp to, and made big bucks and done nothing. All the kt guys want. to hate, blame, call Ruger a thief, u name it, the have said it, just becuase GK set back and let it happen.

It has happened, now it is time for both sides to move on, Ruger ain't gonna go away, my bet is that taurus will be out soon with a mini 380 or 9mm and Smith also. then as I have said before, Let the games begin" If you make a great gun, you don't have much to worry about and if someone just passes u buy overnite, then you best start looking as to what went wrong..

Pfunk
April 1, 2008, 04:47 PM
Not really, pick a big company with money that you can't afford to fight, the name of the company is irrelevant. It happened to be ruger, but could have just as easily been s&w or beretta. The end result is the same. Pick a small company that isn't worth the money to fight even if you win, once again the name is irrelevant and the end result is the same.

That has been done before too, see skyy pistols.So by your logic, there are only companies too big or too small to make patenting products worthwhile. Of what value is the patent system then? For examples of small guys making a killing on bigger companies, look at the computer industry. Again, patents are really easy to obtain relatively speaking, and they simply give you lots of options. You don't have to pursue any one case, but having a patent simply gives you a way to keep others out of your niche and an opportunity to make a ton of money at a later date. While there may be a case for not wanting to pursue a Ruger-sized company, there is no reason not to file a patent at all...especially given the volume Kel-Tec cranks out. If the market is as you say, so big that Ruger would want in, then the value of a patent to Kel-Tec is just as enormous. I totally fail to see your logic here.

Have you looked at the sales numbers kel-tec has? The unit cost might be low but kel-tec sells an amazing number of guns. Who wouldn't want a slice of that?Yes actually, I have access to their sales numbers. I'm not being sarcastic. They sell a lot of units. And Ruger is going to sell a lot of units. Something Kel-Tec could have had a piece of or prevented altogether in the first place with a simple patent filing. Again, no reason not to have done so other than ignorance or oversight.

Once again, to what benefit? How many pistols does skyy sell? Have you even heard of them before? What return would you see from suing them?You would prevent them from elbowing in on your market, and possibly recover money for units already sold.

We can speculate all day but at the end of it george kelgren has been designing things for many years. I don't think this is the case of someone just falling off the turnip truck and making a terrible mistake. I wish I were an IP lawyer and could speak with more authority but I would imagine that the design either is near enough to other browning linkless locked breech pistols that they didn't think it would be an easy patent to uphold or that they just never a benefit to them from litigation. In the gun world we see the same thing with holster makers.If you think the design of the Kel-Tec P3AT is too close to that of another gun to patent, please back that up by pointing to a specific make and model.

Until then we'll go with prevailing opinion that the Kel-Tec P3AT was a ground-breaking pistol design. It's not speculation on my part to say that filing a patent on a unique design is a no-brainer. It's easy, and it protects you. There is no loss involved in filing a patent beyond a few hundred bucks, or if you don't know how and can't use Google, a few thousand bucks. By your own claims of market value assigned to the Kel-Tec model, you've proven the value of a patent in this case. Holster manufacturers are different than what we're talking about in that they are more easily able to design for suitable variance, unable to patent based on the shape of the gun they hold, and they make a lot less money than either a Kel-Tec or a Ruger. There's not really any money sitting around for lawyers. In the case of Kel-Tec, there's money for lawyers both in Kel-Tec's pocket, and in a winning case.

Is your only point in all of this that George Kelgren wouldn't make a mistake so it had to be a deliberate and wise decision?

alamo
April 2, 2008, 12:36 AM
And Ruger is going to sell a lot of units. Something Kel-Tec could have had a piece of or prevented altogether in the first place with a simple patent filing. Again, no reason not to have done so other than ignorance or oversight.

Until then we'll go with prevailing opinion that the Kel-Tec P3AT was a ground-breaking pistol design. It's not speculation on my part to say that filing a patent on a unique design is a no-brainer.

I'm certainly not a patent attorney but I don't see anything that Kel-Tec can patent. It's a locked breech pistol - that design has been around for a very long time. Kel-Tec didn't invent the locked breech design. If there ever was a patent on it, it expired long ago.

The made their locked breech pistol mostly of polymer, very flat, small and lightweight. I don't think those things can be patented.

Can they patent the shape, size and weight of the pistol? I wouldn't think so.

You seem to be adament that Kel-Tec should have filed a patent, a "no-brainer" as you say. Please tell us specifically what parts or "unique designs" they should have patented.

Soybomb
April 2, 2008, 01:07 AM
So by your logic, there are only companies too big or too small to make patenting products worthwhile.
Not at all but I think the market and the size of your company play a significant role in how realistic litigation might be for you.

Yes actually, I have access to their sales numbers. I'm not being sarcastic. They sell a lot of units. And Ruger is going to sell a lot of units. Something Kel-Tec could have had a piece of or prevented altogether in the first place with a simple patent filing. Again, no reason not to have done so other than ignorance or oversight.
I'm still not 100% convinced it can be done ;)

You would prevent them from elbowing in on your market, and possibly recover money for units already sold.
Cost/benefit again though, how much would you spend going after them? From their performance so far I'd imagine it wouldn't be worth it.

If you think the design of the Kel-Tec P3AT is too close to that of another gun to patent, please back that up by pointing to a specific make and model.
Most modern handguns? What part of its mechanism is unique? Its a nice combation of materials and machining but its still a browning linkless locked breech pistol.

Is your only point in all of this that George Kelgren wouldn't make a mistake so it had to be a deliberate and wise decision?
Not george kellgren just as much as any experienced professional in their field isn't likely to make a very basic mistake. A designer not securing their IP would be like a mechanic driving your car out on its rotors. I guess it could happen...the sun might explode tomrrow...neither is likely. I just think the more plausible explanation is that an intentional decision was made to not patent it for reasons of futility or getting a patent.

I'm certainly not a patent attorney but I don't see anything that Kel-Tec can patent. It's a locked breech pistol - that design has been around for a very long time. Kel-Tec didn't invent the locked breech design. If there ever was a patent on it, it expired long ago.
What other patents on handguns are there? Glock has (had?) a patent on their unique striker mechanism. The desert eagle on its gas system. Early revolvers of course... I can't think of anything the p3at has on it that makes it unique from other modern handguns.

Pat-inCO
April 2, 2008, 01:23 AM
I don't think anyone (other than a gang banger) would want one.

Put hands on one today, could not get - two - finger grip on it, it WILL be quite "snappy" (9.4oz, even with .380 is not going to be fun to shoot) and it feels like a cap gun.

Not worth the $250 (NIB) they wanted for it. :barf:

If you enjoyed reading about "Ruger LCP: Will it ever be CA approved?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!