California's Handgun List


PDA






Gunner Mike
April 15, 2010, 01:29 AM
http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/safeguns_resp.asp

What a crock. I've never seen this until today.

Hit the link to recently removed guns. Glad I don't live on a coast.

Mike

If you enjoyed reading about "California's Handgun List" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Kingofthehill
April 15, 2010, 09:54 AM
I moved from CA to TX Sep 09'. That safe handgun list was an absolute JOKE!

Example... Say S&W has the .500 and offers it in Blued AND in Stainless. The gun is IDENTICAL in every which way... the only difference is the finish.

IF they only submitted the stainless version for testing, and if it does pass, ONLY the stainless model is put on the "Safe" list... the blued model is not allowed to be sold new in CA to anyone other then people with exempt status like Law Enforcement.

Also, if it's not on the list... it can't be shipped even within the state. Once in the state, said firearm can be sold Face to Face (at an FFL of course where you still have to do the $35 DROS and 10 day wait) but you can do that.

Its a total joke and overall pain in the butt. So many people buy a gun off of the internet because they see it on the list but it was a different finish and they buy it, ship it and then the FFL won't release it to them because its not on the safe list.

God bless Texas :) LOL

Gunner Mike
April 15, 2010, 11:36 AM
Wow. California's laws smell like hot garbage to me.

Texas: Indiana loves ya!

jmortimer
April 15, 2010, 11:40 AM
As usual, another srupid gun law from liberal/socialist/bankrupt **********. Here I sit in what should be the greatest place on planet earth and it blows. Thankfully we have such a large population that most manufacturers will submit their handguns for the epensive testing process to get it on the approved list. If we only had a couple million people I doubt you would even be able to buy a handgun. One good reaon to love a single action as they are exempt from the stupid law. It all started becus of Davis, Jennings, et al and the "Saturday Night Specials" - the liberals thought they could do away with cheap guns through "testing" for safety. I glad Jimanez (SP?) stayed around.

Kingofthehill
April 15, 2010, 11:47 AM
Jmortimer-

You guys can't get the Gen 4 glock right now huh? That was the last i knew.

natman
April 15, 2010, 11:52 AM
Here's a direct link to the removed list. If a manufacturer stops making a certain configuration and gets tired of paying protection money, er, rather the fee, even though the gun that has passed safety testing it becomes "unsafe" and can no longer be sold. You can imagine what this does to a dealer's stock.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/removed.pdf

joe_security
April 15, 2010, 12:15 PM
They banned some of the highest quality pieces available. Brown, Nighthawk, etc.

Kruzr
April 15, 2010, 01:20 PM
Most of the guns on the removed link also show up on the newly added guns list. The listing needs to be renewed every two years. They are shown as being removed but also added with a new "expiration" date.

It costs something like 200 bucks to renew a listing. Once it's on the list, it doesn't come off unless the maker wants it to.

CWL
April 15, 2010, 01:29 PM
READ the dates on that list. It goes back to 2001. This is a list of pistols that manufacturers have typically replaced with newer models.

For example Nighthawk currently has 22 M1911 pistol versions for sale in CA right now.

Ruger has 104 models and variations for sale in CA.

Now I hate these stupid laws that CA imposes, but CA still accounts for a significant % of total gun sales in the USA. (If I can find the stats, CA used to purchase ~1/3 of all firearms sold in the USA.)

If anybody wants to see what's actually available for sale, they should look here:
http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/

Jim K
April 15, 2010, 10:22 PM
Those CA laws, like almost all other American "gun control" laws, have their basis in fear and race hatred. The CA legislator is totally scared sh**less of the Mexicans and the blacks and is frantically trying every idea, no matter how insane, to keep guns out of "the wrong (not rich white) hands".

Jim

Quiet
April 16, 2010, 02:10 AM
If you don't like the CA DOJ approved list for handgun sales, then thank the Single Action Shooters Society (SASS).

They supported passage of it, once they got an exemption for single-action revolvers.

ArchAngelCD
April 16, 2010, 03:58 AM
I thank God I've never lived in N.J. or California and moved from N.Y. to PA!!!

Shawn Dodson
April 16, 2010, 11:46 AM
not allowed to be sold new in CA to anyone other then people with exempt status like Law Enforcement. So Law Enforcement is permitted to use "unsafe" guns against the citizenry?! That seems immoral. It's a lawsuit just waiting to happen.

Imagine you or a loved one having an LEO point an "unsafe" gun at you?

CWL
April 16, 2010, 01:18 PM
Those CA laws, like almost all other American "gun control" laws, have their basis in fear and race hatred. The CA legislator is totally scared sh**less of the Mexicans and the blacks and is frantically trying every idea, no matter how insane, to keep guns out of "the wrong (not rich white) hands".

Unfortunately, one of my greatest heroes, Ronald Reagan, was responsible for the downslide in CA gun rights when he was the Governor. During the Civil Rights protests, Black Panthers marched in the streets legally open-carrying their firearms. So did American Indians and other "disenfranchised" people.

This scared the crap out of a lot of people and there was a rush to start controlling firearms and banning legal carry.

Stupid how firearms were once carried by the poor and downtrodden for protection, taken-away by the Right, and now gun-control is a rallying point for the Left.

Buck Snort
April 16, 2010, 08:35 PM
Wow. California's laws smell like hot garbage to me.

Texas: Indiana loves ya!
That's what happens when a state has a terminal case of "liberalitis".

Buck Snort
April 16, 2010, 08:42 PM
Well, not only did RR undermine our gun rights but he also closed all the state mental hospitals and threw hundreds of thousands of pathetic people onto the streets to fend for themselves in what was often a very hostile environment. Reagan has a couple of nasty black marks on his record as far as I'm concerned.

Kingofthehill
April 16, 2010, 09:46 PM
So Law Enforcement is permitted to use "unsafe" guns against the citizenry?! That seems immoral. It's a lawsuit just waiting to happen.

Imagine you or a loved one having an LEO point an "unsafe" gun at you?

Lame huh....

Now don't take this as gospel but i believe that other professions such as EMT's, Paramedics and Probation officers are also Exempt from the safe handgun roster.

rha600
April 18, 2010, 05:51 PM
you couldn't pay me to live in that state.

harmon rabb
April 18, 2010, 07:22 PM
you couldn't pay me to live in that state.

agreed. avoid that hell hole like the plague.

Roccobro
April 19, 2010, 01:44 AM
And our home prices are still unsteady too! :eek:

Another thread of blaming, griping and swearing off of CA. And of course a revelation about that new "safe gun list" that is almost a decade old now... DC has it now too. Now THAT Is at least less than 1 year old news! :D

Justin

rmfnla
April 20, 2010, 12:29 AM
Well, not only did RR undermine our gun rights but he also closed all the state mental hospitals and threw hundreds of thousands of pathetic people onto the streets to fend for themselves in what was often a very hostile environment. Reagan has a couple of nasty black marks on his record as far as I'm concerned.
Very true. He essentially started the homeless epidemic that now infests most major cities.

zhyla
April 20, 2010, 12:49 PM
you couldn't pay me to live in that state.

That's easy to say. A friend of mine was looking to move out of CA but the jobs he was offered were payiing about 60% of what he made here. Even after figuring in the cost of living and lower state taxes it's still a significant difference.

It's not so bad here. The real bummer of the handgun roster is new gun models are required to have a magazine disconnect. Otherwise it's really not that big of an issue for most people. And of course, there are (legal) games you can play to get the gun you need into the state. Pro tip: if you're moving here, buy a bunch of desirable non-roster handguns first. They're fine to bring with you and you can make a killing selling them here.

Now "assault" rifles and magazine capacities, those are the things to bitch and moan about here.

Sniper X
April 20, 2010, 01:01 PM
I am among the thousands that moved OUT of the Commi state of Kaliforinication because of their politics and especially, their idiotic insanely stupid gun laws. I suspect millions have. This I feel is part of their reason for being bankrupt, well this and the fact they pay for all the illegals there as well, but I won't delve into that either.

ArchAngelCD
April 20, 2010, 01:09 PM
Every time a thread like this is posted the members start preaching to the quire. There is really only 1 real solution to this whole mess, VOTE OUT all the "Representatives" who will keep your God Given Rights from you and VOTE in those who will restore those rights. It's really as simple as that!

Nick5182
April 20, 2010, 01:13 PM
Man, I feel so sorry for you guys in Banifornia...that just sucks...

Roccobro
April 20, 2010, 02:07 PM
There is a game they play on Calguns.net.

Newbie signs up and cries he can't get xxxx gun he MUST have. Members go through all the ways member can get said gun. Of course this rules out *most* machine guns but the ignorant criers usually aren't looking to drop over $1k anyways.

Nope. I love it here. And I'm still here to VOTE and encourage others to as well. All the last 2 years of court cases have been going our way and there is a general plan of attack and Foundations working on pushing the limits.

No laying prone or running away for me. :)

Justin

tipoc
April 20, 2010, 03:00 PM
Yep, it's terrible here. Please stay away.

tipoc

NG VI
April 20, 2010, 03:29 PM
Check out the handgun list, for CZ.

Almost every fullsize CZ pistol has a different barrel length listed. It's like they wanted an exact number, down to the thousandth, but they didn't care how the measurer arrived at his measurement.

Manco
April 20, 2010, 03:40 PM
If people always simply moved to other places when their rights are trampled upon, then eventually there won't be any places left to move to. :uhoh:

Kingofthehill
April 21, 2010, 08:57 AM
Yep, it's terrible here. Please stay away.

tipoc

trust me, we are. I left CA to TX 8 months ago... i came here because the multi BILLION dollar company i work for left CA to TX and I as well as my fiancee came with.

there are a lot of things i miss about CA, but overall... You can keep it. LOL... and the gun situation is just a big bonus :)

Im looking at BEAUTIFUL homes for $120-150k that i couldn't find in santa clarita for less then 600k. Gas is a buck cheaper a gallon and people are friendly and will just start a conversation here... yeah, i can do without CA LOL

I still visit Calguns to see whats going on, and i still write CA politicians to put pressure on them to change the laws. I also support CA's pro gun movement 100% and do what i can to help and a failure or setback still hurts to see. I will ship to CA and don't like how others just won't ship and see CA gun owners as equal's. Having been on that end, i will always fight for CA, i just have no desire to move back to that place in its current condition.

glockman19
April 21, 2010, 11:19 AM
What I've had trouble with is this:

If a gun is determined to be "safe" then how can it be considered "unsafe" just by no longer being on the list due to nothing more than a fee was not paid.

If a gun makes the list it should stay on the list.

Sniper X
April 21, 2010, 11:23 AM
rchangel, that is over simplifing it to the N'th degree because NEVER will California have enough people who want to "vote out" the types who make these laws. There has been a super far left political body there forever. I would bet a years pay that if one took a poll there in Cali that 80% of everyone there would say they would never vote for a true conservative or a right thinking democrat.

Dave B
April 21, 2010, 09:56 PM
And when it all goes down the toilet,They will want the rest of us to bail them out.

Roccobro
April 24, 2010, 04:00 PM
If a gun is determined to be "safe" then how can it be considered "unsafe" just by no longer being on the list due to nothing more than a fee was not paid.

Good question. Stand by and see what the judges say. The whole issue of a "safe handgun" is already before the courts courtesy of the red blooded CA residents. :)

Justin

Manco
April 24, 2010, 06:53 PM
And when it all goes down the toilet,They will want the rest of us to bail them out.

California's worthless, financially corrupt government is like a major bank in that way (too big to fail)--we should let them fail. The US government uses the same scheme, by the way, expecting China to bail them out--China should let them fail, too. But nobody will let any of them fail, and so the cycle of corruption continues and intensifies.

tipoc
April 24, 2010, 09:00 PM
Most of the problems you see are not limited to or especially California's. They are America's.

When folks choose to beat on California, or any particular state for that matter, it seems to me that their eyes are focused on one or another aspect of the politics of the folks that rule that state, or they attribute some characteristic to the state that they don't like. A fella writes off all the millions of people that live in a state, all the geography and wildlife, etc. because of the idiocy of the ruling rich of that state and the two parties that serve them.

Nowdays it's politically correct to beat on California. A fella can show their solidarity with all the popular prejudices by doing so. Millions of working people have no say in the price of a house in silicon valley. I have no more say about that than I do the gun laws here. But for some it's allright to insult me and all the other high-roaders that hail from the west (I believe actually that there may be more folks on this forum from California than any other state, or at least close), it's good manners to some to tell me I'm a chump for living in the state I was born in because you don't like a law passed by both parties here. And a gun law to boot!

It's a regional prejudice. When you look at it closely it makes no sense to write off the population of a whole state because you don't like some of it's laws. Once you do that you write off your potential allies in the fight to change those laws. That ain't important to some. It is to me.

tipoc

Quiet
April 25, 2010, 01:56 AM
Good question. Stand by and see what the judges say. The whole issue of a "safe handgun" is already before the courts courtesy of the red blooded CA residents.

Pena v Cid = the court case currently pending in the Federal District Court system.
Judge ordered it on hold until the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determines the outcome of Nordyke v King, which is on hold until SCOTUS determines the outcome of McDonald v Chicago.

So, in the next 1-3 years, the CA DOJ approved list may be struck down for being unconstitutional.

Kingofthehill
April 25, 2010, 10:30 AM
So, in the next 1-3 years, the CA DOJ approved list may be struck down for being unconstitutional.

Fingers crossed!... Wish the best for you guys back in CA

ironvic
April 25, 2010, 01:08 PM
Best cure for **********'s crazy gun laws is to move. I split for another and better state. Just as beautiful as Cali, without the crowds. If more gunowners left Dodge, think of all the taxes the Golden State would lose for their stupidity.

Colton White
April 25, 2010, 03:58 PM
It's not so bad here.

Man from ********** speak, Man from Texas laugh :neener:

Roccobro
April 25, 2010, 06:15 PM
Ironvic I see you didn't bother to read half the posts in this thread before expressing your myopic opinion....

Justin

Quiet
April 26, 2010, 02:22 AM
Best cure for **********'s crazy gun laws is to move. I split for another and better state. Just as beautiful as Cali, without the crowds. If more gunowners left Dodge, think of all the taxes the Golden State would lose for their stupidity.
All the gunowners leaving CA is one of the reasons why all the anti-gun laws are getting passed in CA. All the pro-gunners still in CA are outnumbered by the anti-gunners and sheeple.

So in CA, the more pro-gun cowards leave the more anti-gun laws get passed.

CWL
April 26, 2010, 02:48 PM
"Anti-gun" laws were pushed during Ronald Reagan's terms as Governor of CA to keep guns out of the hands of blacks, American Indians and left-wing radicals. Back then, it was popular for conservatives to support that...

Learn your history everyone.

Better to understand what the real battle is and fight that (legally) in an organized manner than to think that you can move-away from the government.

Roccobro
April 26, 2010, 05:15 PM
Better to understand what the real battle is and fight that (legally) in an organized manner than to think that you can move-away from the government.

Agreed. I've been a part of several drives done to flood the in box of another State Legislatures officer. I can see the anti-2 in every state and will do what I can to stop it ANYWHERE I see it.

I just hope we are not the minority in my thinking among members on THR...

Justin

Zerodefect
April 26, 2010, 05:42 PM
I try not to judge all the people of Californiastan by their politics, but the majority of them did vote for Nancy Pelosi. Over and over again.

And I can blame everyone in that state if I want to. Has anyone over their even tried lifting a finger or getting a little dirty to fix that dumb state. I also despise my tax dollors going to that wellfare state, when that state is darn near an island paradise allready. it's time for California to rise up and fix it's own problems, or be left alone to it's own devices.

I'm in the furors socialist republic of Ohio. What have I done to help our situation? Tea parties, assemblies, disowned every single member of my familly (except for one idiot closely related) that has voted for Obama or Dennis Kucinich, ditched every single friend that has done the same.

Still trying to work out more productive means. But the folks that refuse to listen to reason have been told to stay out of my life. I don't need further bad influences.

So I'm clearly into "lets build a fence around Californiastan" or pray it falls into the ocean.

Kingofthehill
April 26, 2010, 05:55 PM
So in CA, the more pro-gun cowards leave the more anti-gun laws get passed.

If you go to Vegas and sit at a blackjack table, And you proceed to lose EVERY hand... i bet you would walk away.

Just like CA gun laws. without the occasional win or that "We did good" feeling, there isn't much reason to stick around when you have a "New Table" to go play at.

As an EX-CA resident, i still donate to Calguns foundation, and i still write CA officials.

JOe

CWL
April 26, 2010, 06:39 PM
If you go to Vegas and sit at a blackjack table, And you proceed to lose EVERY hand... i bet you would walk away.

You do know that blackjack and every other bit of gambling is designed so that the House always has favorable odds against you?

I don't find legal and responsible firearms ownership issues anything like gambling.

Zerodefect
April 26, 2010, 07:27 PM
I bet you $$$$ that Calipornistan passes another antigun law that spits on the constitution.

Hows that for gambling.

donutboi
April 26, 2010, 07:37 PM
I hate the California gun roster. I really want a light small gun to carry around the house and every where i look, people are asking for $500+ for a used Ruger LCP...

ArchAngelCD
November 30, 2013, 01:02 PM
Most of the guns on the removed link also show up on the newly added guns list. The listing needs to be renewed every two years. They are shown as being removed but also added with a new "expiration" date.

It costs something like 200 bucks to renew a listing. Once it's on the list, it doesn't come off unless the maker wants it to.
That's not what I saw looking on the pages. there are 32 pages of guns removed from the approved list and only ONE GUN added!

I noticed the S&W M442 2nd Amendment Foundation revolver was removed! I guess they decided it was counter to their agenda to have a gun for sale in their state that donates funds to fight them!!!

Even though this is a 3+ year old thread brought back from the dead!

GLI45
November 30, 2013, 03:11 PM
ArchAngelCD - Thanks for reviving this thread. I'd never seen the California lists (banned and approved) and like you was stunned! The anti gun folks have been very busy this year with 6 pages of banned handguns. It's clear when you look at the list that the ultimate goal is the ban of all handguns. Many of the guns now declared illegal don't even come close to the representing the "high magazine capacity" issue that is the rallying cry of the gun control crowd.

Can anyone explain banning standard length revolvers? Or traditional single stack 1911s? Good grief, they even banned the Buck Mark .22 which is little more than a target plinker and a .17 caliber revolver which is only half a step above a pellet gun. How does the state justify removing these guns? I don't think the Browning Buck Mark .22 is the first choice of criminal or crazies. Is there some kind of micro stamping requirement involved here?

It would appear to this outsider that the plan is to keep reducing the guns choices available to California citizens until there is little left worth having.

Thank god I'm in Texas!

Quiet
November 30, 2013, 05:32 PM
Clarification:

The Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale does not make a certain handgun illegal in CA, it only shows which handguns can be transferred to non-exempt persons.

Handguns that are currently owned in CA that are not on the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale are legal to own and transfer.

Quiet
November 30, 2013, 05:35 PM
In addition...

CA "unsafe handgun" laws which created the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale, is a prime example of what happens when gun owners do not stand together and only look out for their own self-interests.

For example...
Certain cowboy action shooting groups first opposed the "unsafe handgun" legislation.
But once they were able to get exemptions written in for single-action revolvers, they switched from opposing it to supporting it and help get it passed into law.

Quiet
November 30, 2013, 05:39 PM
Furthermore...

The Calguns Foundation and Second Amendment Foundation have filed a lawsuit (Pena v Cid) challenging the legality of CA "unsafe handgun" laws.

The case (Pena v Cid (http://ia600204.us.archive.org/23/items/gov.uscourts.caed.191444/gov.uscourts.caed.191444.docket.html)) is currently in Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

tipoc
November 30, 2013, 08:28 PM
Here is a link to the roster of guns approved for sale in California.

http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/safeguns_resp.asp


Can anyone explain banning standard length revolvers? Or traditional single stack 1911s? Good grief, they even banned the Buck Mark .22 which is little more than a target plinker and a .17 caliber revolver which is only half a step above a pellet gun. How does the state justify removing these guns? I don't think the Browning Buck Mark .22 is the first choice of criminal or crazies. Is there some kind of micro stamping requirement involved here?

You will note that the guns you mentioned are on the list as approved for sale.

Guns come on and off the roster based on whether the companies that produce the guns pay for an annual re-certification and that they pass the drop test yet again. Some are banned outright.

Poke around there and you'll see what I mean.

No one here will defend the process in California, or Hawaii, or New Jersey or New York, etc. but it's useful to have an accurate idea of what it is.

tipoc

danez71
November 30, 2013, 11:17 PM
Good grief, they even banned the Buck Mark .22 which is little more than a target plinker

Those all look like discontinued models.

Theres many many BuckMarks variations/model that they come out with. At one time a couple yrs ago they has over 30 different variations.

Currently, there are 15 BuckMarks on the approved list.

The list is dumb. For ex. the M&P9c is approved but the version with the thumb safety isn't.

Why? Because S&W didn't submit a sample and pay.

ArchAngelCD
November 30, 2013, 11:44 PM
ArchAngelCD - Thanks for reviving this thread. I'd never seen the California lists (banned and approved) and like you was stunned! The anti gun folks have been very busy this year with 6 pages of banned handguns. It's clear when you look at the list that the ultimate goal is the ban of all handguns. Many of the guns now declared illegal don't even come close to the representing the "high magazine capacity" issue that is the rallying cry of the gun control crowd.

Can anyone explain banning standard length revolvers? Or traditional single stack 1911s? Good grief, they even banned the Buck Mark .22 which is little more than a target plinker and a .17 caliber revolver which is only half a step above a pellet gun. How does the state justify removing these guns? I don't think the Browning Buck Mark .22 is the first choice of criminal or crazies. Is there some kind of micro stamping requirement involved here?

It would appear to this outsider that the plan is to keep reducing the guns choices available to California citizens until there is little left worth having.

Thank god I'm in Texas!
Actually, I didn't bring this thread back even though it looks like I did. There was another post from today before mine and my post was the first one on the 3rd page. (by a new member) Somehow that post is now gone and my post is last on the second page. I would never bring back an old thread, I would make a new thread if it was that important to me. I don't know how the other post disappeared but it did and this thread was at the top on the page when I posted.

Teachu2
December 1, 2013, 12:29 AM
Those all look like discontinued models.

Theres many many BuckMarks variations/model that they come out with. At one time a couple yrs ago they has over 30 different variations.

Currently, there are 15 BuckMarks on the approved list.

The list is dumb. For ex. the M&P9c is approved but the version with the thumb safety isn't.

Why? Because S&W didn't submit a sample and pay.

ANY changes except night sights require a separate listing - even finishes are separate. IE:
22-4 SKU 161239 / Steel Revolver 4" .45 ACP 1/5/2014
22-4 Classic (Blue) SKU 150195 / Steel Revolver 4" .45 ACP 8/29/2014
22-4 Classic (Blue) SKU 150199 / Steel Revolver 5.5" .45 ACP 8/29/2014
22-4 Classic (Color Case) SKU 150187 / Steel Revolver 4 .45 ACP 8/29/2014
22-4 Classic (Color Case) SKU 150188 / Steel Revolver 5.5" .45 ACP 10/15/2014
22-4 Classic (Nickel) SKU 150186 / Steel Revolver 4" .45 ACP 8/29/2014
22-4 Classic (Nickel) SKU 150189 / Steel Revolver 5.5" .45 ACP 10/15/2014

Mechanically the same gun, but S&W had to submit and pay for each of the seven versions....

lechiffre
December 1, 2013, 08:37 AM
No new semi-autos can be added to the CA roster unless it has microstamping

mgkdrgn
December 1, 2013, 12:03 PM
Die zombie thread die! ;-) (April 2010!)

mgkdrgn
December 1, 2013, 12:04 PM
ummmm, show me where it says that, as there are no guns with microstamping

Quiet
December 1, 2013, 06:26 PM
ummmm, show me where it says that, as there are no guns with microstamping


The law was suppose to go into effect on 01-01-2010. [PC 31910(b)(7)]

However, because of patent issues it did not go into effect and it was projected that the patents would expire in 2025.

Then CA Attorney General Kamala Harris certified the microstamping technology (http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/infobuls/2013-BOF-03.pdf) was not unencumbered by patents via PC 31910(b)(7)(B) and the date of effect to be 05-17-2013.

Therefore...
Starting 05-17-2013, all semi-auto pistols to be submitted for testing to be placed on the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale needs to have microstamping.

This is in addition to the requirement that all semi-auto centerfire pistols have a "chamber load indicator" & a "magazine disconnect mechanism" [PC 31910(b)(5)] and all semi-auto rimfire pistols have a "magazine disconnect mechanism" [PC 31910(b)(6)].



CA Penal Code 31910
As used in this part, "unsafe handgun" means any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, for which any of the following is true:
(b) For a pistol:
(5) Commencing January 1, 2007, for all center fire semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015, it does not have both a chamber load indicator and if it has a detachable magazine, a magazine disconnect mechanism.
(6) Commencing January 1, 2006, for all rimfire semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015, it does not have a magazine disconnect mechanism, if it has a detachable magazine.
(7)(A) Commencing January 1, 2010, for all semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015, it is not designed and equipped with 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, provided that the Department of Justice certifies that the technology used to create the imprint is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions.
(B) The Attorney General may also approve a method of equal or greater reliability and effectiveness in identifying the specific serial number of a firearm from spent cartridge casings discharged by that firearm than that which is set forth in this paragraph, to be thereafter required as otherwise set forth by this paragraph where the Attorney General certifies that this new method is also unencumbered by any patent restrictions. Approval by the Attorney General shall include notice of that fact via regulations adopted by
the Attorney General for purposes of implementing that method for purposes of this paragraph.
(C) The microscopic array of characters required by this section shall not be considered the name of the maker, model, manufacturer's number, or other mark of identification, including any distinguishing number or mark assigned by the Department of Justice, within the meaning of Sections 23900 and 23920.

Frank Ettin
December 2, 2013, 01:43 PM
...Guns come on and off the roster based on whether the companies that produce the guns pay for an annual re-certification and that they pass the drop test yet again. Some are banned outright...This isn't entirely accurate. The renewing gun doesn't have to be re-tested. The manufacturer merely has to pay the renewal fee.

If a model has been discontinued, a manufacturer will generally not continue to pay the renewal fee, and so that model drops off the roster.

tipoc
December 2, 2013, 02:08 PM
Thanks for the clarification.

tipoc

KimberUltra
December 2, 2013, 08:55 PM
I'm surprised CT doesn't have a list

astra600
December 2, 2013, 09:29 PM
None of those links will come up for me. Can I give my niece in CA her great grandfathers Colt vest pocket 25acp from here in NV?

tipoc
December 2, 2013, 11:00 PM
I'm surprised CT doesn't have a list

Try here...

http://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/law/firearms.htm

Here is the Ct. list of banned "assault weapons", or at least the update of it.

http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/slfu/firearms/assault_weapons.pdf

tipoc

tipoc
December 2, 2013, 11:07 PM
None of those links will come up for me. Can I give my niece in CA her great grandfathers Colt vest pocket 25acp from here in NV?

Copy and paste then.

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms

Go here and ask...

http://www.calguns.net/

tipoc

Frank Ettin
December 2, 2013, 11:56 PM
...Can I give my niece in CA her great grandfathers Colt vest pocket 25acp from here in NV?

If the handgun is more than 50 years old it is exempt from the roster. BUT because you are a resident of one State and she is a resident of another, under federal law you will need to ship it to an FFL in California to have it transferred to her. You may not ship it to her directly or just hand it to her.

evan price
December 3, 2013, 07:00 AM
The Smith & Wesson Model 10 revolver...iirc there is only a single Model 10 on the approved list. Considering how many millions of Model 10s are out there...if it's not that exact model and dash number and barrel/finish...you can't have one. Riddle me that, how that makes things safer.

bainter1212
December 3, 2013, 07:16 AM
The Smith & Wesson Model 10 revolver...iirc there is only a single Model 10 on the approved list. Considering how many millions of Model 10s are out there...if it's not that exact model and dash number and barrel/finish...you can't have one. Riddle me that, how that makes things safer.

Revolvers are exempt from the CA Roster.

Quiet
December 3, 2013, 11:10 AM
Revolvers are exempt from the CA Roster.
That's not entirely correct and the majority of revolvers are not exempt.

Dimensionally compliant single-action revolvers are exempt from CA's "unsafe handgun" laws. [PC 32100(a)]

C&R revolvers are exempt from CA's "unsafe handgun" laws. [PC 32110(g)]

All other revolvers must comply with CA's "unsafe handgun" laws. [PC 31910(a)]



Penal Code 31910
As used in this part, "unsafe handgun" means any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, for which any of the following is true:
(a) For a revolver:
(1) It does not have a safety device that, either automatically in the case of a double-action firing mechanism, or by manual operation in the case of a single-action firing mechanism, causes the hammer to retract to a point where the firing pin does not rest upon the primer of the cartridge.
(2) It does not meet the firing requirement for handguns.
(3) It does not meet the drop safety requirement for handguns.

Penal Code 32100
(a) Article 4 (commencing with Section 31900) and Article 5 (commencing with Section 32000) shall not apply to a single-action revolver that has at least a five-cartridge capacity with a barrel length of not less than three inches, and meets any of the following specifications:
(1) Was originally manufactured prior to 1900 and is a curio or relic, as defined in Section 478.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(2) Has an overall length measured parallel to the barrel of at least seven and one-half inches when the handle, frame or receiver, and barrel are assembled.
(3) Has an overall length measured parallel to the barrel of at least seven and one-half inches when the handle, frame or receiver, and barrel are assembled and that is currently approved for importation into the United States pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (3) of subsection (d) of Section 925 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Penal Code 32110
Article 4 (commencing with Section 31900) and Article 5 (commencing with Section 32000) shall not apply to any of the following:
(g) The sale, loan, or transfer of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person listed as a curio or relic, as defined in Section 478.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

SharpsDressedMan
December 3, 2013, 11:21 AM
I am thankful for the CA handgun laws, as it has forced some fine, older, UNAPPROVED guns on to the interstate market. I have gotten a few nice guns from dealers in CA that can't sell them to their own citizens, and they often go for less than I find them for here in Ohio. Thanks, California!

evan price
December 4, 2013, 07:09 AM
The only Smith & Wesson Model 10 on the CA-DOJ approved list, is the 10-14 with 4" barrel.
No other model 10, or other barrel length of 10-14, is allowed.

Smith & Wesson 10-14 SKU 160125 / Steel Revolver 4" .38 Spl 4/11/2013

I'll second, slightly, Sharps- I got a hella good deal on some full-capacity Springfield XD9 magazines, courtesy of a California FFL who received the gun from a Free State, and had to supply ten-round mags to be compliant and sell the 15-rders out of state. But that in and of itself doesn't make me LIKE the CA laws, or the NY SAFE act, or any of the other stupid laws that make normal guns need to be neutered to be owned by us proles.

If you enjoyed reading about "California's Handgun List" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!