DougB
Member
I'm frustrated that a number of handgun variations I'd like aren't approved here. The most recent one is the EAA/Tanfoglio 10mm Witness P Carry (polymer framed 10mm). I e-mailed EAA about it and received this response: "we will not invest anything for ca sorry, can't hit a moving target." While I can sympathize, this is very frustrating to a Californian. Also, I get the impression that manufacturers don't realize that when they refuse to get their guns approved for the CA, it is probably the equivalent (in terms of market) of cutting out half a dozen other average states (I wish I could find statistics on handgun sales by state in order to back up this theory - I think I read somewhere that 6,000 or so handguns are sold every week in California). It wouldn't take a very big slice of that pie to cover the cost of getting additional handguns approved.
It seems like some manufacturers are committed to the CA market and get most models approved (Ruger, S&W, Taurus, Springfield, Paraordnance, Kimber, SIG, Glock, etc.). Others get a few models approved (EAA, CZ, Firestorm, etc.). And others won't play at all (Kel-Tec, for example). Kind of intersesting that most of the "big boys" seem to think it makes economic sense to get almost their entire lines approved here. I'm sure Kel-Tec, for example, could sell a ton of P32s and 3ATs here (they are sort of a holy grail on the second hand market - the only legal way to get one now).
I wish I knew of a way to encourage manufacturers to submit additional models (the Witness mentioned above, CZs in nickel, Kel-Tec P23/3AT, etc.). I'd be happy to pay an extra $10 or so per gun as a "California testing fee" to the manufacturer if there were a way to do this, but I'm not sure how they'd manage this through the distributors. Maybe they could allow sales only to "authorized dealers" in CA who pay the manufacturers a fee to subsidize the CA testing fees. I regularly e-mail manufactures and request that they submit guns, but most who don't already submit most of their models don't seem interested. Anybody got other ideas? (Other than replacing our lawmakers - which I'd love to do).
Doug
It seems like some manufacturers are committed to the CA market and get most models approved (Ruger, S&W, Taurus, Springfield, Paraordnance, Kimber, SIG, Glock, etc.). Others get a few models approved (EAA, CZ, Firestorm, etc.). And others won't play at all (Kel-Tec, for example). Kind of intersesting that most of the "big boys" seem to think it makes economic sense to get almost their entire lines approved here. I'm sure Kel-Tec, for example, could sell a ton of P32s and 3ATs here (they are sort of a holy grail on the second hand market - the only legal way to get one now).
I wish I knew of a way to encourage manufacturers to submit additional models (the Witness mentioned above, CZs in nickel, Kel-Tec P23/3AT, etc.). I'd be happy to pay an extra $10 or so per gun as a "California testing fee" to the manufacturer if there were a way to do this, but I'm not sure how they'd manage this through the distributors. Maybe they could allow sales only to "authorized dealers" in CA who pay the manufacturers a fee to subsidize the CA testing fees. I regularly e-mail manufactures and request that they submit guns, but most who don't already submit most of their models don't seem interested. Anybody got other ideas? (Other than replacing our lawmakers - which I'd love to do).
Doug