Taurus PT145 No Longer Approved in CA - Wake Up Taurus!

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DougB

Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2003
Messages
245
Location
California
I'm pretty frustrated with the situation regarding the status of the Taurus PT145 Millennium Pro (SA/DA) in California. This gun has been approved for sale here in CA for several years and is popular (I know quite a few people who own them - including me). Apparently there has been some issue with Taurus thinking that they aren't approved, though they clearly were listed on the CA approved list, and sold by many CA dealers without an issue. Several versions were on the approved list. They didn't have to have "CA" in the model number (at least they weren't listed this way on the DOJ website, and there was no problem with dealers processing the sales, or getting the guns).

I may be mistaken, but I think whoever is in charge of these decisions at Taurus doesn't understand CA law (I can't blame them too much - but this mistake will cost them a lot of sales here). Once a gun is approved, it can stay on the list as long as they pay the annual fee. The big cost is the initial approval (testing, etc.). Once a gun is on the list, I think the cost is fairly nominal to keep it there (they don't have to re-test - just pay a re-listing fee every year). I've heard that the SA/DA trigger is a problem, but that doesn't make any sense, since other Taurus guns (PT140, PT111, and probably many others) have the same trigger mechanism, and are approved. Also, many single-actions with manual safeties (which these guns have) are approved here. Already approved guns don't need to meet the newer requirement (loaded chamber indicator, etc.). It seems like Taurus (and some other manufacturers) get the idea that they need to change their models to conform to every new CA law, when in fact, once they have a model approved, it is good as long as they keep paying the annual fee (which is stupid and frustrating, but that's another topic).

A friend of mine wants a PT145, and I was thinking of getting a second one, so the fact that Taurus has evidentily decided not to renew this model is very aggrivating. I suspect that even now, after the gun has been off the list for a month or so, if Taurus would send in the fee, the PT145 models would be back on the approved list and selling steadily here again.

I called Taurus about this today, but the customer service rep just said it was a problem with wht SA/DA trigger being approved. Didn't make much sense to me, given the other models with the same trigger. I think Taurus needs to look at this again.

Doug
 
If I owned a gun company or any company for that matter I'd specifically not do business with the state of California, despite the populaton and potential for big $$$. Frankly I'm sick of that state influencing us here in Oregon and its unAmerican/Unconstitutional ways. I wish they'd seceed or fall under the control of Mexico. Its gotta be a pain in the arse for gun companies to deal with modifying their line of firearms specifically for California, Massachusetts, Jersey, York and Maryland due to their residents wanting more restrictions on guns. Its not Taurus' fault.
 
I am sympathetic with your sentiment, but I'll bet there are many times as many gun owners in CA as there are in Oregon (or most other states) - it's just that we are outnumbered and the state is controlled by Democrats (I know that not all Democrats are anti-gun, but enough of them are to get these laws passed here in CA). It is frustrating to always be told on gun forums that I'm part of the problem because I happen to live in CA (I vote pro-gun every time, as do many, many others).

I don't blame Taurus for the dumb laws we have here, but I do blame them for dumb/misinformed business decisions that impact my access to their fine products. They already incurred the trouble and expense of getting these guns approved, but then (apparently) let them drop off the list for some reason. Why not just pay the relatively small extortion required by the state, and keep selling your guns here? Based on what little I've been able to find out from Taurus, their reason for letting these guns drop off the list makes little sense.

One idea I've heard is that they may be coming out with new models, but even so, as long as the old ones are still in production, why not keep selling them here?

Doug
 
Doug, as long as Taurus and other companies make those particular states (CA)pay the extortion taxes and not the rest of America. Unfortunately those crazy laws passed by the marxist states get felt by all.:mad:
 
I didn't really mean for this to turn into a political discussion or California bashing/defense, so I'm going to resist further discussion along those lines. I did scratch my head a bit trying to follow what you are saying:

"...as long as Taurus and other companies make those particular states (CA)pay the extortion taxes and not the rest of America..."

But I think I know what you mean (though it's the State that makes the gun companies pay the tax - not the other way around - but I think that's what you meant).

At any rate, it seems unavoidable that a few people will have to chime in and criticize CA's gun owners when any question like this is posted - even though we are the MOST opposed to such laws. Ask yourself honestly - if Oregon (or whatever state you live in) passed a law that limited your choices in handguns to just 1,337 models (the current number approved for sale in CA - not counting single-action revolvers, which don't need to be on the list), would you leave your home, work, family, and friends and move to another state to "teach those politicians a lesson" (which is probably exactly what they'd like you to do anyway)? It's easy to say "just move" when it isn't you.

Anyway, I'm sure we're on the same side - I'm just trying to give the CA gun-owner's perspective (and deviating far from my own topic).

Doug
 
Ask yourself honestly - if Oregon (or whatever state you live in) passed a law that limited your choices in handguns to just 1,337 models (the current number approved for sale in CA - not counting single-action revolvers, which don't need to be on the list), would you leave your home, work, family, and friends and move to another state
Click to expand...
Yes, and I did.

California is insufferable.
 
I suspect that someone in the California government started to nit-pick over something in the pistol's trigger system. That left Taurus with the choice of either spending the money for redesign and retooling just to make the authorities in California happy - but only until they found something else to complain about - or taking the pistol in question out of the California market.

At this point they may: (1) try to come up with a solution at they're expense, or (2) decided to tell California to pound sand. All of this is unfortunate for those that live there, but if you are going to get mad, pick on the right people - and it isn't the folks at Taurus. :cuss: :banghead:
 
Doug, I bet your an awesome guy and its unfortunate you live in a state that doesnt grant you the freedoms you deserve, but I'm not gonna be light hearted about Cali. I sincerely despise their laws & politics. I love what the state offers on the nature front.:D My backpack adventure across the state along the Pacific Crest Trail in 2006 was awesome. It took us almost 4 months from the Mexican border to reach Oregon. Over 1,700 miles. Beautiful state with great weather and I understand why so many live there, but big nanny governement is enough for me to never want to reside there:(.
 
Am I the only one to marvel at the irony, a California gun owner raging against a gun manufacturer for not satisfying the ridiculous anti-gun demands of a marxist state, then declaring it not a political issue? :) Its all politics, all of it!
 
I believe that California can require a company to re-test at that juncture, re-listing time. Taurus may simply feel that the expense of re-testing isn't worth the price.

Has anyone ever considered that the object of these "tests" is to make the companies spend more and more to satisfy the government? Knowing that, at some point, they will simply walk away from the market.

It is up to the voters in the state to change what is occurring, not the companies.

I came to Georgia after living in Maryland for 57 years. There, you needed to bun a gun on the "approved list", with a fired shell casing, and a safety-lock. Every hand-gun, and any rifle or shotgun placed upon an arbitrary list required a police paperwork, for an additional fee, that stated that you "weren't disapproved" for the sale. One such gun every 30 days. Private sales of hand-guns, and restricted weapons also had to go through the state police. CCW was the realm of the politically connected.

Here in Georgia, it took an hour to get my CCW. I can buy any weapon in commercial sale, and private sales are just that. Yet, the state has a much lower crime rate than smaller Maryland. Go figure.

No matter what the manufacturers do, someone will always want to restrict access to firearms and the general public. California has managed to amass the votes to do it this way.
 
California has been pulling that crap on all sorts of manufacturers for a long time now to bring in extra loot, yet the dang state is still just about bankrupt. Continually needing future loot, the state surely can't afford stopping their future extortion now!!! Frankly . . .

I wouldn't blame any of the gun makers if they eventually choose to completely walk away from the extortion fees California imposes on products to declare them "safe and approved in California."
 
I was hoping someone might know some specifics about this particular gun (Taurus PT145 Millennium Pro), and why Taurus did not renew it's status as a CA-approved handgun. It may well be some new restriction the state put on, but I'd bet that Taurus just misunderstood/over-reacted to new requirements that don't apply to already approved guns. It doesn't seem logical that other Taurus handguns with identical trigger actions are still okay, and other manufacturers can continue selling similar guns that don't even have the manual safety found on the PT145. In any case, I agree (as do probably all CA gun owners) that the gun laws here are lousy and serve only to harass gun owners, sellers, and manufacturers. That said, I hate to see a good gun go off the market here if it is just because of a misunderstanding on the part of Taurus.

I guess it's hopeless to mention "California" in a post and not have to read a bunch of posts by non-Californians about how rotten our State's gun laws are, with the implication that somehow it's the CA gun owner's fault (I guess we're supposed to figure out a way to vote six times each or something?).

Doug
 
This is a bit off-subject, but does the California law prohibit possession as well as sale of "non-approved" firearms? If I moved to California, could I still own my "not approved for sale in California" weapons? If I could still own them, could I shoot them at a public range? Would I have to "register" them?
 
Wow - a state with no Taurus guns. A dream come true...

( I know, I know, I couldn't resist)

:p
 
I was hoping someone might know some specifics about this particular gun (Taurus PT145 Millennium Pro), and why Taurus did not renew it's status as a CA-approved handgun. It may well be some new restriction the state put on, but I'd bet that Taurus just misunderstood/over-reacted to new requirements that don't apply to already approved guns. It doesn't seem logical that other Taurus handguns with identical trigger actions are still okay, and other manufacturers can continue selling similar guns that don't even have the manual safety found on the PT145. In any case, I agree (as do probably all CA gun owners) that the gun laws here are lousy and serve only to harass gun owners, sellers, and manufacturers. That said, I hate to see a good gun go off the market here if it is just because of a misunderstanding on the part of Taurus.
Click to expand...
DougB, I have a friend who wants to buy a PT145 and when we went to the range, the range staff doubled checked and said PT145 was currently off their inventory list and did not know when they would get a resupply as their wholesaler could not confirm when Taurus would ship PT145 next.

According to the range staff, as to new handgun models, they now require both the magazine disconnect AND the loaded chamber indicator clearly visible from both sides. And that's why Gen4 Glocks will not be approved for California, ever (no mag disconnect and no loaded chamber indicator visible from both sides) and Glock will have to keep making Gen3 models for California (which is fine by me). The new pistols that meet these criteria are Ruger's LC9 and Taurus G2 pistols. From what they heard from the wholesalers, the range staff anticipate drop testing of both. Based on what I've been able to read so far, G2 line is essentially a marriage of M&P and Glock with SA/DA trigger, frame safety, adjustable rear sight, full ambi controls (safety/slide lock/mag release), natural grip angle, back strap inserts, etc. etc.

I am looking forward to the G2 compact in 45ACP as PT145 was not ambi-controlled and lacked the adjustable rear sight/back strap inserts. So all may not be lost with Taurus.


This is a bit off-subject, but does the California law prohibit possession as well as sale of "non-approved" firearms? If I moved to California, could I still own my "not approved for sale in California" weapons? If I could still own them, could I shoot them at a public range? Would I have to "register" them?
Click to expand...
LensWork, here's the excerpt from the California DOJ FAQ page:

25. I am moving into California and I own several handguns. What are the new-resident registration requirements?

You are considered to be a personal handgun importer as defined by California law. You may bring all of your otherwise California-legal firearms with you, but you must report all of your handguns to the DOJ within 60 days as required utilizing the New Resident Handgun Ownership Report. You are not required to report rifles or shotguns. You may not bring ammunition feeding devices with a capacity greater than ten rounds, machineguns, or assault weapons into California.
Click to expand...

If you have children, you'll need a gun safe or gun lock for all of your guns (handguns and long guns).
8. Am I required by law to store my firearms where children cannot access them?

Yes. In most cases, if you keep any loaded firearm within any premise which is under your custody or control and know or reasonably should know that a child (person under 18 years of age) is likely to gain access to the firearm, you may be guilty of a felony if a child gains access to that firearm and thereby causes death or injury to any person unless the firearm was in a secure locked container or locked with a locking device that rendered it inoperable.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Instead of complaining that gun manufacturers won't make or put any effort to follow your states assenine gun laws why don't you work at getting those laws repealed, I know that it would seem like an impossible task but it could be done.
 
Not to steer this topic any further off course than it already is, but I'm currently dating a girl in California, and my Pistol isn't on CA's Approved List(Texas, where we expect you to have two guns for each hand), and No one currently makes a 10-rounder for it. Am I up scat creek if I wanna bring it with me if she manages to talk me into moving there?

back on topic, I haven't heard much about this, but you know I'll keep my ear to the ground on it, seeing as I may end up living there eventually.
 
Am I up scat creek if I wanna bring it with me if she manages to talk me into moving there?
Click to expand...
I think you may have to follow your heart on this one ... When I married my wife, we bought his/her Glocks with sequential serial numbers ... in case of death duel. :D:eek:

1. She buys you a California legal pistol of your choice to lessen the pain of you having to move to California
2. She moves out of California to be with you in Texas (probably a better choice unless she's got a great job that's not available in Texas)

OK, back to OP
 
We have the same issue here in the Peoples Republic of Massachussetts. Taurus who? I applaud any business that does not bend over to the whim of a state Atty. General. I hate the fact that I can't buy a new Glock or Taurus in MA. But I don't blame the Manufacturers, I blame the people of MA. We (not Me) voted for these idiots. I am currently planning my families escape from this Iron Curtain State.

LNK
 
All this "marxist this" and "commie that" is silly. We are FAR from it here in the US. So far, that such hyperbole is meaningless.

What this California situation is, is a symptom of a total lack of legitimate discussion of the issues. California has many difficult issues to deal with, but when the NRA prevents any discussion, you get what the reactionary left gives you. And that is sad.

If anything, California is the greatest gift the NRA could get--they are a trade group first and foremost, and their member manufacturers still generate revenue from gun sales in the state. Perhaps even at higher margins. And the hype generated out of the state's laws is great for membership renewal rates. Just as it is great for selling commercials for radio talk.

Yes, there is a gun violence problem. But you need experts to actually create effective solutions. There are few experts on the left who really understand firearms, and there are few on the right who are willing to compromise. Instead we end up with half-a**'d, feel-good laws that don't do much but irritate law abiding citizens. Pistols needing to be "approved" by the state??? Manufacturers needing to pay for such "approval"??? I think the recent Supreme Court ruling will eventually force such laws to be more narrowly tailored to actually accomplish something other than irritation and tax revenue.

I am in high tech, and am about to get transferred to Cali because that is where the action is for my industry. But I am prepared to become irritated. Maybe I will be irritated enough to try to do something about it...
 
DougB
I did, I told my wife when we had kids we were moving out of California. I was born in CA, but couldn't wait to get to a free state, I quit my job and we moved to Oregon when the kids came. I know lots of good people in California, but the deck is stacked against gun owners in California. Its a beautiful place, lots of great things going for it, but it's being ruined...
As to Taurus, I don't know what their issue is. I do know that a company at some point has to start thinking that all of the hoops the state makes them jump through isn't worth the trouble. When I worked in California one of my jobs was collecting rain water and sending it to a lab to be checked, another part of my job was keeping track of how much paint we used and reporting it to the state... California has lottttttsssssss of hoops to jump through and even more for gun manufacturers, its stupid. I went through the hoops to buy guns when I lived there, but in Oregon... no hoops.
I wish the situation in California would change, I would seriously consider moving back.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Glock vs CA DOJ
Replies
19
Views
2K
Soldiernurse
S
LiveLife
  • Locked
Went shopping for 1911 and got M&P 45
Replies
11
Views
872
handle02
H
P
  • Locked
Kahr PM9 just approved by CA DOJ!
Replies
6
Views
2K
PenHolder
P
P
  • Locked
Heads up, Taurus PT145 owners
Replies
5
Views
521
Preacherman
P
K
  • Locked
Taurus PT145
2
Replies
37
Views
8K
davelikegun
D
Back
Top