Attention all CA Pro-Gun Websites

[Jim March]

The issue is that once "safety tested", handguns require a $100-a-year "bounty" to remain listed, otherwise they're declared "unsafe" by specific model.

Only the manufacturer is allowed to pay that bounty, or in a few limited cases importers. NOT dealers, not the public, not NRA/SAF/etc.

So if a manufacturer comes out with a new model, they stop paying the bounty in order to limit used-gun sales and force new product sales. Cute.

In this case, a lot of new models available in other states will be eventually banned in California as they won't be able to meet the new requirements. The wording of the "loaded chamber indicator flag" rule is particularly troubling.

Will major makers like Glock, S&W, etc. continue producing their old "grandfathered" models for the California market, while producing new models for the remaining "free states"?

This seems unlikely, esp. if the new non-California models include any improvements in safety.

Because of legal liability.

Consider: up through 1972, Ruger produced SA wheelguns with no safety ("five up carry only" like an 1873 Colt SAA). In '73 they came out with transfer-bar safeties. This caused a problem: the company had essentially admitted that a safety improvement was needed, and hence the older models were "unsafe". (Only if you were an idiot and loaded 'em six-up, but let's not go there...) So they announced a free transfer-bar upgrade for all prior SAs, and they're STILL doing retrofits, all this to avoid lawsuits.

Fast-forward to 2007. S&W's model 4006 is still listed. They come out with the 4006PC with a new lock onboard for national sale. Yes, they could keep paying the bounty and continue shipping the 4006 to California and ship the 4006PC everywhere else.

Not a good idea.

"Mr. S&W Exec, can you please explain to the jury why you deliberately sold a gun here in California that doesn't have the safety features you sell everywhere else!? HUH!?!?!"

And we haven't even gotten to the issue of "what if a manufacturer dies and cannot keep paying the stupid $100 bounty?" (remember: nobody else is allowed to).

Upshot: the bill is a long-term recipe for tightening restrictions.

 

[MikeHaas]

>Suing over CCW issuance is one item where we don't need to beg the indulgence of wildly liberal Legislators... I don't know whey you're even concerned with it.

Because in the almost 40 states that have relaxed CCW, NONE WAS OBTAINED VIA LAWSUIT. If you ever expect to get relaxed CCW, it will have to be with the support of law enforcement AND legislators, just like everywhere else, NOT with tactics which try to force such radical change on the system. Do you really think that California courts are going to go against the wishes of the legislature AND law enforcement and give everyone in the state a CCW because of "equal protection under the law?" You believe you are going to get that kind of support in a state that doesn't even recognize your right to Keep-And-Bear-Arms?

And don't think these lawsuits have brought ANYTHING but made it harder for law enforcement and gun-owners to cooperate on not only relaxed CCW, but all kinds of gun issues. In-your-face tactics like this only help turn LEO against us. Did you klnow that some of the LEO's that are being sued by your "crusader" are some of the most CCW-friendly sheriffs in the state?

>As far as AB1044, the state *still* has lists of gun owners... all we don't have now is the central repository of information that would have helped on the CCW issue.

The state HAVING a list of registered handgun owners is an entirely different thing than GUN-OWNERS *SUPPORTING* THE GOVERNMENT IN ESTABLISHING MORE SUCH LISTS. Once you agree with the government that it is a good thing to do, "Katie bar the door". We could no longer oppose such practices on a more-widespread basis. After all, we would have agreed to them!

And guess what - AB1044 did more good things other than protect CCW applicant provacy - it insulated local CCW procedures from CADOJ influence. No longer can CADOJ dictate CCW procedures and form items to local jurisdictions from afar.

It also insulates all local CCW forms from an important source of big government interference - because of AB1044, local CCW applications are now exempt from the California Administrative Procedures Act.

It's called isolating local CCW procedures from state influence, the kind of influence that imposes regulations and burdens on applicants from that far-off land called Sacramento.

I can't believe that anyone who supports gun-rights can argue with PREVENTING ESTABLISHMENT OF GOVERNMENT LISTS OF GUN-OWNERS and INSULATING LOCAL CCW POLICIES AND FORMS FROM STATE INFLUENCE. Those are good things, plain and simple.

And remember, without AB1044, it was only more convenient to investigate CCW abuse, and there was never a guarrentee that such abuse could be established. I think I've made an excellent case that "convenience" is not worth betraying gun-owners privacy and allowing the state to keep their fingers in local CCW procedures. AB1044 was a VERY good thing indeed.

We simply can't give our enemies such gifts on silver platters just because it makes someone else's "claim to fame" easier. And personally, I haven't seen ONE IMPROVEMENT in CCW policies anywhere as a result of those "in-your-face" efforts. All I've seen is the government dig their heels in even farther.

It's not going to get you there, folks - it's going to do the opposite. There is ZERO evidence to believe you are going to get CCW reform via the courts and much to suggest the pratice is self-defeating on a grand scale.

Remember, I have much experience with your "CCW crusader". I once gave him a job. In fact, he started his "go to court" activity in MY COUNTY (Contra Costa), was a member of MY NRA MEMBERS' COUNCIL. Before he failed and moved on he succeeded only in turning our county sheriff 100% against gun-rights. His lawsuit was thrown out on summary judgement and I was left with a county sheriff that would no longer speak to pro-gun activists. That sheriff went on to take strong anti-gun positions on the state committee that planned the SB23 implementation. If someone offers to come and fight YOUR sheriff with lawsuits, I suggest you decline.

Mike Haas

(Minor editing by Art)

 

[MikeHaas]

>The issue is that once "safety tested", handguns require a $100-a-year "bounty" to remain listed, otherwise they're declared "unsafe" by specific model.

That is not due to SB489, but part of the law that requires safety testing.

>Only the manufacturer is allowed to pay that bounty, or in a few limited cases importers. NOT dealers, not the public, not NRA/SAF/etc.

>So if a manufacturer comes out with a new model, they stop paying the bounty in order to limit used-gun sales and force new product sales. Cute.

Has absolutely nothing to do with SB489. Manufacturers could play that game before SB489 was passed.

>In this case, a lot of new models available in other states will be eventually banned in California as they won't be able to meet the new requirements.

Not really. Most manufacturers are adopting these features as standard faire regardless of what CA does or doesn't do just like they include trigger locks in places where the law doesn't require them. That's because it's good PR to provide safety features.

Can anyone name a new semi-auto that doesn't have these features? I suggest by 2006, there will be very few if any. And it's not until 2007 that new centerfire semi-auto models will be required to have both.

But lets be accurate here... if ALL EXISTING SEMI-AUTO DESIGNS ARE GRANDFATHERED IN, and NEW models (post 2006/2007) of semi-auto handguns are STILL BEING APPROVED FOR SALE AND IMPORTATION, one cannot credibly claim that SB489 represents any kind of gun "ban". The use of that term is pure hype. Imagine that - a representative from a small pro-gun outfit (one that vys for the same RKBA dollars as NRA) trying to "hype" an issue. Who'da thunk it?

What SB489 does is simply increase the number of features NEWLY-DESIGNED semi-autos must have to be approved for sale after 2006/2007. As such, it was HUGELY WATERED DOWN FROM IT'S ORIGINAL FORM, which would not have grandfathered in ANY handguns.

The reader would do well to understand the implications of 2003...

1. Whether you have been led to believe they are good ideas or not, NRA was able to pass FIVE bills that they supported. In recent years, NO PRO-GUN BILLS WERE PASSED AT ALL.

2. The anti-gunners tried to pass SIX major anti-gun bills (even more if one considers the ones that never came close to passage) - FIVE of which didn't make it. (And I hope we can ALL agree they were ALL bad ideas?)

3. The one that they DID squeeze through (by 1 vote), THEY had to compromise out the provisions they wanted most. (They had to pass something - otherwise they would have been SKUNKED in 2003).

If we compare 2003 with the average Gray Davis-term year, where at least one major anti-gun initiative would be passed and none of the pro-gun measures would make it, if you can't see how 2003 was A Banner Year for California Gun-Rights, I don't know what else to say.

Note I didn't say The End of California Gun Control, just that 2003 was the best year for gun-rights in a looong time, and it's absolutely true.

But it appears that some want to stay convinced that gun-owners are losers and the situation is hopeless, so dire that we have to try dangerous and outrageous chances with our rights. Friends, we have just turned the corner, and if we work together on legislation and elections, it will continue.

The keys are patience, unity and hard work. It's not what some want to hear, but then again, I won't try to sell you magic bullets, either.

Mike Haas

 

[Gordon Fink]

Each year AG office can re-test up to 5% of the roster at their expense to check for continuing compliance.

Mr. Haas, like I said, I do hope your optimistic interpretation is correct. However, Inoxmark has also reminded us of another potential “gotcha.†The DOJ can still remove a few “grandfathered†semi-automatic handguns from the approved list each year, regardless of any “exemption†in SB489.

~G. Fink

 

[Jim March]

And guess what - AB1044 did more good things other than protect CCW applicant provacy - it insulated local CCW procedures from CADOJ influence. No longer can CADOJ dictate CCW procedures and form items to local jurisdictions from afar.

It also insulates all local CCW forms from an important source of big government interference - because of AB1044, local CCW applications are now exempt from the California Administrative Procedures Act.

It's called isolating local CCW procedures from state influence, the kind of influence that imposes regulations and burdens on applicants from that far-off land called Sacramento.

OK, now THAT is a lie. A huge one.

Cal-DOJ had control over the application forms starting with new law effective 1/1/99 (AB2022). They had a six-month period to come up with new forms. After that, all local forms and processes other than the state process were banned. This was existing pre-AB1044 law.

That pre-AB1044 law also mentioned the "California Administrative Procedures Act" all right - it said that any significant "excercise of regulatory authority" by Cal-DOJ needed to comply with administrative procedures, such as public comments on said regulation, public hearings, publication of the regs, etc.

Instead, during the first half of '99 they set up the forms so as to RADICALLY change the application process, hiding the "good cause for issuance" statements under the "police investigator's notes" clause of the Public Records Act. "Good cause statements" were specifically made public by the California Supreme Court back in 1986 (CBS vs. Block, http://www.equalccw.com/cbsvblock.html).

In 2001 Chuck Michel asked DOJ where in hell they got the authority to overturn the California Supreme Court with a form layout. Their answer: "we used our regulatory authority".

On 6/18/02 I asked the same question, but having talked to Chuck I knew what the answer was going to be. Sure enough, the response "we used our regulatory authority" was met with my next question:

"Fine, so where's the records of public comments you took, where were the public meetings, where is the notice of regulation and regulation number published with the Office Of Administrative Law, or any other evidence that y'all complied with the administrative law rules that AB2022 laid on you?"

THAT question was met with one word by Tim Reiger (DOJ firearms division attorney): "OOPS".

Busted. The sumbiches rigged the form in '99 and didn't even come close to doing it legally even if they COULD overturn the California Supremes.

So in '03, DOJ passed AB1044 which relieved them of the need to follow the administrative law rules (public comment/meetings/etc) on the CCW application forms.

It had nothing at all to do with the bizarre local rules that have sprung up all over, and will have no effect on those.

The purpose of this clause isn't to "protect gun owners" - it's to try and retroactively legalize a massive illegal blunder in the forms creation process by DOJ. Now, DOJ doesn't have to change the forms at all - they can just run with the cooked-up mess of '99 and with no administrative law oversight, nothing can be done.

'Cept go to court and blow the whistle.

 

[Jim March]

Everything anyone EVER wanted to know about AB1044 is attached to this message. This was a "briefing paper" used to explain to lawyers what was going on, before the current lawsuit started.

-----------

On Mike's second post above on the "safety list":

Mike, you don't get it yet. Sure, S&W and the others would LIKE to produce newer, safer models for the entire US. Normally, that'd be fine.

The problem is that California has now banned this, with the newest law.

It's not POSSIBLE to make a giant "red waving flag" of a "loaded chamber indicator". So no new models regardless of safety improvement can be added to the roster once this kicks in.

Therefore newer, safer guns available in other states will be banned here in California. Leaving the gun makers with just one remaining choice: continue making the older model for the Calif market, as they're "grandfathered in" prior to the loaded chamber idiocy.

But that would cause liability problems from hell.

 

[MikeHaas]

Jack, I've researched the issue about SB238 reducing the violation for an unregistered AW from a wobbler to an infraction. I've gone all the way to the people who worked this issue at the capitol.

I did this because if one just relies on what the bill says, it appears Jack is right, that it was an infraction before. But one has to take a bit of history in context here, because what the law stated before was invalidated by a court decision.

We have to go back to when Dan Lungren was Atty General.
(No, I don't want to, you can't make me... - Relax, it's just for purposes of discussion - Oh, thank God!)

Based on that section of the law, Lungren was allowing people to register their Roberti-Roos AWs past March 30, 1992 (the deadline in the Roberti-Roos law). They would be charged with an infraction and permitted to register their guns at that time.

Then HCI sued, claiming the Roberti-Roos law did not permit that. They won. This is described in a (bad) fax posted at...
http://nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/lockyer2.gif
...to quote the relevant section: "...the Department of Justice had no authority to register assault weapons after March 30, 1992...". By the same decision, violators could then be charged only with the wobbler. reference another quote from that bad fax...
"...If you possess a prohibited assault weapon in California that you possessed before June 1, 1989 and did not register the weapon until after March 30, 1992, you may be subject to criminal prosecution..."

That resulted in the SECOND state-wide confiscation by California (the first was SKS sporters - another Lungren fiasco), chronicled at...
http://nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/calockyer.html
(The above referenced document is part of the order for owners to turn in their guns, displayed in that report)

After that decision, there were no more 'infractions' or guns being returned (even thought the provision was still listed in the law, it had been trumped by the court decision).

So, in SB238, NRA was trying to get things back the way they were before that court decision - back to it being an infraction and being able to get the gun back and register it. As I said before, Perata had NO PROBLEM with this, but the chairman of the committee (don't remember the name or I'd note it) Perata was on killed the return of the gun. NRA didn't want guns to be destroyed, but nobody was getting them back anyway - at least with the amendments NRA managed to get into SB238, the violation was once again being considered an infraction, despite the confiscation and destruction of the gun.

THink about it: if you got caught in this mess, what's better? Staying out of jail and NOT getting your gun back OR going to jail and NOT getting your gun back? because that's the only choices NRA had at the time. Of course, they acted to keep gun-owners out of jail.

So, while the abstract doesn't clearly reflect these events because it doesn't mention the court decision, SB238 did, in fact, once again allow those caught with an unregistered "AW" to be charged only with an infraction.

Mike Haas

 

[MikeHaas]

>>It's called isolating local CCW procedures from state influence, the kind of influence that imposes regulations and burdens on applicants from that far-off land called Sacramento.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>OK, now THAT is a lie. A huge one.

I'm not the one around here promising people magic pills.

Don't listen to SPIN. NRA is being consistent here. there is NEVER a reason to support the government keeping lists of gun-owners.

As far as insulating local CCW policies from Sacramento interference, it's right in the bill, folks (now I'm quoting AB1044 after SB238 and SB489!)...

...Existing law specifies requirements and provides a procedure for
obtaining a license to carry a firearm. Existing law also provides
for a committee convened by the Attorney General to develop a
standard application form for these licenses. Existing law
authorizes the Attorney General to adopt and enforce regulations
relative to these licenses.
This bill would recast those provisions relating to the committee
to authorize it to review and revise the license application form.
The bill would also delete the provisions authorizing the Attorney
General to adopt and enforce regulations relative to the licenses,
and would provide instead that the license application forms are
deemed a local agency form exempt from the Administrative Procedures
Act.

So, do you support CADOJ being able to change your local CCW procedures at their whim?

Remeber the old saw All politics is local? Where do you think you have a better chance relaxing your CCW systems at this time - at the state level or LOCALLY? Or... begging a judge to agree with you?

And remember, March's fix for these problems is to take everyone to court. GOD HELP US - not only does this entrench the system even MORE STRONGLY against citizen carry, how many times are gun-owners going to seek relief from the CA courts and then get bitch-slapped into a worse position? Does Silveira ring a bell? Now Mr. March want to prod the court into taking action, but who is to say it will be action we LIKE? I remind you, he hasn't won a single case yet. In my county, when he first tried his shenanigans, he was submitting COURT PAPERS WITH HAPPY FACES ON THEM!!!

Mr. March wants to move the fight from the legislative arena, where citizens have input, to the courts, where only LAWYERS are allowed to speak and decisions are only appealable to a HIGHER court. I don't have that much faith in CA courts. Do you?

Folks, relaxed CCW is a complicated issue. I've seen plenty to convince me that Mr. March doesn't really understand much about it, about lobbying (has anything he's supported actually passed?) or protecting gun-rights in general. The ideas he supports spell disaster for the California gun-owner.

What kind of gun-rights lobbyist has one answer for everything - SUE? Answer: an inexperienced one.

Mike Haas

 

[MikeHaas]

IMO, Mr. March should provide an example where SUING FOR CCW has worked, and worked IN CALIFORNIA. (Or suing for any gun-related "right".)

His track record is seriously bad. I can provide an example where he has failed MISERABLY at it (in my own Contra Costa), but NONE where he has succeeded, or even come CLOSE. (He was dismissed summarily in CoCo county - not even enough credibility or standing to get a court to listen.)

Think about the LEO community. Clearly there are different opinions about CCW there. More counties issue CCWs in California than not. When Mr. March charges sheriffs en masse with collusion (which is a serious crime), do you think he helps or hurts support for CCW in their ranks? I suggest his kind of wide attack just hurts pro-gun sheriffs who might otherwise want to change things.

It's arguable that he's setting back relaxed CCW years with these in-your-face attacks on government officials. CCW has only passed in states where law enforcement and the legislature are SUPPORTIVE. In how many states has an otherwise successful relaxed CCW effort been stopped COLD by A SINGLE VOTE. I can think of 2. And Mr. March just keeps making enemies of gun-owners and law enforcement, all the way to CADOJ.

I sincerely hope the damage he is doing isn't being associated with gun-rights efforts in general - that he is viewed by law enforcement and the legislature as the kook he is. Otherwise, the negativity he sews in official circles can easily come back to negatively affect our fight in other areas, such as protecting ranges, hunting & shooting lands and the like. We NEED good relations with law enforcement and other entities to change OTHER abuses of our freedoms.

California is becoming more and more isolated with their anti-CCW policies. What is it - 80% of the rest of the country now have relaxed CCW? That will have an effect here, eventualy. Remember - patience, unity and hard work. And the lack of those qualities just sets us back.

Think about it: suing the government in an attempt to force it to give you what it doesn't want to... yeah, that's worked real well for gun-owners in California, right? Can you think of even a single case where that has worked well as a strategy for gun-owners?

I don't think Mr. March can, either. Yet, it's his answer for the CCW problem. How's that supposed to work again?

Mike Haas

 

[Gordon Fink]

… Leaving the gun makers with just one remaining choice: continue making the older model for the Calif market, as they’re “grandfathered in†prior to the loaded chamber idiocy.

To be fair, they can also add magazine-disconnect “safeties.â€

Now, Mr. Haas, you really should lay off the personal attacks against Jim March. You make yourself look bad and weaken the very good points you otherwise make. Mr. March is doing what he thinks is right, just as the NRA purports to do.

That said, why doesn’t the NRA (and/or CRPA) have its allies in the Legislature introducing pro-gun bills every single year? We certainly get new gun-control legislation every year, but where are the repeal attemps on the “assault-weapons†ban? Where are the shall-issue CCW bills? Where are they?

We have to be as aggressive as the gun controllers if we ever want to take back our rights. And do you know what will be the first thing they do if we do ever legislate concealed-carry reform? They’ll sue for an injunction.

~G. Fink

 

[jnojr]

His track record is seriously bad. I can provide an example where he has failed MISERABLY at it (in my own Contra Costa), but NONE where he has succeeded, or even come CLOSE. (He was dismissed summarily in CoCo county - not even enough credibility or standing to get a court to listen.)

IIRC, that was merely a issue of standing, not the merits of the case... he hadn't actually applied for and been denied a permit at the time.

Think about the LEO community. Clearly there are different opinions about CCW there. More counties issue CCWs in California than not.

Sure... the ones with no people in them! That doesn't help the vast majority of Californians. I need the Sheriff of San Diego County to issue me a CCW. It wouldn't help me if every other Sheriff in CA was handing them out like candy.

It's arguable that he's setting back relaxed CCW years with these in-your-face attacks on government officials. CCW has only passed in states where law enforcement and the legislature are SUPPORTIVE. In how many states has an otherwise successful relaxed CCW effort been stopped COLD by A SINGLE VOTE. I can think of 2. And Mr. March just keeps making enemies of gun-owners and law enforcement, all the way to CADOJ.

Mike, you're kidding yourself if the California Legilature is ever going to pass laws to fix the screwed-up ones we already have. Going to court is a less-than-ideal answer, I'll grant you... but what other option do we have? I don't see bills to fix CCW or repeal SB23 even being introduced, let along go to committee or a general vote. Where is the NRA on that? Spending their time, money, and attention on states they haven't written off as a lost cause, that's where.

California is becoming more and more isolated with their anti-CCW policies. What is it - 80% of the rest of the country now have relaxed CCW? That will have an effect here, eventualy. Remember - patience, unity and hard work. And the lack of those qualities just sets us back.

Uhhh... you seem to be forgetting that California Socialists are proud to "stand out" from the rest of the country! They do not care what anyone else does. If every other state had unrestricted CCW, we would still be in the same pickle we are now.

Think about it: suing the government in an attempt to force it to give you what it doesn't want to... yeah, that's worked real well for gun-owners in California, right? Can you think of even a single case where that has worked well as a strategy for gun-owners?

Maybe if those suits received some kind of support, rather than be dismissed as "loony" right out of the gate. Going to court is a perfectly valid way to address bad laws. The fact that the deck is stacked against gun owners just goes to show that we need unity, like you say... but unity behind action that has some possibility of success. Lobbying Sacramento to pass good laws does not have any chance of success, not without a sea change in the politics of the major population centers.

 

[Inoxmark]

>As far as submitting development versions for testing, that's not going to work. This is from the law: These handguns may not be refined or modified in any way from those that would be made available for retail sale if certification is granted. The magazines of a tested pistol shall be identical to those that would be provided with the pistol to a retail customer.

Please provide a cite. You may be right, but that's not in SB489.

Mike Haas

http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/dwcl/12125.htm
See Section 12127.

Incrementalism, chipping away little by little has worked very well for antis in the past. From SB489 it's a very small step to the ban everyone is dreading, by proposing another bill with "non-substantial technical change" removing grandfathering provision. Since a few handguns meeting the new loaded chamber definition will be in the market a year or two from now, again there will be people refusing to see it as a ban because of the available alternatives. I realize that it a pure speculation on my part, but I really think that's coming next.

Mike, you make a lot of good points above but realize that it is very common perception that NRA has given up on CA as hopelessly lost case. Like Gordon Flink pointed out, there hasn't been any pro-gun legislative activity in years. If fact we've been getting hit with new bans and restrictions every year. In this situation it shouldn't be surprising for you that any attempt to change things, misguided or not, is enjoying huge support from firearm owners, or at least from the members of internet forums.

The NRA will enjoy this support too when they finally decide to do something other than half-assed attempts to oppose the worst anti-gun bills. If Silveira is wrong, and Jim Marsh is wrong, why don't they take initiative and do things right? By now we know all to well that sitting and hoping that this time antis finally got everything they ever wanted is just not working.

 

[jnojr]

Oh, and here's an example of a lawsuit helping gun owners...

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=80544

 

[Jim March]

Oh THAT is cute, Mike. You been taking lessons from Slick Willie?

...Existing law specifies requirements and provides a procedure for obtaining a license to carry a firearm. Existing law also provides for a committee convened by the Attorney General to develop a standard application form for these licenses. Existing law authorizes the Attorney General to adopt and enforce regulations relative to these licenses.

This bill would recast those provisions relating to the committee to authorize it to review and revise the license application form. The bill would also delete the provisions authorizing the Attorney General to adopt and enforce regulations relative to the licenses, and would provide instead that the license application forms are deemed a local agency form exempt from the Administrative Procedures Act.

Yes, that was in the bill all right.

In the PREAMBLE, in the "descriptive stuff" summarizing what the bill supposedly does. It's the "quick guide" written by the bill's authors.

It doesn't have a damned thing to do with what makes it into law.

Here's the actual new law from AB1044:

----------------
(D) The standard application form described in subparagraph (A) is deemed to be a local form expressly exempt from the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act, Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
----------------

Translation: Cal-DOJ gets to write the forms, and they NO LONGER have to follow the public notice/public comments rules if they tweak the hell out of the forms.

Most likely, they won't. They did all the damage illegally back in '99, on documents shared with their five sheriff/police chief advisors marked "DOJ Confidencial" when public oversight (we're a democracy, remember?) was required.

 

[Librarian]

Mike Haas says

>The issue is that once "safety tested", handguns require a $100-a-year "bounty" to remain listed, otherwise they're declared "unsafe" by specific model.

[Mike]That is not due to SB489, but part of the law that requires safety testing.

>Only the manufacturer is allowed to pay that bounty, or in a few limited cases importers. NOT dealers, not the public, not NRA/SAF/etc.

>So if a manufacturer comes out with a new model, they stop paying the bounty in order to limit used-gun sales and force new product sales. Cute.

[Mike]Has absolutely nothing to do with SB489. Manufacturers could play that game before SB489 was passed.

and as far as that goes, he's entirely accurate.

A weapon on the list CAN fall off the list, for several reasons.

Now, because of SB489, if it is off the list on Jan 1 2006, to get back on the list it has to have at least one of magazine disconnect or loaded chamber indicator. If it is off the list on Jan 1 2007, to get back on it needs both.

Anything that stays on the list is protected; that is one change to SB489 during the process, as the original version did not exempt weapons already on the list. Anything not on the list as of the above mentioned dates has to meet the new requirements.

Maybe manufacturers will provide models that meet the new requirements. Maybe those models will even be popular, safe and useful. But I fear Inoxmark is right about incrementalism; I think it's a serious problem that this bill could not be killed.

From the bill http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0451-0500/sb_489_bill_20030924_chaptered.html

(d) (1) Commencing January 1, 2006, no center-fire semiautomatic
pistol may be submitted for testing pursuant to this chapter if it
does not have either a chamber load indicator as defined in
subdivision (c) of Section 12126, or a magazine disconnect mechanism
as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 12126 if it has a detachable
magazine.
(2) Commencing January 1, 2007, no center-fire semiautomatic
pistol may be submitted for testing pursuant to this chapter if it
does not have both a chamber load indicator as defined in subdivision
(c) of Section 12126 and a magazine disconnect mechanism as defined
in subdivision (d) of Section 12126.
(3) Commencing January 1, 2006, no rimfire semiautomatic pistol
may be submitted for testing pursuant to this chapter if it has a
detachable magazine, and does not have a magazine disconnect
mechanism as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 12126.

Side notes:

California Code of Regulations (hereafter CCR) http://ccr.oal.ca.gov

CCR §968.43. Which Handguns Must Be Tested, Who May Submit Handguns, Submission Requirements.
"c) Other than the DOJ, only the manufacturer/importer of a handgun model is authorized to submit that handgun model to a DOJ-Certified Laboratory for testing."

CCR §968.90. Roster of Certified Handguns.

(a) Within 10 days of the receipt of the Compliance Test Report, Form FD 021 (Rev. 6-00), and one prototype handgun, from the DOJ-Certified Laboratory; and the receipt of the initial annual listing fee from the manufacturer/importer, the DOJ will determine whether the handgun is not unsafe and may be sold in California. After the determination that the model may be listed, the DOJ will add the handgun model to the Roster of Certified Handguns. The listing will be valid for one year from the date the model was added to the Roster, and shall be renewed as set forth in §968.91 of these regulations.

(b) Within 10 days of the receipt of the initial annual listing fee and a request from a manufacturer/importer to have a handgun model added to the Roster pursuant to Penal Code § 12131.5, the DOJ will determine whether the handgun model may be listed without testing. After the determination that the model may be listed, the DOJ will add the handgun model to the Roster. The listing will be valid for one year from the date the model was added to the Roster, and shall be renewed as set forth in §968.91 of these regulations.

(c) A handgun model may be removed from the Roster for any of the following reasons:
(1) If the annual maintenance fee is not paid as set forth in subdivision (b) of Penal Code § 12131.
(2) If it is determined that the handgun models submitted for testing were modified in any way from those that were sold after certification was granted.
(3) If it is determined that the handgun is in fact unsafe based upon further testing.

(d) A handgun model may remain on the Roster after a manufacturer/importer discontinues manufacturing/importing the model or goes out of business provided that all of the following requirements are met:
(1) Evidence is provided that the manufacturer/importer has either discontinued manufacturing/importing the handgun model or gone out of business.
(2) The manufacturer/importer is no longer offering the handgun model to licensed firearms dealers.
(3) Either a fully licensed wholesaler, distributor, or dealer submits a written request to continue the listing and agrees to pay the annual maintenance fee as set forth in § 968.95 of these regulations. The request shall be submitted to the DOJ stating that all of the above conditions have been met.

(So, in at least the case of going out of business, a dealer could keep up the listing.)

(e) A manufacturer/importer or other responsible party may submit a written request to list a handgun model that was voluntarily discontinued or was removed for lack of payment of the annual maintenance fee. The written request must state that no modifications have been made to the model and be submitted to the DOJ together with the annual listing fee as set forth in § 968.95 of these regulations. If approved, the listing will be valid for one year from the date the model was added to the Roster, and shall be renewed as set forth in § 968.91 of these regulations.

CCR 968.95 - the annual fee is $200 for each model.