I think we need to work with the legislators to get them to define what the gun laws are supposed to do.
All the things in the Penal Code are supposed to deal with punishing 'bad' behavior, and discouraging 'bad' behavior by threat of punishment; of course, not everyone can be discouraged.
In general, I think gun laws are supposed to keep guns away from those 'we' have good reason to suspect will misuse them - children, mentally ill, violent criminals* - and then, to punish misuse, just as laws against robbery and murder punish behaviors.
'safe gun' lists do not do either of those - they interfere in product liability law, where if a firearm really is dangerous to its user/owner, there might be a civil liability of the manufacturer. If California really wants a safe gun list, let them buy their own experimental copies and create a banned lst of those which fail simple safety checks. The presence or absence of 'loaded chamber indicators' and 'magazine disconnects' are not safety issues.
Restricting features of firearms do not do either of those. The AW list is conceptually a mess; I'll just stop there...
I think we'd be better off with essentially non-negotiable sentence enhancements for the actual use of firearms in committing crimes (and not the idiotic things like trading a gun for drugs counting as using a gun in a crime!).
My basic principle: a law must be shown to actually make Californians safer, via a mechanism which is understood, and with repeatable measurements that demonstrate a change in behavior which reduces injury to the public. Or: "If you can't prove it helps, don't do it."
Now, if only we can get the Perata's and Koretz's of the state to accept some such governing principle.
(* yes, I do subscribe to the idea "if we can't trust them with guns, why are they out of jail?", but most people don't, and I don't see that changing.)