Cali rumor. True?

Really? Other than Barrett and TC, who? I am not trying to be contrary or challenge you or anything like that, but I just honestly can't think of one firearm maker that has said that to California, and a "good many" means that there is more than one that has done so. By merit of design, one could argue that pretty much all of the 1911 manufacturers have said that, but I suspect that most of them are just waiting until the last possible moment to come out with a California compliant weapon. Look, California isn't Nebraska. There are 36 million potential customers in California (as compared to NE's 1.7 million), so I don't think that anyone has told them to buzz off, and if they have they are most likely on quaaludes. Some people, like Barrett, can get away with it because there are only so many people who make .50 caliber sniper rifles that are of the quality of a Barrett rifle. I don't think Wilson, or Baer, or Nighthawk, or Ruger or SA or whoever else are in that same boat.

 

Why would they do that? Their guns are already California compliant and will remain so.

 

Massachusetts has already had this in effect for some time now. The "Approved Firearms Roster" is in full effect. One of the requirements is a loaded chamber indicator. It has to be one that they feel is good enough also. Very few new pistols are available for sale in MA. The selection is horrible because of this roster. Some companies just refuse to even submit their handguns for "testing" by MA to see if they comply. I hear that Springfield won't submit any new products because the requirements for the pistols are unclear. You can't buy any new Glock product because they have been deemed "unsafe". Yet, many police departments across that state issue Glocks. I think the State police even use them. Interesting isn't it?

 

Truth. It is now impossible for me to buy or sell a normal, god-fearing (or whatever) gas can without a "spill control" automatic spout that makes the can cost four times as much as it used to. This is not because of my state or even federal legislature; It is because of the California Air Regulatory Board.

 

CARB even has more ridiculous laws regarding the size of containers that you may ship paint in. CARB only has regulatory control in the state. If you don't live in California, then the legislators of your state decided to make it law. Blame them.

 

Folks, the CA law says either loaded chamber indicator OR magazine disconnect, not both.

Like I already posted, this can be easily done by drilling a hole in the barrel chamber so that you can visually see a brass cartridge "in the pipe". It won't affect performance.
Companies like Springfield has already done this. I like the feature.

The worst thing about this is that manufacturers will HAVE TO mold or machine raised lettering or drawing directly on gun to instruct users. This will ugly-up the gun.

As for those who post that gun companies will walk away from CA because of this -do you have a job? Would you still have your job if you suddenly lost 30% of your business? Gun companies will comply because it makes economic sense.

 

From the link I posted above:
(c)(1) Commencing May 22, 2006, the DOJ-Certified Laboratory shall conduct the required testing of a center-fire semiautomatic pistol only after ascertaining the firearm has a functioning chamber load indicator or a functioning magazine disconnect mechanism.
(2)
Commencing January 1, 2007, the DOJ-Certified Laboratory shall conduct the required testing of a center-fire semiautomatic pistol which accepts a detachable magazine only after ascertaining the firearm has both a functioning chamber load indicator and a functioning magazine disconnect mechanism.

And from: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12125.php
(5) Commencing January 1, 2007, for all center-fire semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 12131, it does not have both a chamber load indicator and if it has a detachable magazine, a magazine disconnect mechanism.

The question is, can someone see that from 2 feet away?

 

Jorg,
You are right, I was reading older legislation.
We're skrewed.

 

It'll be interesting to see how many makers try to get new pistols into the market, or just keep selling the same approved models. With the updated requirement.

The sad part is that is the companies don't comply, California still gets what they want. Fewer guns available.

 

Jorg, the current approved models do not need any updating. This law doesn't apply to them and won't in the future unless new laws are passed.

 

Kruzr,

Currently, you are correct. I suspect that a revised list of approved guns is not very far off in Californias future...

 

Well, that's kind of the point of my question. If Model A, B, and C are already CA DOJ approved, does the Acme Gun Corp bother to make the new for 2007 Model D California compliant, or do they just continue to market A, B, and C to California and D to the rest of the country. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

 

I don't suspect so unless makers let their approvals lapse .........but I only live here.

 

Guns fall off the approved list all the time. Whether the manufacturer just chooses to not market that model for a year, or drop production, or especialy for the smaller companies has to cut back during a bad period. Some guns are simply not produced anymore so there is no company paying money yearly to keep the product on a list, which means it has become illegal to sell in CA. Models previously sold and discontinued but still in widespread curculation have nobody paying to put or keep them on a list, and so importation into the state for sale becomes illegal. This is make and model approved list, not design approved list. 1911s without these features are only legal for sale if already on the list, and kept on the list.

For example when browsing the 10mm selection of handguns in CA I was surprised to find only 8 total handguns of that caliber are allowed in CA, and most are various glock models. Three Glock 20 models, two Glock 29 models, two Kimbers, and a single S&W revolver. All those great handguns no longer marketed have become illegal to import for sale in CA, nor those models once on the list and allowed to fall off. I was interested in a few models specificly that I learned were only legal outside CA. Needless to say the same can happen for many makes and models of firearms no longer produced or considered a source of major revenue by a company. Once that happens they cannot be put back on the list without complying with the new standards. Since this would require modifying the design of a firearm, many fine quality firearms will never make it on the list, especialy those not considered a priority.

Personal I think a magazine disconnect is more of a handicap than a safety mechinism. It means your potential self defense firearm can be rendered totaly useless if the mag disconnect is pressed while carrying and the mag is slightly unseated, or the perp grabs or ejects the magazine etc. It means the handgun is that much less capable in a grappling situation. It also adds one more design component that can wear out or fail causing the button or lever pressed while the mag is inside to not register a mag is inserted (like from wear on the part from friction slowly shrinking its dimensions) when one is and making the firearm design less reliable totaly unnecessarily by design. Safety is one thing, multiple unnecessary moving parts required to all be functioning flawlessly for the gun to fire and potentialy save your life is just stupid. These are not just passive mechanical devices, these are integrated into the gun design and must be functioning for the gun to do what it is designed to do. So maybe you flattened your backup magazine a little, perhaps tumbling around with a criminal, and you go to insert it in and ..oh it does not trip the little lever that needs to be internaly pressed for the gun to fire, and the gun has becomes worthless to you even though it is loaded and otherwise ready. Nevermined your essentialy disarmed during a reload even with one in the chamber.

Does anyone else think adding an extra passive mechanism intentionaly designed to make a weapon fail even when the trigger is intentionaly pulled is foolish?

 

Yes, some drop off and you can see all those that have on the Cali DOJ website.

As far as 10MM goes, if you look at the list of all the guns that have been decertified since 2001, you won't find a single 10MM gun that was on the list.......meaning the maker submitted it for testing.......that has been removed.

The reason you don't find many approved 10MM guns are the makers don't see the market for 10MM being worth their effort to certify.

You can also cross check the decertified list and see that there are very few that were not re-certified. The list doesn't change much from year to year. Unless they want to prove a political point with their pocket (like STI), I doubt you'll see many 1911 makers allow their approved guns to lapse. They only need to sell a few guns to cover the cost of the renewal fees.

 

Not trying to be too technical here.......but there is no such thing as a 100% reliable "loaded chamber" indicator. All it tells you is whether or not there is a case in the chamber. It could be an empty case, because of an underpowered round that discharged but did not fully cycle the action. It could be an empty case because of a high pressure round from bullet setback, that stuck in the chamber and the extractor slipped off the case. The extractor could break and the indication would be an empty chamber, when in fact a loaded round is in there. Loaded chamber indicators are worthless....every chamber is loaded until a visual triple check by the shooter verifies that it is empty.

 

While I don't mind a discreet loaded chamber indicator (although I don't use them) I will NOT buy a gun with a magazine disconnect, even if it's easy to disable. I also will NOT buy a gun with an integral lock. Gun manufacturers can include such things to make their guns acceptable to meet one or two states laws, but they'll lose sales unless they also market a "free state" version that lacks all the rube goldberg devices whose sole purpose is to prevent a gun from doing what a gun is supposed to do, go bang when the trigger is pulled.

 

dude didnt you know that? all the other ones are warning shots

 

Well from that perspective there is no such thing as a 100% reliable anything.

Could be... could be....could be..... Could be Jimmy Hoffa in the chamber pushing up the loaded chamber indicator just to fool you. Just because it's POSSIBLE for an LCI to fail....doesn't mean it's PROBABLE...in fact it's highly improbable.....nor does it mean on the other hand that you should ignore proper protocol and forget about visually checking the chamber when possible. But when I wake up in the middle of the night and am not sure there's a round in the chamber and don't want to or should not turn on a light...I'll be happy to rely on the LCI rather than having nothing at all. If it had a positive failure (indicating a good round in the chamber when I had something short of that)..tap, rack, bang....if it had a negative failure (LCI indicates no round but there really is)...tap, rack, bang. Personally I'm indifferent about having an LCI or not. They may be worthless to you but I think most would disagree. Absolute statements are worthless.

 

Yep...the 10 round mag limit is the stupidest law ever passed IMO. Cuz if I had 2 more rounds in my XD40 mags who knows what I'd be capable of doing....but I'm not gonna do anything crazy cuz I only got 10. Streets are safer too...yeah right. Idiot legislators.

 

Exactly