Californians - Ideas for getting more handguns approved here?

[DougB]

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

 

[kbsrn]

Throw

out the bums in you have in office. That is the only way you are going to gets more guns approved.

 

[J Miller]

kbsrn beat me to it. Get rid of the anti-gun politicions you have in office and vote in some supporters of the constitution.

As for the gun makers submitting products and paying fees to have one state accept them, have you given consideration to the fact that for a small company to "give" CA one of every make, model, and variaton that they make, and then pay a fee to have it tested is simply financially out of the question?

These CA DOJ rules for acceptable guns is nothing but extortion and blackmail anyway.


J

 

[Gary H]

We might have lots of people in this state, but we like to sue evil corporations, especially ones that are politically unacceptable to the left. Companies have a real legal exposure when marketing to California. Educating Californians is becoming increasing more difficult. I've helped straight "A" high school students with work that I was exposed to in the fourth grade. They are "sound bite" impressionable. In other words, they are mostly Democrats. The Democratic party in this state is hostile to your wishes. Unchecked immigration and the eternal bond between Bush and Fox make millions of illegals likely to be future voters. These are folks that have a tendency to go in the donkey column. You are not likely to find gun nirvana in California. I doubt that you can come up with a scheme to increase the availability of handguns. If you do, the majority will pass more restrictive laws to counter your efforts. We have to give thanks that we have such an outstanding governor-actor. He is doing the will of the people. He is, as I type, finalizing a compromise "Illegal Alien Drivers License" bill that includes background checks. Ya, gotta love it. What a scam. Some of you voted for him. You got what you deserve.

Buy on the used market... while you can.

 

[Mr. Mysterious]

I can understand why Kel-tec doesn't bother...

From what my friends in CA tell me it is darn near impossible to get a gun pemit...and CCW is the real purpose of the P32 and it's brethern.

They are probably playing it smart and avoiding a lawsuit...because if you want a gun for home defense you are going to choose something other than a little pocket gun.

 

[461]

They, Them, The Demopublicans, The Republicrats, it's all BS excuses, this is our state, and until We stand up and say No More then we deserve nothing.

The companies that refuse to do business in the state are not our friends, and will be the first rats to desert any ship they are on. While no one agrees more than I the stupidity of the testing procedures, the cost to the manufacturer is small to insignificant compared to the return.

I support the companies that support me. I buy one handgun a month, afterall it is the law.

 

[Gary H]

The companies that refuse to do business in the state are not our friends,

Yes, these are business enterprises and not friends. All commercial operations make business decisions and I fully understand why smaller companies don't enter this market. You don't buy their guns.. you can't buy their guns new. If I were looking where to market my firearms, California would look like a high risk, high hassle factor market.

Go fight the fight. Get those welfare moms off the dole and change that entitled attitude. Stop folks from thinking that government is the solution and that firearms are evil. Remember that the Democratic Party specializes in telling people how they are disadvantaged.. ie. you can't protect yourself, you can't get ahead because of the evils of discrimination, or corporation.. and WE.. the Democratic Party will protect you by passing laws. Good luck educating the entitled sheep who think that the money that they take from the "rich" is some other smuck's money.

 

[DougB]

I don't think any gun enthusiast here in CA would argue with changing the legislators and laws, and we are doing what we can in that area, but I still think it would make economic sense for more companies to get more guns approved for sale here. Consider this: many companies (EAA and Kel-Tec, for example) regularly run glossy half and full-page ads in gun magazines. I'll bet the cost of one of those ads is more than it would cost to get several guns approved for sale in California sale - and I'll bet being available in the CA market would result in many more sales, over a longer period of time, than a single magazine ad produces. Remember, once a gun is approved, it only costs $200/year to keep it there. Extortion, I agree, but a pretty small cost for access to a huge market of handgun buyers.

And what I'm looking for is a practical way for CA handgun buyers to bear this cost burden (I think that's fair - if I lived in another state, I'd be irritated to think my handgun prices went up because of CA law).

How about this (just of the top of my head): Someone sets up a web site where California gun buyers can vote on which specific models they would commit to buy if approved. Maybe they are required to enter their Driver's License and/or Handgun Safety Certificate number (or something) to verify that they are actual CA buyers (obviously privacy issues would have to be addressed). Then buyers could "vote" for particular guns by sending $10 or so per model to the manufacturer in exchange for a certificate or coupon indicating that they've paid toward the CA approval fee. If the model is approved within a reasonable time, buyers with such certificates get priority in buying the guns (or maybe even a partial or full credit toward the purchase). Or require buyers without such a certificate to pay a $15 testing fee at the store that goes back to the manufacturer. These fees would be dropped about six months after a gun is put on the approved list. In fact, make it $10 per vote - so if one person really wants a particular gun, he or she could purchase multiple votes - even single-handedly foot the entire testing cost. Of course, having many people "vote" for particular guns would be preferable, in that it would indicate a broader market for each of them.

Now that I think about it, there's probably no reason to worry identifying voters as actual CA buyers - who cares as long as they are willing to send in their $10.

An approach like this seems like a reasonable way to encourage manufacturers to get more guns approved.

Doug

 

[Gary H]

Doug:

Why don't you begin this process by calling Keltec and other smaller companies and asking them why they don't market to California. You don't want to go through the process without knowing their reasons.

 

[SnWnMe]

The solution I am thinking of is a COMPLETE BOYCOTT of ANY firearms sales to California. No civilian, no LE, NOTHING! Get the ammo makers onboard too!

Bring the state to it's knees. I could care less about a state government that does not represent me anymore. CHP armed with Model 10 revos? Sure! Local PDs with Colt Troopers? Looks good!

That's right, "antiquated" guns. Until the lawmakers change things.

Not likely to happen, given the spin that the press will derive from it.

 

[DougB]

I have called, and e-mailed, and talked face-to-face with Kel-Tec personnel about this. I've also contacted EAA, and others. In general, they express justifiable frustration with CA's senseless testing requirmeents, and the expense of getting guns approved. I think that if we CA gun buyers had an organized way of (1) showing that there is a significant market for models not currently approved, and (2) reimbursing them for the extra costs imposed by our state, we could get more guns approved.

I think the complete gun boycott idea, in addition to being totally unworkable, would be counter productive. Law enforcement is always going to be able to get guns (even if all U.S. gun companies agreed to this, which is VERY unlikely, do you think it would take long for foreign makers to step in and supply them?). And the idea of stopping all civilian handgun sales here is EXACTLY what the anti-gun people want - it would be a huge victory for them if, by imposing these laws, they could esentially stop all handgun sales here. I wish we could "bring the state to its knees" on this issue, but I think the reality would be just the opposite.

Doug

 

[BenW]

No civilian, no LE, NOTHING!

In my opinion, the LE exemption is one of the biggest problems we have regarding these gun control and "safety" laws in CA. Does anyone think for a second the handgun "safety certification" would have passed if the LE unions, police chiefs associations, etc. didn't get the exemption put in? Same with the state "assault weapons" bans. I mean absolutely nothing negative to any CA LE personnel here on the forum (unless you're in favor of the LE exemption to the "SAFETY" certification). I'm just looking at the politics of the matter.

 

[461]

DougB,
I think you have a workable idea here, I just have my doubts as to the manufacturers listening. I too have contacted Kel-Tec, NAA and Dan Wesson to ask them why they won't certify and have received less than inteligent responses.

As long as the rest of this country wants to believe we have a California problem instead of a national problem the situation will get worse. The opposition is dividing and conquering us, even look at the responses to this thread. Do any of you really believe that your states are safe havens for firearms, that you won't be next?

I'll pledge to support a fund to cover manufacturers expenses for certification. If I see manufacturers step up on this I'll also buy their products. My business would result in 12 handguns in the next year and I know I'm not alone.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Appeasment not only never works, but always encourages socialists to enlarge the scope of their predations.

 

[461]

By not certifying handguns the manufacturers are appeasing them, that's exactly the point of the regulations, to make manufacturers decide not to sell us any guns. Putting guns in the hands of citizens can hardly be called appeasment.

How about certifying every dang gun out there and showing that all the guns are safe? Try a lawsuit in California against a manufacturer that has had his guns certified by the state not to be unsafe.

 

[DougB]

Well said 461. And your point about it being difficult to successfully sue a manufacture over a gun has been tested and found safe by the State of California is a good one I hadn't considered - while having to pay to have guns tested is frustrating, it cold be viewed as insurance against some lawsuits.

Doug

 

[Ivy Mike]

out of curiosity, have there ever been any cases in CA about the 2nd ammendment? I mean, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...right? Why do you need permission from a state govt. to iwn a gun when you were born with the right to own whatever gun you want?

 

[Baba Louie]

I mean, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...right?

I don't think that phrase (shall not be infringed) means what you (and I... and the founding fathers) think it means, according to the Judicial system(s) in place in America today.
You might want to contact the NSSF as well and see what their take on the issue is as well since as California goes, eventually goes the rest of this country (gulp) albeit a little later than the left coast.

 

[Chuck Jennings]

How about certifying every dang gun out there and showing that all the guns are safe?

Absolutely! And I am confident that ever gun WOULD pass, since there are a number of Bryco/Jennings pistols on the "safe" list!!

 

[DougB]

Yes, that really highlights the pointlessness of the law. Take a nearly non-existent problem (unsafe gun designs) and create a restrictive, expensive, beaurocratic, government solution. I wonder if ANY guns have failed? Are there any numbers to show that people are being injured at a greater rate in other states due failures caused by unsafe handguns that wouldn't have passed CA testing? I'd be surprised if there is even ONE such case. Let's see...huge cost...bigger government...great frustration to the gun buying public...huge hassle for dealers...zero benefit...sounds like a perfect CA approach. I wonder if there's any chance our new governor would consider this an opportunity to cut costs and reduce the size of government? (Probably not, since the state probably already passes on all the costs to gun manufacturers and buyers).

Doug

 

[BenW]

since there are a number of Bryco/Jennings pistols on the "safe" list!!

That's one of the "problems" of the law for the state. They had high hopes of high failure rates in the tests. They found, however, that even most El Cheapos submitted were made well enough to pass the safety tests. Hence we're left with manufactureres having to pay 'renewal" fees (because we all know unless annual fees are paid guns can become unsafe all by themselves at 366 days). We are also left with "safety" being defined by things such finish.

It's not hard to see why manufacturers get fed up with CA, when, as part of a "safety" requirement, they are expected to not only send the state each model of a gun, but each finish type of a particular model (along with fees for each) that they want to market in CA.

 

[461]

Nobody debates the stupidity of the law, that's obvious, what we're discussing is the benefits to the manufacturers. Manufacturers that refuse to sell here are playing right into the hands of the lunatics, and what do you think will happen when the lunatics in all the other states see that our lunatics got away with.

We need to make it backfire on them and then use it against them.

 

[BenW]

Yes, but is it fair to put the onus on the manufacturers for a CA law? The law already backfired on the state when nearly every handgun passed the "safety" test. The state just made revisions to the law, like the fee amount for annual re-certification. If manufacturers continue submitting guns that pass, the anti-gunners in the state only need to keep raising fees for submitting and re-certifying firearms. At some point, it will be either too expensive for the manufacturer, or the price of CA handguns will become too expensive for many consumers.

This is really a fight for voter residents of CA. Wishfully thinking, maybe what we need to do is have manufacturers boycott ALL gun sales to CA for a while. Maybe that'll get the "this doesn't affect MY guns" guys to start getting involved in the gun issue here.

 

[Pendragon]

Its pretty ridiculous to blame the gun makers for the problems in CA.

CA has erected barriers to gun sales - not, as they say, to promote safety, but to disuade gun purchases.

The law is functioning perfectly.

 

[461]

Which is exactly what I'm saying, the law is working if the manufacturers pull out of the market. Any way you look at it, if gun sales go down they win.

What is proposed is that we need to get the manufacturers to make all their products available to us while we take care of things as best we can.

The clown on the sofa is never going to rise up, if they would, the threshhold would have been crossed in about 1968. It's up to the limited few individuals to make things happen and that takes time and group support. People from all over send money and volunteer their time to save the whales and free Tibet and every other thing under the sun, but I can't get a gun owner/shooter in Cincinati to support their fellow shooters in California!! We have a group problem an dwe need to solve it and get together on this thing.