Unfortunately this is a California problem. I work in California, look at guns in California, but as a non resident I am powerless to help, by any other than finacial means. Which I do regularly, I contribute to the political campaigns against, Diane Fienstien, Barbra Boxer, and the other anti gun nuts. But that is really the extent of our help, other than ideas, and support. We are not able to vote and we can't change it for you, it needs to be changed by in state residents.
I am going to play a little devils advocate here so that the manufacturers side of this can be represented a little. First I beleive that the testing fee is $5000.00 and submission of two handguns. The two handguns becomes a variable, on Keltec models the cost to manufactuer is around $500.00, where on a high end Colt the cost could be $2000 or better.
On the low end gun there is $5500 invested to get the one model approved in CA. Now we need to look a little at the economics and accounting of firearm manufacturing. We must have a profit number per handgun, expressed as a percentage. I will guess at 10-15% is this margin. I will work with 10% as an example, this needs to be adjusted per actual profit numbers, but will suffice for an example.
If a Keltec sells for $225.00 retail, it must be sold for less to the retail distributors (Gun Stores) who expect at least 10%. Subtract $22.50 which must be sold by a wholesale distributor Subtract another $18-22. This means Keltec is selling these at $175-185. Of which 10% is profit they make $18 per gun ( at 20% that would be $36 per gun ). For the purposes of simple math here I will use $20 profit per gun. They need to sell a minimum of 275 pistols to recover there investment in CA sales, but this is where it actually gets dirty by the time you figure in cost of money and administrative costs associated with the CA licensing the number probably doubles, so now I have to sell 500 pistols just to get back to where I was before I sold to CA. To actually make a return on that investment the number gets higher probably another 100 on top of the 500 for a total of 600 pistols. So it with this jaded eye manufacturers look at CA, can we sell 600 pistols in CA they ask, if not we lose money.
Now look at your list, it either represents manufactureres that aren't even close to 10% profit which I suspect is Sig, HK, and Beretta or guns that are selling considerably more than the break even numbers such as 1000 per year. What this does is exclude small manufacturers, small custom runs, and any low production pistols.
I have thought more than once how the manufacturers could reduce their risk and exposure on this but I think these would be against federal trade laws, but I am not the legal beagle on this. If the manufacurers could charge full suggested retail which is around $325 for that Keltec they would be more willing to take that risk, but I really think this is against Federal trade laws. They simply aren't allowed to charge more in CA than in the other states, even though the cost of doing business is considerably higher.
I am fully aware of the economic dynamics of the state of CA, it represents fully 10% of the US population, slightly less economically after the tech bust. But I don't think that CA represents 10% of the handgun purchases in the US. For instance my resident state does not restrict me to one handgun per month, so residents from other states are not restricted to 12 handgun purchases per year. Or of more significance I can buy three hanguns in the same month, like around Christmas.
I know it really looks like the gun owners in other states have written you off as a lost cause. In some ways that is probably partially true, my gun dealer used to live and own a gunshop in CA, he won't even do business in CA anymore, and he was a long time resident with family still there. I really think some interanl change needs to happen here before outside influences are going to be much help. Your new governor immediatly started pandering to the anti gunners as soon as he hit office, no change, just another face and the same old story.
If you can figure out some political means to start change, you might be suprised at the support you would get financially. I don't think it would take much to get support for your cause if it was going to court, but it needs to get elevated out of the 9th circiut, you won't get much interest in taking a case to the 9th circiut kangaroo court, where it outcome is pretty much preordained. Get a legal case to the supreme court and a war chest of some sort would be fairly easy to raise from outside CA.
Right now all I can say is it sucks to be you, if I lived and voted there I would be working very hard at challenging your laws through legal means.
