Has CA DOJ approved any loaded chamber indicators?

[DrewH]

Someone posted California's DOJ regs on what constitutes a loaded chamber indicator, which I placed below-they sound unrealizable. I understand the CA DOJ turned down the Ruger SR-9, which seems like it was designed for California.

Has CA DOJ approved any chamber load indicators? All new semi-autos need LCI's correct?

Doesn't look we are going to have to worry about whether manufacturers will build microstamped guns, looks like no new models in California.

LCI specs are in regulatory code Title 11 Sec 4060 (11 CCR 4060), implemented after SB489's passage:

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/chapter6.pdf


(d)(1) A functioning chamber load indicator must meet all of the following conditions:

(A) Explanatory text and/or graphics either incorporated within the chamber load indicator or
adjacent to the chamber load indicator is/are permanently displayed by engraving, stamping,
etching, molding, casting, or other means of permanent marking.

(B) Each letter of explanatory text must have a minimum height of 1/16".

(C) The explanatory text and/or graphics shall be of a distinct visual contrast to that of the firearm.

(D) The “loaded” indication, that portion of the chamber load indicator that visually indicates there
is a round in the chamber, shall be of a distinct color contrast to the firearm.

(E) Only when there is a round in the chamber, the “loaded” indication is visible on the firearm from
a distance of at least twenty-four inches. When there is no round in the chamber, the “loaded” indication
must not be visible.

(F) The text and/or graphics and the “loaded” indication together inform a reasonably foreseeable adult
user of the pistol, that a round is in the chamber, without requiring the user to refer to a user’s manual.

 

[SupernovaNole]

That seems like a pretty onerous requirement to meet...

My H&K USP has an lci but it is not very prominent and even though I know it's there sometimes I'm not sure if it is 'indicating' or not.

I think we are seeing prohibition by regulation. Only when the people complain loudly enough will the government relent.

Should be a few more regulations and about 10 years before the People's Republic starts heading in the right direction.

SupernovaNole

 

[Zoogster]

Should be a few more regulations and about 10 years before the People's Republic starts heading in the right direction.

Unless they drag you down a few pegs at the same time as some manufacturers comply with some regulations, and your local legislators see some "potential" to make people "safer" by requiring that existing technology.
Which will increase manufacturing costs, and increase consumer prices on firearms and ammunition.
All while reducing competing variety and innovation.

The majority of firearms on the CA approved list only remain there because they pay thier yearly extortion fees.
The majority of firearms already on the list would not qualify to be added back to the list if they fell off.

There may be new pressure to make firearms re-qualify sometime in the future though, around the time microstamping becomes a requirement (which has already passed) or sometime after if some manufactures comply. A list of semi autos immune to microstamping might bother some, and if some manufactures cave to the demands, pressure will likely develop to force others off the list to make people use microstamping instead of just using automatics immune to the legislation.
If that happened most firearms on the list would not qualify even with microstamping.

 

[TAB]

kimber has some on thier 1911... its nothing more then a small hole so you can see it its loaded.

 

[Zoogster]

kimber has some on thier 1911... its nothing more then a small hole so you can see it its loaded.

A loaded chamber indicator, and a loaded chamber indicator under CA law as amended can be different things.
Currently those approved by the DOJ and added can be different than what is approved and added at a later date.
If another manufacturer complied in a more complete way, then the CA DOJ could become more restrictive in thier interpretation of the law and require something more in line with how they interprete the statute from others.

The definition can change. Those already on the list before such a change remain as they passed under previous guidelines as long as they pay thier extortion fee and do not have to requalify.

Currently all handguns have to comply by not being saturday night specials in accordance with testing. They must have a loaded chamber indicator, and they must have a magazine disconnect.
In the not too distant future they must also comply with microstamping to be added to the list.

 

[mp510]

The Ruger Mark III has a LCI and is on the California Approved for Sale Roster.

 

[mekender]

is there a list or way to find out the specifics of a model getting denied?

specifically i wanna know why the SR9 was rejected?

 

[Draven32]

Has the SR9 even been submitted yet? How do you know it was rejected?

 

[Zoogster]

Has the SR9 even been submitted yet? How do you know it was rejected?

It is my understanding that the SR9 was submitted and it was denied. The reason given by the CA DOJ was that the chamber indicator was not sufficient.
The law as listed leaves a lot of room for discretionary denial, much like many federal laws allow the ATF to change thier definition of various laws at different times in essence changing the law on a whim.

What passes is what the CA DOJ says passes, and it can pass or deny almost the same exact feature on two different model firearms on a discretionary basis.
That is because the vague description of what a loaded chamber indicator is can be interpreted to mean only one or multiple of the variables in its definition. There is not a firearm I know of that has all of those variables on the same firearm.

Further some will always be discretionary, like what can and cannot be read at 24 inches.
What is a "reasonably foreseeable adult" etc.
As well as what someone who knows nothing about the make or model should determine is the LCI.
The statute pretty much says someone (who may know nothing of guns at all) needs to instantly be able to tell the gun is loaded without knowing how the firearm works/consulting the manual. That is highly discretionary as there will be people that would not even know what a flashing red light meant if it had that as a load indicator.

"distinct color contrast to the firearm" does not appear to be met either as the Loaded Chamber Indicator appears to be the same color as the slide on most SR9 models. The same exists for other models, but they were approved, and the SR9 was not. Entirely discretionary.

Most models on the approved list do not meet the criteria to be added to the approved list, they either do not have a magazine disconnect or could be denied by various interpretations of the Loaded Chamber Indicator.
With future additions it really boils down to what they want to allow and what market they see the firearm filling. If they think it will be a cheap affordable model that barely complies and they don't feel inclined to approve it they can deny it at will.

 

[Draven32]

the only one they will probably accept is a 9" x 12" red flag that pops out the side saying "LOADED"

 

[SigLaw]

I believe the Mark III was on the list before the LCI was a requirement, therefore, whether it was sufficient was not determined because it was not required when the Mark III was listed.

 

[TAB]

the only one they will probably accept is a 9" x 12" red flag that pops out the side saying "LOADED"

even if it had that, some one would still shoot themselfs thinking it was unloaded.

 

[Orthonym]

My Star PD has a notch in the top of the barrel, at the breech, in which I can see brass in there, if it's loaded, and I happen to look.

I prefer to rely on the Four Rules.

I.e., it's loaded unless I'm looking all the way through the barrel from end to end.

I dunno about muzzle-loaders, have only shot them a time or two.

 

[CGT]

The XD has a LCI.

 

[Henry Bowman]

This would be a fascinating academic discussion, were it not such a genuine and serious issue for all those living in California.

 

[obxned]

This rather hard to understand rule and the list of approved firearms must be creating a real hassle for all the California thieves, muggers, gangbangers, murderers, drug dealers, rapists, and general-purpose thugs. Don't these poor, downtrodden, misunderstood people have it hard enough already?

 

[mekender]

hey, the CA people keep electing those that do nothing other than make the life of the law abiding harder... it seems to me that if these problems were such a burden, people would band together and vote in a new government

 

[Draven32]

We aren't electing these statist pols.

 

[nicki]

Perhaps a test case post Heller.

It will be interesting to see how the SCOTUS rules on Heller.

California has alot of stupid laws that a strong ruling by the SCOTUS may make using the courts a viable.

If we get Individual right with strict scrtuiny review with laws things may change quickly out here in the left coast.

Nicki

 

[ImARugerFan]

I guess the CA DOJ doesn't know rule number one. Always assume it's loaded. A law like this is dangerous because it could potentially give a person a false sense of security thinking that a gun is unloaded because the indicator says so.

 

[A man with a gun!]

I've got that usless little hole on my Kimber. If I put on my reading glasses I can actually see a bit the brass of a cartridge in battery. Totally useless since all guns are presumed loaded anyway.

 

[Old Fuff]

It's intersting to see how they work...

First a law is passed to require a feature, in this case a loaded chamber indicator.

Then the description of the required design doesn't match up to any loaded chamber indicator ever used, now or in the past.

Any simple method that doesn't require modifying any and all existing pistols is eliminated.

Obviously the purpose here is not to simply require loaded chamber indicators, it is to make the feature so expensive or difficult that many manufacturers will either limit the models offered in California, or drop out of the market entirely. They can have a handgun ban that probably won't be crosswise to any decision the Supreme Court may make in the Heller case.

Of course they can do the same thing with any additional requirements they enact in the future.

Unless there is a major change in demographics (which is unlikely) California is a lost cause so far as handgun ownership is concerned. It is a fact of life that the politics are controlled by a left-wing element that intends to eliminate private handgun ownership, step by step. They look toward the United Kingdom as a model.

 

[DrewH]

It will be interesting to see how the SCOTUS rules on Heller.

If the Supreme Court rules right on Heller, what is to prevent D.C. from requiring all handguns possessed in D.C. have a California style LCI? Or whatever absurd standard-microstampmg, smart gun, etc. That would have to be litigated all over agin, would it not?

Even if Heller goes right, could be a long time before D.C. residents can get a gun.

 

[Orthonym]

Oh, now that I remember...

Bob Barr, the presumptive Libertarian candidate for president, had an un-intentional discharge with an autoloading pistol after removing the magazine, but neglecting to verify that there was not a cartridge in the chamber.

Rule 1, folks: It's Loaded!