The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 15, 2014, 11:13 PM   #1
GaryED50
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 19, 2012
Posts: 243
Screwed over by California handgun roster

I can't believe this crap

All set to buy a Taurus 5 shot 44magnum 6 inch ported barrel brand new and the clerk checks and its fallen of the Damned California list.

Talk about nonsense

Gary
GaryED50 is offline  
Old March 15, 2014, 11:27 PM   #2
Librarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 146
Not that it would help much complaining at Calguns, but complaining here is a bit remote from the problem.

Ask Taurus why it's now off the Roster.
__________________
See the CALGUNS FOUNDATION Wiki for discussion of California firearms law.

The FAQ page is here.
Librarian is offline  
Old March 15, 2014, 11:37 PM   #3
GaryED50
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 19, 2012
Posts: 243
Quote:
Not that it would help much complaining at Calguns, but complaining here is a bit remote from the problem.

Ask Taurus why it's now off the Roster.
You're right I just wanted to vent a little.

Gary
GaryED50 is offline  
Old March 16, 2014, 12:20 AM   #4
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,529
There is a court challenge to the roster pending, though I'm not sure of its current status.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old March 16, 2014, 02:35 AM   #5
Librarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 146
Something supposed to happen in Pena in April, said a poster at Calguns today.
__________________
See the CALGUNS FOUNDATION Wiki for discussion of California firearms law.

The FAQ page is here.
Librarian is offline  
Old March 16, 2014, 07:50 AM   #6
SHE3PDOG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 984
There have been ALOT of guns falling off since the microstamping requirement went into place. At one time the roster had over 1200 guns on it. I expect it will dip below 1000 in short order, and rapidly lose guns as manufacturers modify and improve there designs for next year's product. The tiniest change, aside from sights, will kick the gun off the roster. It is getting frustrating, and I cannot wait to leave. I will continue to support CA gun owners, but it will be from a free state.
__________________
Semper Fi

Marine, NRA member, SAF Defender's Club member, and constitutionally protected keeper and bearer of firearms
SHE3PDOG is offline  
Old March 16, 2014, 09:33 AM   #7
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
Ironically, the rapidly shrinking roster of available guns in CA may be the best hard evidence that this is a slow rolling ban. Requiring a feature that practically doesn't exist and certainly doesn't exist in the marketplace is absurd and disingenuous.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old March 16, 2014, 10:46 AM   #8
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 1,476
Quote:
All set to buy a Taurus 5 shot 44magnum 6 inch ported barrel brand new and the clerk checks and its fallen of the Damned California list.
The state requires that the manufacturer pay protection money -- er, a fee every year to keep a gun on the list. If the manufacturer drops the gun from the line or demand is high enough in the other states to meet production without CA sales, the manufacturer has little incentive to keep paying.

So the gun suddenly becomes "unsafe" - and unavailable in CA.
natman is offline  
Old March 16, 2014, 11:14 AM   #9
GaryED50
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 19, 2012
Posts: 243
Quote:
The state requires that the manufacturer pay protection money -- er, a fee every year to keep a gun on the list. If the manufacturer drops the gun from the line or demand is high enough in the other states to meet production without CA sales, the manufacturer has little incentive to keep paying.

So the gun suddenly becomes "unsafe" - and unavailable in CA.
You bet legalized extortion by the state Plus a planned added level of difficultly to discourage gun ownership

Gary
GaryED50 is offline  
Old March 16, 2014, 05:25 PM   #10
Dawgcasa
Junior Member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2013
Posts: 2
Ask if the FFL has the parts and inclination to 'render' it a single action ... so the DROS can be submitted under the single shot (or action) exemption. Once you are a happy owner of the new Taurus, you are free to legally 'modify' your shiny new toy as you please, including getting the assistance of a gunsmith to do it for you if needed, and viola, your new Taurus suddenly operates as per any factory model.

Completely legal.

Last edited by Dawgcasa; March 16, 2014 at 05:30 PM.
Dawgcasa is offline  
Old March 16, 2014, 11:05 PM   #11
Jay24bal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2011
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 616
Quote:
Ask if the FFL has the parts and inclination to 'render' it a single action ... so the DROS can be submitted under the single shot (or action) exemption. Once you are a happy owner of the new Taurus, you are free to legally 'modify' your shiny new toy as you please, including getting the assistance of a gunsmith to do it for you if needed, and viola, your new Taurus suddenly operates as per any factory model.

Completely legal.
I am not in CA, and I have no idea if this is true or not, but the absurdity and stupidity of the law really shines here if this is true.

OH is not the friendliest state in the Union (not bad, just not the best) when it comes to gun rights, but this is crazy, I feel bad for all gun owners in places like this...
__________________
I like guns.

Once Fired Brass, Top quality, Fast shipping, Best prices.
http://300AacBrass.com/ -10% Coupon use code " Jay24bal "
Jay24bal is offline  
Old March 17, 2014, 12:34 AM   #12
Dawgcasa
Junior Member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2013
Posts: 2
Yes, agreed ... CA gun laws are the definition of absurd and stupid. And yes the single shot exemption is a real and legal means to acquire handguns not on the CA 'safe' handgun roster, though AB 1964 is moving through the legislature in an attempt to eliminate it (similar to last year's vetoed AB 169).

Absurd and stupid also describes most of our elected officials, particularly those in the state legislature that seem bound and determined to ruin this once great state. I'm a fourth generation Californian and it sickens me to see what rampant liberalism in the major population centers and the power of public-sector unions have done to a state whose economy and vibrancy once rivaled that of several nations.
Dawgcasa is offline  
Old March 17, 2014, 08:43 AM   #13
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
The single shot exemption is a real path to own off-roster firearms in CA, but I haven't heard of it being used for a revolver, with I believe this Taurus 44 Magnum to be. I don't even know how one could do it on a revolver.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old March 17, 2014, 03:34 PM   #14
Librarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 146
Quote:
The single shot exemption is a real path to own off-roster firearms in CA, but I haven't heard of it being used for a revolver, with I believe this Taurus 44 Magnum to be. I don't even know how one could do it on a revolver.
A form of typo, I think.

For revolvers it is single ACTION and dimensionally compliant - PC 32100(a)
Quote:
(a) Article 4 (commencing with Section 31900) and Article 5
(commencing with Section 32000) shall not apply to a single-action
revolver that has at least a five-cartridge capacity with a barrel
length of not less than three inches, and meets any of the following
specifications:
(1) Was originally manufactured prior to 1900 and is a curio or
relic, as defined in Section 478.11 of Title 27 of the Code of
Federal Regulations.
(2) Has an overall length measured parallel to the barrel of at
least seven and one-half inches when the handle, frame or receiver,
and barrel are assembled.
(3) Has an overall length measured parallel to the barrel of at
least seven and one-half inches when the handle, frame or receiver,
and barrel are assembled and that is currently approved for
importation into the United States pursuant to the provisions of
paragraph (3) of subsection (d) of Section 925 of Title 18 of the
United States Code.
The single SHOT language is 32100(b).
__________________
See the CALGUNS FOUNDATION Wiki for discussion of California firearms law.

The FAQ page is here.
Librarian is offline  
Old March 18, 2014, 09:56 AM   #15
Colt46
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: Campbell Ca
Posts: 918
As with any law, the real purpose is exposed

That absolute, piece of garbage, legislation specifically exempts single action revolvers from the process and allows law enforcement to purchase 'unsafe' handguns not on the list.
Colt46 is offline  
Old March 19, 2014, 12:55 AM   #16
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 219
Taurus allows firearms it is not longer producing to expire off the roster--as do most manufacturers. Moreover, Taurus is making no attempt to even try to qualify most of its new guns for the roster, and definitely not any of its pistols. I think it finally got fed up and is slowly withdrawing from the market here. it is actually not that hard to qualify revolvers (relatively speaking) because they are not subject to the plethora of safety features mandated for pistols, nor subject to the microstamping law. On the other hand, Ruger has been reporting that even minor, essentially nonfunctional changes designed to improve reliability of a particular firearm are being treated by the DOJ as "new" firearms, no matter how minor the change (for example, changing the manner in which a part is manufactured--forged versus MIM), and testing is not cheap. Maybe Taurus is having the same issue with its revolvers too. Which would not be surprising--the Attorney General is a gun hater who would ban them all if she could, and is making it as difficult as possible for buyers to purchase guns. People who have been buying firearms for years are suddenly being delayed or denied. DROS funds have been transferred to an enforcement unit to track down disqualified individuals and seize their guns (which isn't a bad thing, except that the cost is born by gun buyers and not by the state general fund).
62coltnavy is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10369 seconds with 9 queries