I think we need a lawsuit agains't the CA DOJ...

SIGarmed · February 12, 2002, 03:31 PM

Most gun owning Californians are familiar with the SB15 law and how the CA DOJ lists the different handguns that can be legally sold in California after they pass a CA DOJ test. The problem is that many slight varients in the same model of a legal handgun are not specifically listed and are not legal for sale in California.
If specific options are not on the list or not tested than they can't be sold.
For instance a Les Baer Custom Carry 1911 is legal,but say it wasn't tested in stainless steel so the CA DOJ considers a stainless steel Custom Carry as illegal for sale in Cailifornia as if its a complete total different model. The gun shoots the same stainless steel or not!
How is this position supported by the CA DOJ?
Even different finishes on the same handgun constitute a different model according to the CA DOJ. A blued SIG P226 has to be listed seperate from a two tone SIG P226,etc..
Any lawyers out there there think that a lawuit would be successful in stopping this illegal postion by the CA DOJ?
How can it even be scientifically supported that a different finish constitutes a different handgun?

Mute · February 12, 2002, 03:38 PM

OK, I'm not a lawyer, but I think the best candidates for bringing a lawsuit against CA because of SB15 would be a smaller gun manufacturer who can't afford to do the certification testing. CA has an equal protection clause in its state amendment. The plaintiff can claim unequal treatment that impacts on their business.

Now if the DOJ try to use the defense that it's a safety issue and supercedes any equality concerns, plaintiff can claim that it's not a safety issue because of the exemption given to LE and Military. Since the Cert list is base on the idea that a gun is mechanically safer if it meets certification, than why the exemption. Is the gun some safe, now that it's in the hands of the exempted groups? And if not, why is LE being allowed to go around in public with unsafe (according to CA DOJ) guns?

deanf · February 12, 2002, 03:54 PM

Quote:

CA has an equal protection clause in its state amendment. The plaintiff can claim unequal treatment that impacts on their business.

I'm not sure it's an equal protection violation. The CA-DOJ seems to enforce the law against all manufacturers with equal stringency. The smaller manufacturers have been free to operate in the free market, under the same regulations as larger manufactuers, and if the free market hasn't blessed them with enough success to be able to afford to participate in the tests, that's not the state's problem.

SIGarmed · February 12, 2002, 04:13 PM

Well I'm also wondering about what would happen in a lawsuit. Would the burden of proof have to be on CA regarding wether a different finish or stainless steel constitutes a difference in mechanical workings of a handgun?
This position by the CA DOJ seems rather odd. I guess they're relying on the fact that we're all a bunch of sheeple so as not to question their supreme decisions. It doesn't seem supportable.

deanf · February 12, 2002, 04:57 PM

Hard to comment further without knowing what the mandatory testing law says.

SIGarmed · February 12, 2002, 05:27 PM

I found it. It seems that it might be up to the manufacture of the gun to contest this,but I don't really know. Why wouldn't SIG tell the CA DOJ that the two tone and blue/nitron models are the same? I still don't like it. As an example under#(4) and excluding the "Sport" model wouldn't that mean that all the SIG P226's would be the same model regardless of the finish? What about a handgun made of stainless steel vs. steel? How would one or the other change functionality other than being more or less corrosion resistant?

Here is the relevant text:

12131.5. (a) A firearm shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of subdivision (a) of Section 12131 if another firearm made by the same manufacturer is already listed and the unlisted firearm differs from the listed firearm only in one or more of the following features:
(1) Finish, including, but not limited to, bluing, chrome-plating, oiling, or engraving.
(2) The material from which the grips are made.
(3) The shape or texture of the grips, so long as the difference in grip shape or texture does not in any way alter the dimensions, material, linkage, or functioning of the magazine well, the barrel, the chamber, or any of the components of the firing mechanism of the firearm.
(4) Any other purely cosmetic feature that does not in any way alter the dimensions, material, linkage, or functioning of the magazine well, the barrel, the chamber, or any of the components of the firing mechanism of the firearm.
(b) Any manufacturer seeking to have a firearm listed under this section shall provide to the Department of Justice all of the following:
(1) The model designation of the listed firearm.
(2) The model designation of each firearm that the manufacturer seeks to have listed under this section.
(3) A statement, under oath, that each unlisted firearm for which listing is sought differs from the listed firearm only in one or more of the ways identified in subdivision (a) and is in all other respects identical to the listed firearm.
(c) The department may, in its discretion and at any time, require a manufacturer to provide to the department any model for which listing is sought under this section, to determine whether the model complies with the requirements of this section.

Russ · February 12, 2002, 05:39 PM

When I lived there not long ago, I wanted a CZ-75B in Nickel. Since it's not on the list I couldn't get it. I called the DOJ and they said if the manufacturer would send them a Nickel gun and sent a signed statement that the only difference between it and the approved version was the finish then the DOJ would certify it if it agreed. Whether DOJ would agree or not is the key. I called CZ and they said they were not going to go to the expense of sending the SOB's any more guns.

If the DOJ did not agree, they would require that the gun go through all the drop tests, etc. Expensive process from what I hear.

When jerks like Jack Scott and Kevin Shelley get elected, this is the kind of crap you get. Once passed, these laws will never go away.

deanf · February 12, 2002, 09:44 PM

Well from the section of the law listed, it appears that, for instance, a Sig P226 in blue, and a Sig P226 in Stainless (if there were such an animal) would be the same for the purposes of the list. Is not a stainless P226 still a P226? Only if the cosmetic difference changes the model name does there appear to be a problem. If they called a stainless version a P226S, for example.

If the model numbers are different, but the guns are the same, except for cosmetics, it appears, on the surface, to be relatively easy to have them added to the list. Of course the reading of the law and the application of the law can be quite different at times . . . .

February 12, 2002, 03:31 PM	#1
SIGarmed Senior Member Join Date: July 13, 2001 Posts: 450	I think we need a lawsuit agains't the CA DOJ... Most gun owning Californians are familiar with the SB15 law and how the CA DOJ lists the different handguns that can be legally sold in California after they pass a CA DOJ test. The problem is that many slight varients in the same model of a legal handgun are not specifically listed and are not legal for sale in California. If specific options are not on the list or not tested than they can't be sold. For instance a Les Baer Custom Carry 1911 is legal,but say it wasn't tested in stainless steel so the CA DOJ considers a stainless steel Custom Carry as illegal for sale in Cailifornia as if its a complete total different model. The gun shoots the same stainless steel or not! How is this position supported by the CA DOJ? Even different finishes on the same handgun constitute a different model according to the CA DOJ. A blued SIG P226 has to be listed seperate from a two tone SIG P226,etc.. Any lawyers out there there think that a lawuit would be successful in stopping this illegal postion by the CA DOJ? How can it even be scientifically supported that a different finish constitutes a different handgun?

February 12, 2002, 03:38 PM	#2
Mute Senior Member Join Date: October 23, 1998 Location: Diamond Bar, CA Posts: 852	OK, I'm not a lawyer, but I think the best candidates for bringing a lawsuit against CA because of SB15 would be a smaller gun manufacturer who can't afford to do the certification testing. CA has an equal protection clause in its state amendment. The plaintiff can claim unequal treatment that impacts on their business. Now if the DOJ try to use the defense that it's a safety issue and supercedes any equality concerns, plaintiff can claim that it's not a safety issue because of the exemption given to LE and Military. Since the Cert list is base on the idea that a gun is mechanically safer if it meets certification, than why the exemption. Is the gun some safe, now that it's in the hands of the exempted groups? And if not, why is LE being allowed to go around in public with unsafe (according to CA DOJ) guns?

February 12, 2002, 04:13 PM	#4
SIGarmed Senior Member Join Date: July 13, 2001 Posts: 450	Well I'm also wondering about what would happen in a lawsuit. Would the burden of proof have to be on CA regarding wether a different finish or stainless steel constitutes a difference in mechanical workings of a handgun? This position by the CA DOJ seems rather odd. I guess they're relying on the fact that we're all a bunch of sheeple so as not to question their supreme decisions. It doesn't seem supportable.

February 12, 2002, 04:57 PM	#5
deanf Senior Member Join Date: June 6, 1999 Location: N47º 12’ x W122º 10' Posts: 1,599	Hard to comment further without knowing what the mandatory testing law says.

February 12, 2002, 05:27 PM	#6
SIGarmed Senior Member Join Date: July 13, 2001 Posts: 450	I found it. It seems that it might be up to the manufacture of the gun to contest this,but I don't really know. Why wouldn't SIG tell the CA DOJ that the two tone and blue/nitron models are the same? I still don't like it. As an example under#(4) and excluding the "Sport" model wouldn't that mean that all the SIG P226's would be the same model regardless of the finish? What about a handgun made of stainless steel vs. steel? How would one or the other change functionality other than being more or less corrosion resistant? Here is the relevant text: 12131.5. (a) A firearm shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of subdivision (a) of Section 12131 if another firearm made by the same manufacturer is already listed and the unlisted firearm differs from the listed firearm only in one or more of the following features: (1) Finish, including, but not limited to, bluing, chrome-plating, oiling, or engraving. (2) The material from which the grips are made. (3) The shape or texture of the grips, so long as the difference in grip shape or texture does not in any way alter the dimensions, material, linkage, or functioning of the magazine well, the barrel, the chamber, or any of the components of the firing mechanism of the firearm. (4) Any other purely cosmetic feature that does not in any way alter the dimensions, material, linkage, or functioning of the magazine well, the barrel, the chamber, or any of the components of the firing mechanism of the firearm. (b) Any manufacturer seeking to have a firearm listed under this section shall provide to the Department of Justice all of the following: (1) The model designation of the listed firearm. (2) The model designation of each firearm that the manufacturer seeks to have listed under this section. (3) A statement, under oath, that each unlisted firearm for which listing is sought differs from the listed firearm only in one or more of the ways identified in subdivision (a) and is in all other respects identical to the listed firearm. (c) The department may, in its discretion and at any time, require a manufacturer to provide to the department any model for which listing is sought under this section, to determine whether the model complies with the requirements of this section.

February 12, 2002, 05:39 PM	#7
Russ Senior Member Join Date: March 8, 2001 Location: Kentucky, Refugee from California Posts: 1,097	When I lived there not long ago, I wanted a CZ-75B in Nickel. Since it's not on the list I couldn't get it. I called the DOJ and they said if the manufacturer would send them a Nickel gun and sent a signed statement that the only difference between it and the approved version was the finish then the DOJ would certify it if it agreed. Whether DOJ would agree or not is the key. I called CZ and they said they were not going to go to the expense of sending the SOB's any more guns. If the DOJ did not agree, they would require that the gun go through all the drop tests, etc. Expensive process from what I hear. When jerks like Jack Scott and Kevin Shelley get elected, this is the kind of crap you get. Once passed, these laws will never go away.

February 12, 2002, 09:44 PM	#8
deanf Senior Member Join Date: June 6, 1999 Location: N47º 12’ x W122º 10' Posts: 1,599	Well from the section of the law listed, it appears that, for instance, a Sig P226 in blue, and a Sig P226 in Stainless (if there were such an animal) would be the same for the purposes of the list. Is not a stainless P226 still a P226? Only if the cosmetic difference changes the model name does there appear to be a problem. If they called a stainless version a P226S, for example. If the model numbers are different, but the guns are the same, except for cosmetics, it appears, on the surface, to be relatively easy to have them added to the list. Of course the reading of the law and the application of the law can be quite different at times . . . .