Ninth Circuit Court Upholds California’s Unsafe Handgun Act

[JDBerg]

After two different Ninth Circuit court panels surprisingly upheld 2A rights by (temporarily) blocking California’s confiscation of large-capacity magazines and Hawaii’s ban on open carry, the Ninth Circuit returned to its liberal agenda. In a ruling this past August, it upheld one of the most ridiculous nonsensical state gun regulations in the nation. It did so by approving a legal mandate that will inevitably lead to diminishing options for California citizens who seek to lawfully exercise their constitutional right to self-defense.

California’s Unsafe Handgun Act requires new handguns sold in the state to have three key safety features. First, new guns must have a loaded chamber indicator. Second, new guns must have a magazine disconnect. Finally, the third, most futile provision requires new handguns to be capable of microscopically imprinting the handgun’s make, model, and serial number onto each fired casing.

The Unsafe Handgun Act is just nothing but problematic. For one thing, to quote the Ninth Circuit Court majority opinion: “According to the [plaintiffs], no handguns were available in the United States that met the microstamping requirements. The record does not indicate whether and how these figures have changed over time.”

California grants its citizens permission to buy guns that don’t meet the letter of the law, since there are no guns on the market that are “legal”. This is accomplished by grandfathering in a defined Department of Justice list of makes and models of handguns exempted from this Unsafe Handgun Act legislation. Those familiar with this list know full well that it doesn't include a number of the most current and popular firearms models commonly available to gun buyers living in other states. Gun manufacturers must pay the State of California a fee to keep their weapons on the DOJ list. And those familiar with this list know that the list is shrinking fast. Facts are that at the end of 2013, the CDOJ’s handgun roster of approved firearms contained 1,273 handguns and 883 semiautomatics. As of the date of the Ninth Circuit’s oral argument in March 2017, it contained 744 handguns and 496 semiautomatics.” That’s a loss of hundreds of weapons on the CA DOJ’s roster in under four years.

There is no doubt that this Unsafe Handgun Act law represents slow-rolling prohibition of firearms in California state firearms legislation. And imagine if California passes the “Unsafe Automobile Act”. This could state that all new cars sold in California had to either a) come from a roster of models approved by the state only after their manufacturers paid a fee, or b) be able to fly. Each year thereafter the approved roster of cars approved for sale in CA shrinks as carmakers either discontinued models or refused to pay the fees. And each year carmakers would refuse to design and build flying cars.

The Ninth Circuit court judges might believe that such a law was perfectly fine, because shrinking consumer choice is irrelevant so long as the public can still buy something from a restricted choice list, but which still serves the intended purpose of firearms ownership under 2A. It wouldn’t even matter to the Ninth Circuit court if no firearms manufacturer was even trying to produce a gun which met California’s microstamping requirement.

This probably amounts to what the Ninth Circuit panel thinks about California’s gun legislation. The majority in the Unsafe Handgun Act lawsuit actually wrote this: “Simply because no gun manufacturer is ‘even considering trying’ to implement the technology, it does not follow that microstamping is technologically infeasible.” It also wrote this: “Simply showing that the number of [handguns] on the [CDOJ] roster has decreased does not tell us much about whether the availability of handguns has declined in a way relevant to the Second Amendment. It is not the number of handguns on the roster that matters, it is the impact on self-defense in the home.”

I’m left with the impression that the Ninth Circuit panel would be completely untroubled even if the legal market in CA shrank to a revolver or two. After all, citizens could still buy “a” gun, correct?

The Ninth Circuit ignored SCOTUS Justice Scalia’s finding that the Second Amendment protects weapons in “common use” for “lawful purposes.” Instead, the Ninth Circuit’s opinion endorsed banning guns in common use so long as consumers can buy other weapons that in the subjective and uninformed opinion of the court considers sufficient for self-defense in the home.

SCOTUS has to step in to rule on ridiculous, unenforceable gun legislation at the state level, such as California’s Unsafe Handgun Act. One potential cause for optimism is that with Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation, SCOTUS will be less reluctant to hear a 2A case on appeal from a lower court. If the highest court can affirm two simple truths, first, the right to bear arms protects open or concealed carry outside the home and, second, that a “Common-Use Standard” means what it says, it will go a long way toward settling most of the contentious gun-control cases of our times.

Applying this common-sense logic to gun legislation at the states level would mean there would be a right to carry in all 50 states. That would mean that virtually all assault-weapons bans throughout the U.S. would fail. In addition, the “Common-Use Standard” throughout the United States could be applied to mag capacity laws on a host of lawful weapons. And it would also mean that California’s slow-motion tide on gun prohibition would be set aside. In short, it would mean that the Second Amendment would finally take its rightful place as an individual right with just as much meaning as each of the other individual rights in the Bill of Rights.

The Ninth Circuit has thrown down yet another gauntlet. I say It’s time for SCOTUS to respond.

[Aguila Blanca]

This probably amounts to what the Ninth Circuit panel thinks about California’s gun legislation. The majority in the Unsafe Handgun Act lawsuit actually wrote this: “Simply because no gun manufacturer is ‘even considering trying’ to implement the technology, it does not follow that microstamping is technologically infeasible.” It also wrote this: “Simply showing that the number of [handguns] on the [CDOJ] roster has decreased does not tell us much about whether the availability of handguns has declined in a way relevant to the Second Amendment. It is not the number of handguns on the roster that matters, it is the impact on self-defense in the home.”

Once again perverting Heller to suggest that the 2nd Amendment applies ONLY to self defense in the home.

[armoredman]

Ad the 1st used Scalia's dicta on "no right is unlimited" to uphold a Massachusetts law. I'd say SCOTUS needs to use some vehicle to reinforce and purify Heller and McDonald. However, I' just a non lawyer enthusiast with no clear understanding of the workings of the courts.

[44 AMP]

I’m left with the impression that the Ninth Circuit panel would be completely untroubled even if the legal market in CA shrank to a revolver or two. After all, citizens could still buy “a” gun, correct?

I'd say that sounds like a reasonable assessment of their behavior.

There are a number of people (and unfortunately some of them are in positions of power) who believe that as long as we can have some kind of gun (and I think they would prefer us to have muzzleloaders if they could manage it) our right to arms is not infringed.


If I recall correctly, the CA Unsafe Handgun act was sold to the legislators and he public to be about actual "safety" standards which, at the time, were things such as frame melting point, and drop test safety.

The requirement for microstamping is the cherry on top, something added a few years ago, and then put on hold by the courts, as the microstamping process was, at the time held under patent by one company. After that patent expired, the court order allowed the requirement for microstamping to be part of the law.

I had not heard, until now that they had changed the microstamping requirement to include the handgun make, model, and serial number.

“Simply because no gun manufacturer is ‘even considering trying’ to implement the technology, it does not follow that microstamping is technologically infeasible.”

I think the plain English translation of this statement is "simply because we have adopted an unreasonable requirement doesn't mean we think we have adopted an unreasonable requirement."

I also wonder how the requirement for loaded chamber indicators and magazine disconnects is applied to revolvers? Or are they exempt? Or totally banned??

CA politicians are used to getting their own way. They have set standards for all kinds of things which at the time meant manufacturers had to virtually create new product or specific variants in order to sell them in CA. While this does work with things like cars and their gasoline, where CA is a huge market, and there is enough profit per unit to allow manufacturers to absorb the added cost of being CA compliant (and passing it on to the consumers, ultimately), adding the now CA required capability for microstamping to existing handguns AND their methods of manufacture are cost prohibitive.

Literally, losing CA business will cost gunmakers LESS than complying with the CA law. Some gun makers have publicly stated they will not attempt to comply with the microstamping law, and some (Barrett, for one) ADVERTISES that they will not do business with the government of CA.

It is not the function of our courts to determine if a law violates reason, or common sense. It is the function of those courts to determine if a law violates the established boundaries and framework for being a law.

The 9th Circuit is very good at that.

[RETG]

SCOTUS needs to act and act as soon as possible on these BS rulings; not just from the Ninth Circus but there are a few others out there that need to be spanked. Third circuit ruled the 2nd is a second rate amendment and not entitled to the full protections of other enumerated rights. I'm not even sure how you rate amendments.

[Nathan]

You guys are looking at this wrong.

I get that the face of the law says what it says. Where is the loophole that allows them to have all the guns and gun handlers they so desire? The wealthiest Californians and law makers are not going to be without complete freedom to buy/own any gun they want.

We need to start exposing those loopholes as they are very real. Why don’t ALL Californian’s get held to the same law. Is it some security license exemption? Class 3 license exemption?

[JDBerg]

Originally Posted by Nathan:

The wealthiest Californians and law makers are not going to be without complete freedom to buy/own any gun they want.

The wealthiest Californians and lawmakers have bodyguards and security who by nature of their occupation, have access to non-roster “unsafe” firearms.

[stonewall50]

Originally Posted by JDBerg

The wealthiest Californians and lawmakers have bodyguards and security who by nature of their occupation, have access to non-roster “unsafe” firearms.

THIS RIGHT HERE is what the NRA should be using as ammunition (pun intended) against these left wing hacks. They should be highlighting the private security weapons used by the very people who argue against firearms. They should be posting ads and YouTube and Facebook videos asking WHY these “elites” get this protection, but a young single mother in the ghetto doesn’t. In fact? That young single mother’s life is more valuable than every politician in Kalifornia. Why? Because they are disposable and they can be replaced. She can’t.

“America is at that awkward stage; it's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”

Claire Wolfe


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JDBerg]

I’ve been out here (S. D.) now for about a month and I knew the gun laws were crazy, but the sad state of the offerings at the few LGS’s I’ve been to is really depressing! Here you can buy recreational pot, and a bottle of Jack Daniels at Wal Mart, but you can’t buy a Gen 4 or 5 Glock at a gunstore? And I used to think that Colorado was bad with the 15rd. mag limit before I got here!

Much the same as the situation back east in New Jersey, this is what happens when they pass illegal, unenforceable ballot “propositions” to infringe on law abiding gun owners. The general public who may not own or want guns, or who don’t care anyway, have no problem voting away the gun rights for all of the people who live in the state. Then if the oppressed don’t challenge the oppressors with a lawsuit against these illegal laws, you’re stuck with having to abide by them! Well I’m an NRA member and I’m voting my gun rights

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by JDBerg

...The wealthiest Californians and lawmakers have bodyguards and security who by nature of their occupation, have access to non-roster “unsafe” firearms.....

That is inaccurate.

Law enforcement (not private security) has access to high cap magazines, Title II weaponry, and handguns that aren't on the roster. That probably includes at least most security furnished for lawmakers and other public officials, but that doesn't include the private security generally available to private citizens who just pay for it.

[Sharkbite]

but that doesn't include the private security generally available to private citizens who just pay for it.

Except, a lot of that “private security” is provided by off duty and retired LE.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Sharkbite

...a lot of that “private security” is provided by off duty and retired LE.

Except that moonlighting and retired LEOs won't have access to agency Title II weapons. And retired LEOs have no special access to off-roster handguns or high capacity magazines.

[RC20]

All it takes to resolve this is a lawsuit that works its way up to the Supreme Court.

That said, Scalia had his reason as did the other Justices and came out with a covering statement.

It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated.

So, this too will works its way through and we will see how it gets applied.

Magazine disconnect only applies to a semi auto, so there might be legal wiggle room for a narrow ruling. The Micro Stamping does seem fully repealable (new word?)

That said, as I wrote previously, Tyranny by 1000 cuts is still Tyranny.

Equifax and the data breach bother me far more. Not only do they gather all my personal information, there is no regulations and there was no fine. This was a result of a failure to patch their servers not a "act of cracking".

At least in the case of CA, you have options to move to another state.

I do love statements like

"SCOUTS needs to act as fast as possible"

They are life time appointed judges, they are Lords in their own right and will move in their own mysterious ways.

[RC20]

What you get into is the intellectural aspects (non real wrold) vs the real world. But that is the nature of Judges as well as the rest of the world.

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

I was taught all guns are dangerous and the correct handling principles. Some may be more widely dangerous, ie capable of killing or wounding more (granted that to is qualified by the user or perp as the case may be)

But then we have this:

he Breyer dissent also objected to the "common use" distinction used by the majority to distinguish handguns from machineguns: "But what sense does this approach make? According to the majority’s reasoning, if Congress and the States lift restrictions on the possession and use of machineguns, and people buy machineguns to protect their homes, the Court will have to reverse course and find that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the individual self-defense-related right to possess a machine-gun...There is no basis for believing that the Framers intended such circular reasoning."

A reading of an unlimited right (my view) would make that true. Almost all (ponder that a bit, maybe all) rights have some restrictions.

Freedom of religion is based on accepted norms (no Polygamy though that is not exclusively religions its tended that way historically ) or to sacrifice (your f1st, 2nd 3rd born etc) though that arguably is simply murder but ......

And so it goes.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by RC20

A reading of an unlimited right (my view) would make that true. Almost all (ponder that a bit, maybe all) rights have some restrictions.

There are ten amendments in the Bill of Rights. Aside from the 2nd Amendment, which of them states outright that it shall not be subject to regulation?

What does "infringed" mean to you? Look it up -- it means to limit, to circumscribe. How is "regulation" not infringement?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe

Definition of infringe

transitive verb

1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another infringe a patent

2 obsolete : defeat, frustrate

intransitive verb

: encroach —used with on or upon
// infringe on our rights

The oldest dictionary I've been able to find online is an 1828 Webster's Dictionary. http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/infringe

In 1828 "infringe" meant pretty much the same thing it means today.

Infringe

INFRINGE, verb transitive infrinj'. [Latin infringo; in and frango, to break.]

1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.

2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.

3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.]

[rickyrick]

I don’t see these laws being overturned in my lifetime, simply because no politician really wants to give the public unfettered access to firearms. On the other hand, many want to completely take them away.
Some will say “no one wants to take your guns” but they don’t really mean it. Predict it’s going to get worse. Especially in west coast states.

[RC20]

Aquila Blanca:

You do not have the right to yell fire in a Theater. Yes that "infringes" on your freedom of speech but its where the rubber meets the road reality.

English law is founded on precedent. And there are precedents for controlling of firearms.

Its not a perfect document by any means and We the People has been enlarged beyond well off white men (and no white women well off or not)

The State of Alaska signed a contract via its Statehood act. that act has been violated (particularly egregious was 80% of Mineral extraction changed).

You can get into some really amazing hair splitting on legal terms and applications. Felons and people deemed mentally unfit can't bear an arm.

So do you then exclude them from People?

Somewhere there is a balance, I won't claim I know where it should be. I do have views on it. In France for instance, Macron has found out that people don't need guns to change things. Ghandi did in India as well (though latter there was forced used to evict the Portuguese from their enclave who would not leave voluntarily)

And would the fact that we have rapid fire guns affected how the Constitution was written in regards to the second (be they semi automatic or full automatic) - we will never know, but the people today have to deal with the 2nd written 200+ years ago.

Some common sense aspects like Freedom of speech are easily transferred. But now we have Face Book and how does a privately owned entity relate to Free Speach?

Or in a bizarre twist of sop called originalist thinking - Corporations for purposes of campaign fiance are deemed citizens (their billions speak vastly louder than my 100s) when they are at best cold blooded reptiles?

Why were short barreled (sawed off) shotguns deemed such a threat to the country they were banned? Sweeping up at least two short barrel hand guns that required a license which made it ok?) - did anyone ever rob a bank with an HR Handigun?

And pistols are used regularly to do so, but are not banned (well they are now)

And so it goes, we simply do not know what kind of conjugated vowels will come out of the legal world let alone the Supreme Court that is isolated in its ivory tower.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by RC20

Aquila Blanca:

You do not have the right to yell fire in a Theater. Yes that "infringes" on your freedom of speech but its where the rubber meets the road reality.

That's an old example, but the fact is we DO have every right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. However, if we do so to create a panic when there is no actual fire, we then face punishment for creating a panic.

If you disagree ... cite the law in any jurisdiction that prohibits yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

[rickyrick]

And we don’t cut off your tongue to prevent you from yelling “fire” in a theater either.

[Metal god]

The handgun roster is a joke IMO . The Glock 19 gen3 is grandfathered in but "if" Glock were to change the color of the finish on the slide that gun would not be able to be sold in CA because it's a "NEW" design even though it's the exact same gun just a different color . That's an example of many stupid ways this roster works . If you were a new company making a 1911 to mil-spec standards It would not be allowed in the state even though there are at least 4 other companies currently selling that same grandfathered designed firearm in CA . The design and actual function of the firearm has little to do with if it's on or off roster . If you change anything to grandfathered gun regardless if it was only the color and had nothing to do with the function of the firearm . That "NEW" firearm must now pass those new test to be sold in CA . A lot of manufacturers started installing loaded chamber indicators and mag disconnects but when they insisted they start the micro stamping a bunch just pulled out of CA and the rest only sell there grandfathered in guns and rarely submit new designs .

Ruger , S&W and I believe Remington have pulled almost every semi auto model from CA because of this law . I live in CA and took a firearms class in Nevada . It was at a local gun store there and my jaw almost hit the floor when I saw all the guns there for sale . I'm not even talking the Barret 50 cal's or the true P90's etc I'm just talking all the regular semi auto hand guns and even revolvers they had that I've never seen in CA . Oh man all the small single stack semi's to choose from was amazing . In CA you get the shield , a couple Khar's and the LC9 , there might be couple others but it's really slim pickins here .

If you disagree ... cite the law in any jurisdiction that prohibits yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater

I'd first ask , what is a law designed to do ? I have found that most people don't put much actual thought to that . The answer you will often get will be - to prevent you from doing something . Actually laws have zero to do with preventing you from doing anything . A law is designed to create a way/mechanism in which the government can legally punish a citizen for something society as a whole does not want them to do . Laws are in no way designed to prevent anything . Now laws may help prevent things from happening but that is not there purpose .

So to answer your question . You will never find a law preventing you from doing anything .

And would the fact that we have rapid fire guns affected how the Constitution was written in regards to the second (be they semi automatic or full automatic) - we will never know, but the people today have to deal with the 2nd written 200+ years ago.

I like being asked this type of question by anti's because of how silly it is . Did are founders think are little pew-pew's would ever be able to shoot as rapidly as they do now and would that have changed there view of the 2nd ? Of course they did , do you truly believe our founders had no understanding of the history of weapons . I believe we once could only swing sticks and throw rocks a short distance . Over time ( maybe millions of years ) Sticks turned into blades and rocks turned into arrows . Over another few thousand years those weapons got more efficient at longer distances .

To think this was lost on the founders and they just figured "we must be at the max evolution of weapons here in 1776 , is not reasonable . At the time the citizens were keeping , baring and using the most advanced weapons the world had ever seen . Since that time weapons have evolved in such a way that you can destroy a whole city ( some small countries ) with one projectile lunched from thousands of miles away .

Maybe are founders didn't think that would have been capable in the future but to think they were incapable of thinking past the musket IMHO is silly . Small arms advancing to the point they are at today or I should say late 1800's early 1900's because that's when semi and full auto was invented had to be on somebodies mind back in the late 1700's . We've been talking about flying cars for almost 70yrs and we're nowhere close to that but it was still talked about 70+ years ago . Again to think our founders were clueless that weaponry would advance fare better then what they had at the time is not reasonable .

It's truly surprising to me that people don't actually realize how regulated weapons are in the US .Think about it for a second and all the modern weapons you/we can't have . Yet they keep making this HUGE deal out of our little pew-pew's and how fast they can be fired . Anyone ever hear a A-10 fire it's gun , now that's rapid fire and they want to talk bump stocks .

SCOTUS

It's been my belief the wording Scalia used was only used to not undo all the laws that had come before . I feel he had to say something in order to make sure there was not law suite after law suite filed trying to over turn every gun law ever written . The fact the anti's continue to misrepresent what the true reasoning was for that wording and the SCOTUS has not clarified what they meant are both equally bad but I personally think the wording was reasonable . IMHO I believe the problem is that the gun grabbers continue to take it out of context and the courts let them .

You see that here in the 9th . I now have read and or watched many 9th circuit rulings or proceedings . I've often heard or read the judges say something to the effect " well this or that case was denied cert buy the SCOTUS which could have helped clarify this issue but they have chosen not to , what should we make of that ? When you have bad rulings like this one being denied cert the anti's will keep passing these types of laws because the lower courts can choose to use these denied cert cases as precedent . Unfortunately I think Roberts is going to take Kennedy's place as the swing vote on the court and I feel at least as far as the 2nd goes the SCOTUS is split pretty much the same as it's been for the last 10yrs .

[44 AMP]

So to answer your question . You will never find a law preventing you from doing anything .

I'm not a legal scholar, nor do I play one on TV and did not sleep in a Holiday Inn last night, so there may be exceptions I am unaware of, but the "laws" in the Bill of Rights DO prevent the Government from doing certain things (when obeyed).

"Congress shall make no law..."
"shall not be infringed"
"No person shall..."
I see those as a law preventing some specific actions.

Now, the rest of our laws, including our criminal laws are generally written differently, not to prevent, but to punish. Most of them are written (with some variations in language) saying "a person who does xxx is guilty of XYZ, and defines the class of misdemeanor or felony that XYZ is...
but a person has to DO " xxx" first, (and be found guilty of doing it) before the law applies.

And would the fact that we have rapid fire guns affected how the Constitution was written in regards to the second (be they semi automatic or full automatic) - we will never know, but the people today have to deal with the 2nd written 200+ years ago.

I think the best response to this kind of thing is this...

And would the fact that we have rapid communication have affected how the Constitution was written in regards to the first (be they text messages or Internet) - we will never know, but the people today have to deal with the 1st written 200+ years ago.

Anytime someone tries to float the trial balloon that our Constitutionally enumerated rights don't apply to modern technology (rapid fire weapons), because "the Founders could never have thought of them", remind them that same logic applies to ALL our modern tech, including their cell phone and Internet, social media, all of it.

Remind them that the logic that restricts modern weapons also means that their freedom of speech is limited to hand written letters, direct verbal speech (standing on a soapbox in the public park) and printed material produced on hand operated movable block type printing presses.
Nothing typewritten, or electronically communicated is covered by the First Amendment, using that logic.

Remind them that using that argument, ALSO means the government can, at will, monitor ALL their electronic communications. They have no right of privacy, against unreasonable search and seizure, because "our Founders could not have imagined" our modern communications technology, either.

And, I think you could also include all electronic bank records in that, as well. The Govt could look at anything thing that wasn't printed on a hand operated printing press WITHOUT A WARRANT...

just a thought to consider...

[Metal god]

but the "laws" in the Bill of Rights DO prevent the Government from doing certain things (when obeyed).

"Congress shall make no law..."
"shall not be infringed"
"No person shall..."
I see those as a law preventing some specific actions.

I have to agree with that . I how ever was thinking more in the lines as the constitution/bill of rights is not a law per-say as much as it is a guide to how all other laws shall be written .

You are correct , the constitution/bill of rights are the supreme "law/s" of the land . I would also add that has not "prevented" the government from braking said laws . Laws don't prevent anything , only allow a means to punish and or overturn/repeal .

Anytime someone tries to float the trial balloon that our Constitutionally enumerated rights don't apply to modern technology (rapid fire weapons), because "the Founders could never have thought of them", remind them that same logic applies to ALL our modern tech, including their cell phone and Internet, social media, all of it.

Remind them that the logic that restricts modern weapons also means that their freedom of speech is limited to hand written letters, direct verbal speech (standing on a soapbox in the public park) and printed material produced on hand operated movable block type printing presses.
Nothing typewritten, or electronically communicated is covered by the First Amendment, using that logic.

That's another great way of looking at it . To bad logic is not in the anti's vocabulary . Maybe we start using common sense as the term instead of logical ? I keep hearing how we need common sense this or that . How about we use common sense when writing this law or that law ?

[Metal god]

FWIW here's a link to the official roster
https://www.oag.ca.gov/firearms/certguns

At first it seems like a lot but narrow the search by make and check out S&W or Ruger and note how few pistols they sell here in CA or better yet check out Colt .

[armoredman]

CZ was one who walked away from the insanity - not one new pistol on that list, none of the SP-01s, none of the polymer models, and a few on their list are no longer in production. Pathetic how they disarm their citizens slowly and mercilessly.

[rickyrick]

Post I responded to is deleted this one can go too