You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Screwed over by California handgun roster
- Thread starter GaryED50
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
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
There is a court challenge to the roster pending, though I'm not sure of its current status.
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.
maestro pistolero
New member
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.
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.
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
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.
Completely legal.
Last edited:
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...
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.
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.
maestro pistolero
New member
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.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.
For revolvers it is single ACTION and dimensionally compliant - PC 32100(a)
The single SHOT language is 32100(b).(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.
62coltnavy
New member
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).
Aguila Blanca
Staff
This thread sat dormant from March of 2014 until August of 2019. Not exactly current, and nothing new seems to have been added.
Closed.
Closed.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.