In California you can buy any handgun you like—provided it’s on the California Department of Justice’s list of acceptable handguns. [Click here to view the government-sanctioned selection.] Every now and again, not often, the CA DOJ adds a handgun to the GTG (Good to Go) list. On September 27, they decided that the Smith & Wesson Model 10-14 is OK for sale. The what? I’m no “Smith weenie” (as Ralph calls himself) but I reckon the 10-14 is a fairly enigmatic choice for modern self-defense. Don’t get me wrong: there’s nothing wrong with the 10-14 per se. It’s just that the DOJ recently de-certified 28 pages of perfectly useful modern revolvers and semi-automatic pistols. Where’s the sense in that? The 10-14 was the last of the mass production Smith & Wesson Model 10’s. Unlike its predecessors, it has an internal lock. Go figure. [h/t Duane]
I was under the impression that no new handguns could be certified without a microstamping feature.Does this mean that BS has been rescinded?
The effective date of the law hasn’t passed yet.
I believe that’s for semiautos.
Semi’s only
i just checked the “removed” list, thanks to google, why again did they decertify these??? Why on earth would the Taurus 627 .357 4″ or 617 .357, for example, be decertified?
The state doesn’t ‘decertify’. The certs expire and the manufacturers don’t have them renewed.
if so, let all threw certs expire and then sue b/c its gun ban. Maybe thats the game we’re playing here.
There will always be gun companies who will be happy to take up the market share.
This really isn’t that much of a cause for celebration. There are a LOT more guns on the “recently removed” list. Can’t even sell a Ruger SR22 anymore, except by private transfer.
Basically the msnufacturers just aren’t having the certifications renewed. Problably not eorth the trouble.
If you live in CA get what you can now.
are you sure about that Ruge sr22 no longer able to be sold in cali? i know a guy who bought one in ca just a few months ago. if the sr22 is no longer able to be sold, then why would any other semi auto be able to be sold?
You are correct. The SR-22 is still on the roster.
Generally, only guns that manufacturers do not make any more will drop off.
And sometimes slight variants of a gun on the roster are not on the roster. E.g., the stainless steel SR-45 was GTG, but not the black nitride slide. Because the roster is as much a fee-scam as anything else. The two guns are the same except finish. CA recognizes that, and hence they are not treated as different as far as safety testing goes. The evaluation of one gun also covers its variants that do not substantially differ. But the company has to pay yearly for every variant, no matter how tiny that variant is.
SR22PB was removed very recently.
I believe, if you stop paying fees to he state, your gun drops of the list. The lack of fees paid makes the gun unsafe
Or if you change the color it is obviously unsafe
Of course. Safety and rights flow from the state. Even Thomas Jefferson said liberty has a price.
Im not 100% but i think one of the gun rights groups has or is filing a suit about this list.
Pena v. Lindley challenges the Roster and micro stamping has now been incorporated into the amended complaint
Everything said about the arbitrary nature of the CA approved list is true. That aside, the smith model 10 is probably one of the best nightstand guns ever made for people that aren’t going to train and maintain regularly.
I won’t miss the Taurus 85, had to return mine to the factory three times. The second time they just replace it with a brand new one, that one lasted about six months, all had internal mechanism issues where the cylinder would lock. Decided to go with a S&W 642 instead I returned that one also due to the finish coming off after the first clean up, they decided to give me a brand new one instead, that was three months ago, I am still waiting. On the other hand I have a FEG SMC-380 that I purchased in the 80’s, would hardly qualify today but after thousands of rounds that thing is still working perfectly! The moral of the story here don’t underestimate an old relic!
The CA DOJ can KMA. They know exactly squat about handgun safety, and are actively preventing the importation and sale of perfectly good handguns. The Glock Gen 4, the last time I checked, is “unsafe.” Bullsh!t.
It is pretty obvious that the Roster of supposedly safe handguns is merely unconstitutionally restrictive gun control when firearms can become unsafe because a fee was not paid to keep it on a list. Or that a different color was used in it’s construction. But the real eye opener is to compare the list of guns that have dropped off the Roster and the guns added. They are working towards NO guns being on the roster
You mean Californians can have a S&W revolver now?!?! Woohoo, 1900’s here we come!!!
A 10-14 used to be my home defense pistol. What a sweet SA trigger. Wish I still had it.
Woo-Hoo, I am a S&W revolver fan. Model 10s are the AK-47 of the hand gun world.
Let’s clear up a few things about the roster.
1. The roster was originally intended to assure that handguns were “drop safe” and reliable. For a (hefty) fee, manufacturers could submit guns to an independent agency that tested reliability and drop safety. Over time, the requirements imposed were expanded to include a loaded chamber indicator, manual safeties, and a magazine lock for semi-automatics. This is why many firearms are not sold in California, as they do not have the required features. There is a limited “grandfathering, allowing new models of the same design to be certified (e.g. Colt 1911s), but complete redesigns, such as the Glock Gen 4 need to comply with current standards. Requirements for revolvers, as far as I know, have no requirements other than drop safety and reliability.
2. The roster does not apply to private sales, nor to C&R handguns. It does apply to sales through FFLs, so guns purchased through Gun Broker or Guns America must be on the roster to be transferred here.
3. The microstamping law, enacted in 2007 and declared effective by the DOJ in March 2013, applies only to semi-auto pistols, and further applies only to pistols not already on the roster or undergoing safety testing. No new pistols have been added to the roster since July, and it appears unlikely that any will be added until the microstamping law is repealed or declared invalid.
4. Once on the roster, a handgun may remain on the roster until the manufacturer allows the (annual) registration to expire. The renewal fee is somewhere around $2000 per model. Manufacturers tend to keep guns on the roster as long as they are still being manufactured, but after manufacture ceases and stocks are exhausted, there is no point in maintaining registration. The DOJ does NOT “decertify” rostered firearms.
The annual fee is actually $200, not $2000. But that is for each variant, no matter how small the change.
Gee when was this gun invented like 1907 ” you’ll never take me alive copper’ More Stupid California,Hitler would be real interested in invading California,probably take it in a day!
Just to clarify some questions
1. Microstamping only applies to semiautos. Revolvers don’t eject cases anyways (my SR-45 example, the SR 45 made it in shortly before the roster was closed by Harris insisting on microstamping)
2. Guns manufactured before 2001 that were already being sold here…those got grandfatherarable into the roster. The Glocks would never have made even the original roster (no “positive manual safety”) save for this. Hence we can be gen 3’s generally, but not gen 4’s. I presume most model 10’s predate the roster and were certifiable under the grandfather clause?
3. Needless to say, the roster does not apply to curio and relics either. So old model tens would be fine.
4. I don’t think, at this point, any manufacturer should let drop a single gun from the roster, at least that is actually selling enough to make more than the $200 the company pays in the extortion fee. I think it is sufficient to show that the new requirement freezes out any new competitors and essentially rewards manufacturers already on the roster (even Glock), despite not having the features that would be required of the newcomers. So Glock, Ruger, etc can sell guns without X or Y or Z, but you need X, Y or Z. And no one has Z (microstamping) so you are barred from the market. I think that is a suitable route for a lawsuit.
5. If that way fails, then, maybe, it would be better to take the bitter medicine and have manufactuers boycott the roster, thus forcing the issue on another level. But till then, we need some means other than the expensive single shot exception for semiautos (that is how I get an AK pistol in CA) or the Single Action conversion for revolvers.
6. I suppose if they did boycott, sales of Ruger Vaqueros might go up quite a bit! (Single Action Revolvers are not subject to the roster)
I just went through the lists, and I’m proud to say that none of the guns I own are legal in California.
I bet you a gun that all or most of your guns are legal in California.
Do any of your hand guns
1. Take a magazine outside the pistol grip?
2. Have a threaded barrel?
3. Have a forward pistol grip?
No? Then they are legal. FFL’s cannot sell them as is, but we can own them and there are legal ways to get them.
MA also has a roster of handguns. In order to be transferred or sold by an FFL in-state, a handgun needs to be drop-safe and meet certain other physical requirements.
In addition, to be sold or transferred by an FFL in MA, handguns have to meet the AG’s “safety” regulations requiring loaded chamber indicators and a DA trigger that’s heavier than the gravity field of Jupiter.
There are guns that are on the Roster but do not meet the regulations, so they’re unavailable in MA except through private purchase.
Buuuuut, a cop can buy a non-approved firearm (such as a Gen 4 Glock) from a MA FFL, and then he or she can transfer it to a mere citizen. Ain’t that nice?
At the time that I bought my 10-5 we had consignment sales in California. If you owned a gun that wasn’t on the roster you could sell it by putting it on consignment at the LGS. I don’t know if that’s still legal or not.
I think consignment follows the ppt rules but a ffl will not buy or take in trade an off roster handgun as they would not be able to sell it to anyone not an Leo.
I’ve thought a bit over the years about EDC and a tactical load out consisting entirely of C&R weapons.
Would anyone feel poorly armed if equipped with Colt SAA and Winchester 94 chambered for .45LC?
Of course a cheaper and more viable route could include a luger or 1911 and either a Winchester mod 97 or an M1916 Mauser.
What would your C&R loadout look like?
Pretty much what it looks like now. In the house a revolver and shotgun. For real SHTF add an SKS. Hand out mosins and leftover shotguns and handguns to those I trust.
You’re clearly not thinking like a modern, Democratic party, government bureaucrat.
There’s probably a whole bunch of 10-4’s still in police department inventories in the state, and maybe in the hands of retired or even current duty cops in CA.
If they don’t certify these revolvers for sale, that’s going to crimp the ability of their government bureaucracies and their employees to make a buck off the private sector by selling these wheelguns.
Can’t have that, now can we?
Gun shop crawl this weekend.
Comments are closed.