# 92 fs vertec vs vertec inox



## Lucky1 (Jan 2, 2022)

Hello everyone. I’m in the market for a 92fs vertec inox (I live in CA so I don’t have a ton of options) but I was wondering if anyone new why a blued 92fs vertec is NOT allowed? I’d feel stupid asking what’s the difference between the two because it seems one is bled while the other is inox. But what else am I missing? There’s one on gb (non inox) and it looks like a beauty. Any insights would be appreciated. Thank you all.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Lucky1 said:


> Hello everyone. I’m in the market for a 92fs vertec inox (I live in CA so I don’t have a ton of options) but I was wondering if anyone new why a blued 92fs vertec is NOT allowed? I’d feel stupid asking what’s the difference between the two because it seems one is bled while the other is inox. But what else am I missing? There’s one on gb (non inox) and it looks like a beauty. Any insights would be appreciated. Thank you all.


Well it is California so nothing would surprise me? The only possible reason that I can come up with is that there is some feature on that particular gun that has nothing to do with the finish that is not California compliant. GB may have the answer to that. Not for nothing but have you ever considered moving out of that state?


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

As I said in reply to your question at the Beretta Forum, it is the rules for California. For years, different companies have explained that even if they do something like even change the color of a gun, it has to be resubmitted to the roster with the fee for California to approve it again. This is the policy of California. They wanted to make it as difficult as possible.

And now, there are even MORE restrictions for guns submitted. If I remember right, microstamping was added to the state's requirements. So, that is why you aren't really seeing new stuff pop up on the roster for California. Most of the things on the roster are guns that have been out before the more stringent roster rules kicked in...

I believe Glock still makes the Gen 3s simply so they can sell it in California. Springfield has continued making the full rail Operator 1911 for sale in California. 

There have been stories how the new FNs that the police are using in California can't even be sold to the public there because of the stupid CA roster rules. 

Blame your state, not the gun companies.


----------



## Lucky1 (Jan 2, 2022)

Shipwreck said:


> As I said in reply to your question at the Beretta Forum, it is the rules for California. For years, different companies have explained that even if they do something like even change the color of a gun, it has to be resubmitted to the roster with the fee for California to approve it again. This is the policy of California. They wanted to make it as difficult as possible.
> 
> And now, there are even MORE restrictions for guns submitted. If I remember right, microstamping was added to the state's requirements. So, that is why you aren't really seeing new stuff pop up on the roster for California. Most of the things on the roster are guns that have been out before the more stringent roster rules kicked in...
> 
> ...


The micro stamping that doesn't even exist is a tough pill to swallow


----------



## Lucky1 (Jan 2, 2022)

desertman said:


> Well it is California so nothing would surprise me? The only possible reason that I can come up with is that there is some feature on that particular gun that has nothing to do with the finish that is not California compliant. GB may have the answer to that. Not for nothing but have you ever considered moving out of that state?


minus the gun laws, California is an incredible state. It's the people we put into office that works against us.


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

Lucky1 said:


> minus the gun laws, California is an incredible state. It's the people we put into office that works against us.


I will disagree. With the crime, gangs, high gas taxes, lack of prosecution in the bigger cities, homelessness getting out of hand, the current possible plan to possibly double taxes in order to give universal health care, the need for a map in San Francisco to avoid poo and needles on the streets.... Just a few things that jump to mind in 5 seconds. I could list more.

I'll stay in Texas


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Lucky1 said:


> minus the gun laws, California is an incredible state. It's the people we put into office that works against us.


As far as the landscape goes it's an incredibly beautiful state I'll give you that. I'm in Arizona and I know plenty of Californians that have moved here to escape the insanity and it's not just the gun laws. There's not one person that I personally know from California that has anything good to say about what life has become there. Most of them talk about how great it used to be growing up there and are sickened as to what their home state has turned into. I just don't understand why so many in California willingly put up with all of that bullshit? I had great hopes that Larry Elder would become your next governor. I figured that Californians have finally had enough, but it was not to be.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Shipwreck said:


> I will disagree. With the crime, gangs, high gas taxes, lack of prosecution in the bigger cities, homelessness getting out of hand, the current possible plan to possibly double taxes in order to give universal health care, the need for a map in San Francisco to avoid poo and needles on the streets.... Just a few things that jump to mind in 5 seconds. I could list more.
> 
> I'll stay in Texas


Not only is all of that true. But just the fact that they keep on electing people like Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters would be enough to drive anyone away.

I'll stay in Arizona.


----------



## berettatoter (Sep 1, 2011)

I don't know how to answer your questions OP, but I am sure you can get on the internet, and look up the "why" about your state's laws.


----------



## SSGN_Doc (Mar 12, 2020)

Shipwreck said:


> I will disagree. With the crime, gangs, high gas taxes, lack of prosecution in the bigger cities, homelessness getting out of hand, the current possible plan to possibly double taxes in order to give universal health care, the need for a map in San Francisco to avoid poo and needles on the streets.... Just a few things that jump to mind in 5 seconds. I could list more.
> 
> I'll stay in Texas


everything you listed Is essentially because of the elected officials, or within the power of elected officials to clean up if they had the will to do so. So, the OPs point that CA is a nice state, but for the elected officials is basically correct. However manyCalifornians who vote, still don’t understand that. Many are getting fed up and moving to TEXAS. So it may not be long before you see the effects of the locust cloud descending in Texas. Best to befriend some of your new neighbors and educate them on WHY Texas is a preferable place to live based on cleanliness, homelessness, crime, and cost of living. If they want it to remain that way, they need to vote different than the CA majority.

My last visit to Texas, was a bit eye opening in the down town sections of San Antonio, Austin, and Dallas, compared to my last visit a few years ago. Some evidence of erosion is already visible.

Saw the same thing here in Washington. Seattle and Olympia have put this state in a steady state of decline for over 2 decades. Largely followed CA ex-pats taking tech jobs up here and Californicating this state.

grew up in CA but couldn’t get myself to want to return after retiring from the military. A completely different place than it was 24 years prior, when I left for the Navy.

Geographically, climatically and culturally it is a state with a lot to offer. In the 70s it was still a bit “Wild West” but that changed dramatically.


----------

