# Ruger to Stop Selling Semis in California?



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

A report that Ruger is going to allow all their semi-auto handguns to "drop off" the California Approved Handgun Roster:

Link to story>>> BREAKING: Ruger to Stop Selling Semis in California? | The Truth About Guns

Interesting comments. Read the comments there, discuss them here. :mrgreen:


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

probably two things at work here:

it's probably a PITA to meet the requirements set by Cal
Ruger probably looked at it and decided there wasn't enough sales volume in the state for them to have to deal with the PITA anymore. 

Sounds like a purely business decision to me. Too bad for the law abiding gun owners/buyers in Cal.


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

This so-called CA Department of Justice Approved Handgun List is a subliminal way to deter manufacturers from selling their products in the State of California. Plain and simple. The government for the most part would have no problem confiscating and/or making it illegal for the citizenry to own any firearm in the state, if they could get away with it. As far as gun ownership is concerned, California is the Cuba of the U.S.


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

Sounds like it has been confirmed.

Link>>>> BREAKING: Ruger Confirms CA Semis Slip Sliding Away | The Truth About Guns

One commenter keeps ranting about how manufacturers don't have to retest each weapon when it comes due; as long as it hasn't changed, the maker just has to pay the re-registration fee. But the list of "exemptions" given in the law to allow re-certification WITHOUT retesting is both vague and fairly nit-picky, and assuming that the folks making the decision to retest are the ones doing the testing, it's job security for them to find every possible reason to require retesting on every gun with ANY change, no matter how small.


----------



## AdamSmith (Dec 18, 2013)

You always need to check the "California list" before you can import a particular brand and model of firearm here, that's nothing new.

Ruger has been really good at getting their stuff special treatment in the past. That has always been surprising.

If they are slipping, now, that is no big surprise.

Sacramento does not like really big guns with huge magazines, or really small guns you can hide in your pocket.

Really small guns have been an issue for decades, so nothing new about that.

The large magazine issue has been more recent, and stems from mass shootings here and around the nation.

Generally, 10 round magazines are the allowable benchmark here. It's a fig leaf, but it's reality here now.

If you cannot reek carnage with several 10 round magazines then you are not a very good shot, and you're spraying and praying way too much anyway.


----------



## niadhf (Jan 20, 2008)

And let us not forget CA passed a "micro stamping" law due to go into effect soon (2015?). 
What manufacturer is going to voluntarily jump on board that band wagon? I bet you see more of this.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

DJ Niner said:


> But the list of "exemptions" given in the law to allow re-certification WITHOUT retesting is both vague and fairly nit-picky,


I'm curious, is that a quote from the article? How can something be both "vague" and "nit picky" at the same time. Doesn't being "nit picky" imply that every minor specific detail needs to be addressed? So how is that "vague" at all, seems it's pretty specific about what needs to be tended to. Is this another example of the trash written about guns by the lefties? (can't use the link because it's blocked on the network I'm on right now).


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

AdamSmith said:


> You always need to check the "California list" before you can import a particular brand and model of firearm here, that's nothing new.
> 
> Ruger has been really good at getting their stuff special treatment in the past. That has always been surprising.
> 
> ...


Yes, but as with Sacramento, they look solely at the criminal element, who in essence are not eligible to have any firearm in their possession, big nor small.

While in essence dictating what law abiding citizens may or may not possess, the ones that abide by the law. Simply put the State of California does not trust it's own law abiding citizens.

Do you really believe the criminal element is not going to find a way to possess really big guns with huge magazines, or really small guns you can hide in your pocket, All the while placing law abiding gun owners in peril? If a bad guy has an Ak-47 w/ a 40 round magazine, would you not want one too, or would you rather be relegated to a revolver or limited to a 10 round magazine?

Think about it. Just wait until other (major) manufacturers follow suit(especially with this implemented micro-stamping requirement). The law abiding citizens out there in Commiefornia are going to have slim pickings on what they will be able to possess in order to protect themselves and family.

The bad guys will always find away to possess really big guns with huge magazines, or really small guns you can hide in your pocket, leaving the law abiding citizens at a major disadvantage? Good luck and keep safe!

Meanwhile, make the jump for a calgunsfoundation.org's chart of CA handgun availability, proving that the "approved list" is just another way for Big Government to disarm its citizens, little by little, year by year . . .


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

Not a quote from the article, more of a summary of some of the comments, in my own words (probably could have chosen them better). 

The exemptions from retesting are in the form of a list in the law, and they seem to be pretty specific about when they do and do not apply (the nit-picky part). The comment on vagueness comes from the actual implementation, and the probability that the law's exemptions will be applied at all (there seems to be no appeal process for manufacturers who are denied test-free re-listing for minor changes). For instance, if you change the material the frame (magazine well) is made of, the "new" gun must be re-tested to get certified. However, there is an exemption for guns with different colored grips. In a polymer-framed pistol, if you change the color of the polymer, you must add and/or subtract pigments or dyes from the formula to change the color. This almost certainly makes minor changes in the polymer itself, which may affect the tensile strength or other characteristics. If that happens, new testing is required, despite the supposed "new grips are okay" exemption.

It opens a whole Pandora's box of possibilities. What if a manufacturer starts buying frame metal from a new supplier, and there is ANY difference in the makeup of the alloy compared to the old stuff; will any guns made with the newly sourced metal have to be re-tested? Re-radius a hole or surface joint to reduce the chance of cracking? Polish a part differently to smooth-up the trigger pull? Change the length/diameter/metallurgy of a spring's wire? Any/all of these minor changes could invalidate a pistol's certification and require retesting. The effect is to prevent a manufacturer from making any changes on-the-fly, no matter how minor.

And it becomes a much bigger deal with the upcoming micro-stamping rules. Any guns submitted for testing after the cut-off date for THAT law have to have micro-stamping characteristics, which NO manufacturer has agreed to do, at this point in time. So it will not only affect new models, but any old models which have ANY minor change to the mechanism. It "freezes" the approved pistols in time, no upgrades allowed, and if anything changes, the manufacturer will have to let it drop off the list rather than submit it for new testing with the currently-a-fantasy micro-stamping requirement.


----------



## AdamSmith (Dec 18, 2013)

denner said:


> Yes, but as with Sacramento, they look solely at the criminal element, who in essence are not eligible to have any firearm in their possession, big nor small.
> 
> While in essence dictating what law abiding citizens may or may not possess, the ones that abide by the law. Simply put the State of California does not trust it's own law abiding citizens.
> 
> ...


When you live under Communism, you learn to live with Communism. You do not whine about it every day. It is what it is.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

DJ Niner said:


> Not a quote from the article, more of a summary of some of the comments, in my own words (probably could have chosen them better).
> 
> The exemptions from retesting are in the form of a list in the law, and they seem to be pretty specific about when they do and do not apply (the nit-picky part). The comment on vagueness comes from the actual implementation, and the probability that the law's exemptions will be applied at all (there seems to be no appeal process for manufacturers who are denied test-free re-listing for minor changes). For instance, if you change the material the frame (magazine well) is made of, the "new" gun must be re-tested to get certified. However, there is an exemption for guns with different colored grips. In a polymer-framed pistol, if you change the color of the polymer, you must add and/or subtract pigments or dyes from the formula to change the color. This almost certainly makes minor changes in the polymer itself, which may affect the tensile strength or other characteristics. If that happens, new testing is required, despite the supposed "new grips are okay" exemption.
> 
> ...


That certainly is as clear as mud. I understand the confusion. I'm curious as to what the microstamping requirement is? Haven't seen anything about that so I'm certainly lacking knowledge of what they are asking for there, but it would seem that they are trying to make it as bureaucratically difficult as possible to get anything sold in the state.


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

BREAKING: Ruger CEO sets record straight on California, microstamping (VIDEO)


----------



## jdeere9750 (Nov 28, 2008)

AdamSmith said:


> When you live under Communism, you learn to live with Communism. You do not whine about it every day. It is what it is.


This very thought process has led us to most of the problems that we have today. At some point, we've got to stop taking the "sit back and let it go" mentality, and stand up for ourselves. Our opponents are definitely whining every day, so their voices are being heard and given concern.

I've followed your philosophy to this point in my life, but I'm now thinking its a bad approach.

Just my opinion, though.


----------

