# California approved pocket pistol



## Joejitsu (May 23, 2007)

Hey guys, I spent the last few days researching on pocket pistols and had decided pretty much to get a kel tec...until today I found that they are not legal in CA, argh! Any Californians on here share their thoughts on good CA legal pocket pistols? Thanks.

Joe


----------



## Benzbuilder (Sep 7, 2006)

About all you can do is move.:smt082:anim_lol::smt023


----------



## ArmyCop (May 7, 2006)

Joejitsu said:


> Hey guys, I spent the last few days researching on pocket pistols and had decided pretty much to get a kel tec...until today I found that they are not legal in CA, argh! Any Californians on here share their thoughts on good CA legal pocket pistols? Thanks.
> 
> Joe


Kel Tec's NOT Legal???
Why in the world NOT? Do they give an explanation behind this?


----------



## spacedoggy (May 11, 2006)

ArmyCop said:


> Kel Tec's NOT Legal???
> Why in the world NOT? Do they give an explanation behind this?


The explanation is "IT'S CALIFORNIA" Next with Roise's help they will pass a law that you can not own any kind of firearm on the fourth of July. That means you have to sell them all before and then buy again after the 4th.


----------



## Joejitsu (May 23, 2007)

ArmyCop said:


> Kel Tec's NOT Legal???
> Why in the world NOT? Do they give an explanation behind this?


The california laws require all new handguns produced to pass a three part safety test. First, they drop them several times and cannot misfire. Second they must be able to shoot 600 rounds with less than 3 malfunctions (i think). Finally, they must have some sort of external safety (which the kel tecs do not).

Joe


----------



## ArmyCop (May 7, 2006)

Ohhhhh. Ok. That makes a little sense now.

With no external safety I guess that'd outlaw most if not all snubbies right?


----------



## Revolver (Aug 26, 2006)

Joejitsu said:


> The california laws require all new handguns produced to pass a three part safety test. First, they drop them several times and cannot misfire. Second they must be able to shoot 600 rounds with less than 3 malfunctions (i think). Finally, they must have some sort of external safety (which the kel tecs do not).
> 
> Joe


You also forget all the cash the manufacturers have to fork over for these "tests" to be conducted. Every variant of the same model must also be tested.


----------



## Revolver (Aug 26, 2006)

ArmyCop said:


> Ohhhhh. Ok. That makes a little sense now.
> 
> With no external safety I guess that'd outlaw most if not all snubbies right?


Not if they have those infernal key locks on them.


----------



## Todd (Jul 3, 2006)

Joejitsu said:


> Finally, they must have some sort of external safety (which the kel tecs do not).


I guess that makes Glocks and XD's and all revolvers illegal there too then? That doesn't seem right. Then again, it is Kaliforniastan. :smt017


----------



## stevexd9 (May 10, 2007)

Todd said:


> I guess that makes Glocks and XD's and all revolvers illegal there too then? That doesn't seem right. Then again, it is Kaliforniastan. :smt017


I got a big yellow sticker on my XD that says it's illegal in California. good think I have to plans of moving there. I'm supprised my XD doesn't have a sticker telling my that "this product is know, by the state of California, to cause cancer"


----------



## MLB (Oct 4, 2006)

I hear that they cause "lead poisoning" too :smt033I


----------



## spacedoggy (May 11, 2006)

Joejitsu said:


> Second they must be able to shoot 600 rounds with less than 3 malfunctions
> Joe


That's why the Kel-Tec isn't legal


----------



## Joejitsu (May 23, 2007)

Todd said:


> I guess that makes Glocks and XD's and all revolvers illegal there too then? That doesn't seem right. Then again, it is Kaliforniastan. :smt017


No, they are legal in California because the safety is the trigger safety on the glocks and the trigger safety + grip safety on the XDs. It doesn't have to be an old school safety, just some sort of safety from what I understand. Every gun store in CA sells a ton of glocks and XDs (purchased one last week) so they are definitely legal.

Joe


----------



## Digby (Jun 17, 2007)

*Revolvers don't need a safety in Kalifornia*

I just bought a very nice SP101, no safety. I am surprised I can buy ANY handgun in this messed up State.


----------



## TexasFats (Sep 25, 2006)

Joejitsu said:


> Hey guys, I spent the last few days researching on pocket pistols and had decided pretty much to get a kel tec...until today I found that they are not legal in CA, argh! Any Californians on here share their thoughts on good CA legal pocket pistols? Thanks.
> 
> Joe


You can one one provided that it is made of PINK plastic and will not hold more than 5 cc's of water. Oh, and it cannot have an effective range beyond 3 feet.


----------



## JimmySays (Jun 8, 2007)

Not really impressed with my P3-AT. I guess a Kahr would also be out of the question. I do like my P40. 
Do like Tommy Lee Jones says,"get yourself a Glock, and get rid of that nickle plated sissy pistol."


----------



## Glockamania® (Dec 21, 2006)

Yup, Kel-Tecs aren't allowed in CA.

Check this DOJ site that tells you what CA allow and what don't allow:
http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/

Glocks are on the list! What about a subcompact Glock model 26?


----------



## pokeyoakey (Feb 26, 2012)

*Pocket pistols*

I'd like to see a list of five good pocket pistols that are California legal. I don't want to spend time bashing California, it's a great State and other than the limited selection of guns to purchase, I love the State. I can wait ten days to pick up a weapon, I just wish I had more choices. I'm certainly not going to move so I can buy a Ruger LCP.


----------



## hud35500 (May 8, 2010)

Everyone is missing the biggest reason why a some handguns cannot be sold in KA. Manufacturers decline to submit a handgun for testing. If you want to sell it in KA, you must submit several samples of each model for testing. XD's are legal for sale, XDM's are not. All Glocks are legal, as are most Sigs. External safties are not an issue, internal safties are. Alot of manufacturers have just written off KA. I can't say I blame them.


----------



## pokeyoakey (Feb 26, 2012)

We spell California with a "C". I sometimes think that people are jealous of California and all it's natural beauty. If these gun manufacturers want to write California off, that's their business. I wish it didn't have to be that way, but I can roll with it. I can only buy so many guns anyway.


----------



## TedDeBearFrmHell (Jul 1, 2011)

pokeyoakey said:


> We spell California with a "C". I sometimes think that people are jealous of California and all it's natural beauty. If these gun manufacturers want to write California off, that's their business. I wish it didn't have to be that way, but I can roll with it. I can only buy so many guns anyway.


its not that the gun mfg want to write off california, its that california makes selling some guns there cost prohibitive. their required "testing" (which the mfg pays for) is not only for each model but each variant of each model..... so not only does the model xb93 need to be tested, but in all 13 barrel lengths available, and 4 different finishes, and 5 different grips and 3 different sights (night sights are the same as standard sights, their ONLY exemption)

so the mfg has to submit 780 xb93 guns for testing ..... and thats just that model in ONE caliber, each model, each caliber, each barrel length, each finish, each grip, each sight (cept night sights) and when the certificate expires, they gotta do it again.

oh, and in california you cant manufacture a pistol in the state if it doesnt pass the tests, yet you cant submit a pistol for testing unless you manufacture it.

if you submit a pistol for testing to see if its safe for sale, your results will never be SAFE.... its either "unsafe" or "not unsafe".... if it was "safe" the mfg might not be able to be sued.

so its not jealousy that is keeping gun mfg from california, its the asinine liberal lawmakers PUSHING them away


----------



## pokeyoakey (Feb 26, 2012)

Good explanation of the process, but rather than blame one particular ideology, It'd be more apt to blame a ridiculous bureaucracy that feeds off of these type of rules and regulations.There are just as many assanine conservative lawmakers who want to take away my freedom and force their religion down my throat. I also wonder if this process actually makes any money for California. I would have purchased ten times as many guns if the rules were more relaxed. That would include the taxes and the fees involved. The gun stores would benefit as well as the State. Like I said, I'm grown up enough to wait ten days for a handgun, but I'd rather wait three. California, is still a great State to live in and I just happen to be be a progressive who enjoys collecting firearms and who cherishes my Second Amendment rights. I try to explain to my more liberal buddies that it's easier for a bad guy to get a gun than it is for me to get one legally, but no dice.


----------



## TedDeBearFrmHell (Jul 1, 2011)

pokeyoakey said:


> Good explanation of the process, but rather than blame one particular ideology, It'd be more apt to blame a ridiculous bureaucracy that feeds off of these type of rules and regulations.There are just as many assanine conservative lawmakers who want to take away my freedom and force their religion down my throat. ....


this process is a result of one particular ideology, more conservative states do not see the need for this kind of idiocy.

your feelings about conservatives and their religious views have nothing to do with this process and is a bait and switch..... if we were on a religious forum, it might have merit but not here.

liberals politicians rule california, make the laws, run the courts and drive away business'


----------



## Overkill0084 (Nov 28, 2010)

pokeyoakey said:


> Good explanation of the process, but rather than blame one particular ideology, It'd be more apt to blame a ridiculous bureaucracy that feeds off of these type of rules and regulations.There are just as many assanine conservative lawmakers who want to take away my freedom and force their religion down my throat. I also wonder if this process actually makes any money for California. I would have purchased ten times as many guns if the rules were more relaxed. That would include the taxes and the fees involved. The gun stores would benefit as well as the State. Like I said, I'm grown up enough to wait ten days for a handgun, but I'd rather wait three. California, is still a great State to live in and I just happen to be be a progressive who enjoys collecting firearms and who cherishes my Second Amendment rights. I try to explain to my more liberal buddies that it's easier for a bad guy to get a gun than it is for me to get one legally, but no dice.


Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. 
From your post you appear to have the following views:
You want less govt regulation.
You are pro 2 nd amendment.
You are pro capitalism.
You prefer to not depend on the police to protect you.
*You are not a progressive.* You may not be a conservative (about which, you are wrong, by the way. I don't care about your religion, just leave me & mine alone.), but you will have to see about turning in the progressive card. Stand by for the intervention from your progressive friends.
If you want lower taxes & a pickup truck, turn that card in immediately.


----------



## berettabone (Jan 23, 2012)

I see absolutely no S&W .380's on that list.........commies////


----------



## scooter (May 9, 2006)

TedDeBearFrmHell said:


> liberals politicians rule california, make the laws, run the courts and drive away business'


+1000
Liberals have no clue what is good for the people or this country, just what is good for their pocketbooks.


----------



## pokeyoakey (Feb 26, 2012)

Overkill0084 said:


> Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
> From your post you appear to have the following views:
> You want less govt regulation.
> You are pro 2 nd amendment.
> ...


I'm a progressive. My religion comment was out of line, though...sorry.


----------



## TedDeBearFrmHell (Jul 1, 2011)

pokeyoakey said:


> I'm a progressive. My religion comment was out of line, though...sorry.


i dont think it was relevant to the discussion, wasnt offended.


----------



## pokeyoakey (Feb 26, 2012)

So, now that we got that out of the way, and people have vented about California and liberals, can someone put up a list of what they think are decent pocket guns that are on the California drop list? I can search all I want on the DOJ website, but I haven't a clue if the guns I come across are any good. I want a high quality pocket gun, that fits flat in my pocket and will go bang every time. I have a couple of different revolver, but thye are a bit too noticeable.


----------



## Overkill0084 (Nov 28, 2010)

pokeyoakey said:


> I'm a progressive. My religion comment was out of line, though...sorry.


I wasn't offended. It's the internet, thin skins need not apply. 
My post was intended as a bit of levity. Seriously though, CA DOJ sucks. Most of the guns that I could think of that might work, aren't on the list. I don't know a heck of a lot about pocket pistols, so I found the whole thing a bit annoying.
Beretta Tomcat, maybe? The Cheetah looks a bit large for a "pocket pistol," but it's certainly worth a look."
Bersa Thunder, some people love them, some hate them. There seems to be very little middle ground.
How about a baby Glock?


----------



## pokeyoakey (Feb 26, 2012)

I love my S&W model 60 . If I get a concealed carry permit, I'd just carry 38 ammo in it, though. I was able to get this at a better price than a model 36, plus it's more versatile. I just didn't like the idea of sticking one of those little 380's without a safety in my pocket and I fired an air weight and didn't like it at all. Of course, if I did get a permit to carry, I might just carry a bigger firearm, but I just try to avoid being in situations now, where I would need to carry a firearm. Pepper spray works well if you get harassed by dogs and I carry a heavy walking stick on my walks. So it's a choice I have to make. I'd like to have a lot more training before I consider getting a permit and would really like to go through the rest of my life without ever having to use a gun in a self defense situation. I am getting too old to run, though, which would be one of my first choices to avoid a beating or being robbed, so carrying a handgun and being able to use it and make the right choices in a dangerous situation, is something I have to think about.


----------

