Ruger Semi-Auto Pistols No Longer For Sale in CA

Hollywood Ball · Jan 17, 2014

From SHOT Show...

http://www.calgunlaws.com/2014-shot-show-day-1/

Ruger is going to stop selling semiautomatic pistols in California:

In perhaps one of the more shocking discoveries at the 2014 SHOT Show, Ruger spokesperson Kevin Reid revealed that Ruger was going to let it’s entire California Semiautomatic pistol roster “…drop off…” the CA Department of Justice Approved Handgun List.

It seems that in Ruger’s slavish dedication to the concept of “continuous improvement”, and that California is milking some $ 200 per pistol per year to stay on the list AND that microstamping is now the rule, Ruger has already let some 60+ semiautomatic pistols drop off the approved handgun roster with the rest shortly to follow. (Note to the legal beagles out there: NSSF Governmental Relations/State Affairs Director Jake McGuigan did announce at an early morning seminar that NSSF had filed suit on or around January 9 regarding the microstamping issue in California.).

How this effects Ruger Sales of revolvers and rifles in the Fool’s Paradise of Kalifornia remains to be seen. While Ruger continues to produce excellent revolvers, California gun owners are notorious for voting with their feet against businesses that desert them when the chips are down. Hopefully this won’t too badly effect the roll-out of the latest GP-100 (seen below.).

I emailed Ruger through their "Email the CEO" page on their website and received this email that somewhat clarifies their predicament...

We are now being forced to retest all of our guns (pistols and double
action revolvers) as their time on the roster expires. And we are having
them all retested. But we cannot meet the micro-stamping requirement for
the pistols. These guns are passing all the tests they passed the first
time around, but there is no technology that can pass the micro-stamping
requirement, so the CADOJ is refusing to recertify the pistols and
consequently they are not getting renewed on the list. The CADOJ will not
even accept the data from the test labs that shows the guns passed every
test except the microstamping.

The net result is that the double-action revolvers are getting renewed on
the list, and the pistols are not. But we are trying everything we can to
get them back on the list.

Also, as voting members of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, we
have been instrumental in pushing them, as the representative of our
industry, to take the lead in initiating litigation in California to
overturn the microstamping regulations. They filed suit last week to do
just that.

Sincerely,
Mike Fifer

Benanov · Jan 17, 2014

From what I understand it (and what others have posted above) the firearms can be recertified for 12mo by paying the $200. However, any changes - any - from a different trigger to a new polymer composition or new finish, means that the firearm has changed and as such triggers the microstamping requirement.

Ruger has decided that the CA market is just not worth the money/hassle. IMO it's a calculated move to bring some light onto this situation. I'm sure NY has microstamping rules, and MD can't be too far behind.

Hollywood Ball · Jan 17, 2014

Benanov said:
From what I understand it (and what others have posted above) the firearms can be recertified for 12mo by paying the $200. However, any changes - any - from a different trigger to a new polymer composition or new finish, means that the firearm has changed and as such triggers the microstamping requirement.

Ruger has decided that the CA market is just not worth the money/hassle. IMO it's a calculated move to bring some light onto this situation. I'm sure NY has microstamping rules, and MD can't be too far behind.

I thought the same (that they were simply giving up), which is why I included the email from Ruger. Their pistols are facing an expiration on the roster and require re-testing, which includes microstamping this time around. They can not physically pass that requirement, and thus are being excluded from the roster. Suit has been filed.

I sent a follow up to the response I received, inquiring if they are simply the first to fall to this, and can we expect the same result for every other major manufacturer and the response was "yes."

Hollywood Ball · Jan 17, 2014

Honestly, I don't think their message is being conveyed very clearly. There should have been a very concise, clear press release sent out, not some word-of-mouth announcment from a Ruger rep at SHOT Show.

Numidian · Jan 17, 2014

Sounds more like they can't sell them in CA.... Not they won't sell them in CA. The latter being a much more staunch, backbone requiring position to take.

MigraineMan · Jan 17, 2014

California's microstamping regs are pretty vague, and are subject to change on the AG's whim. From 31910 (b) 7 (A):

(7) (A) Commencing January 1, 2010, for all semiautomatic pistols
that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015,
it is not designed and equipped with a microscopic array of
characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the
pistol, etched or otherwise imprinted in two or more places on the
interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that
are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm
is fired, provided that the Department of Justice certifies that the
technology used to create the imprint is available to more than one
manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions.
(B) The Attorney General may also approve a method of equal or
greater reliability and effectiveness in identifying the specific
serial number of a firearm from spent cartridge casings discharged by
that firearm than that which is set forth in this paragraph, to be
thereafter required as otherwise set forth by this paragraph where
the Attorney General certifies that this new method is also
unencumbered by any patent restrictions. Approval by the Attorney
General shall include notice of that fact via regulations adopted by
the Attorney General for purposes of implementing that method for
purposes of this paragraph.

I have attached a copy of the California DA's certification that the technology is available and unencumbered by patents, and that's what triggers the law's applicability. How, specifically, do you encode said data on the spent casing? Yeah, they don't include that tidbit.

Having looked at the Lizotte patent, which I believe was the original "encumbrance", I really don't see how this is supposed to work. I understand the part about the firing pin (or hammer) mashing an imprint on the casing head, but the one that's supposed to go on the side of the casing is going to be smeared all to hell, especially in blowback-operated firearms. As for Encoded Holographic Multi-Dimensional Barcodes referenced in the patent ... wtf?

beretta_maven · Jan 17, 2014

It looks like California is getting what it wants - eventually you will not be able to purchase a firearm there.

Benanov · Jan 21, 2014

beretta_maven said:
It looks like California is getting what it wants - eventually you will not be able to purchase a firearm there.

Let's just hope it applies to cops, too. I doubt it, though. CA really seems to want to do the guns for me but not for thee deal.

abean4187 · Jan 21, 2014

CA has finally succeeded in its goal of removing legal firearm ownership from the state by making it too burdensome to own. This is just the first stepping stone and I expect them to make it harder and harder as time goes by and more and more companies to just give up.

rbird7282 · Jan 21, 2014

F*&k California.

kcbrown · Jan 21, 2014

Benanov said:
Let's just hope it applies to cops, too. I doubt it, though. CA really seems to want to do the guns for me but not for thee deal.

The roster does not apply to law enforcement (or, if I remember right, retired law enforcement, for that matter, though I might be wrong about that).

Are you kidding? If it applied to law enforcement, it never would have passed to begin with. The police unions would have killed it in its tracks. But instead, I expect they supported it precisely because it exempted their members.

Law enforcement does the bidding of the state. There's no way legislators will neuter their servants.

codefive · Jan 23, 2014

These guns are passing all the tests they passed the first
time around, but there is no technology that can pass the micro-stamping requirement, so the CADOJ is refusing to recertify the pistols and
consequently they are not getting renewed on the list. The CADOJ will not
even accept the data from the test labs that shows the guns passed every
test except the microstamping.

If there is no tech, how can they demand it??? Thats like saying the EPA said you cant sell cars unless they get 200 MPG ... setting unobtainable goals cant be legal, can it?

This is clearly a case of infringement IMO.

Someone needs to take this to a higher level.

rbird7282 · Jan 23, 2014

MigraineMan · Jan 23, 2014

The CADOJ appears to be listening to "experts" who claim the technology is available. Maybe they have managed to demonstrate something in controlled laboratory conditions. However, the legislation doesn't specify the microstamping method or encoding techniques to be used, so it's completely unclear what they expect to be implemented.

The Lizotte patent mentions embossed holographic techniques to encode data. I went through a "holography" phase in high school, and holograms were fussy to implement and required very controlled conditions. I really don't see a hardened steel striker mashing into a brass substrate as being capable of producing optical-wavelength features in a repeatable fashion.

Your credit card companies emboss the hologram on a plastic substrate using thermoforming methods. The hardness of the embossing tool and the hardness of the warm plastic vary drastically, and that's why it works for that application. This isn't the case for steel-on-brass in a firearm.

At some point, I expect the CADOJ to "discover" that this steel-on-brass embossing process results in substantial wear of the microstamping components. It would be a matter of "common sense" to require that firearm owners report on a regular basis to fire and provide a spent cartridge to confirm microstamping compliance. Repairs to non-compliant firearms will need to be performed at authorized facilities.

Think of it as the equivalent of emissions testing on your car.

rbird7282 · Jan 23, 2014

codefive said:
If there is no tech, how can they demand it??? Thats like saying the EPA said you cant sell cars unless they get 200 MPG ... setting unobtainable goals cant be legal, can it?

This is clearly a case of infringement IMO.

Someone needs to take this to a higher level.

+1

Boom Boom · Jan 23, 2014

codefive said:
Someone needs to take this to a higher level.

One step at a time. Ruger and S&W had to halt semi-auto pistol sales first. Now that they have, no doubt lawsuits are on the way, probably with financial support from Ruger and S&W if not direct involvement.

Brooklyn · Jan 23, 2014

kcbrown said:
The roster does not apply to law enforcement (or, if I remember right, retired law enforcement, for that matter, though I might be wrong about that).

Are you kidding? If it applied to law enforcement, it never would have passed to begin with. The police unions would have killed it in its tracks. But instead, I expect they supported it precisely because it exempted their members.

Law enforcement does the bidding of the state. There's no way legislators will neuter their servants.

It is up to the private sector to do that.

It's up to us to ensure that they do so.

We may soon see firearms marketed for civilian use only as upstarts try to peal away the activist market from the big guys...

Expect this mostly in boutique firms....

Let's see what litigation brings... but I will vote with my dollars as well.

fightinbluhen51 · Jan 23, 2014

Brooklyn said:
It is up to the private sector to do that.

It's up to us to ensure that they do so.

We may soon see firearms marketed for civilian use only as upstarts try to peal away the activist market from the big guys...

Expect this mostly in boutique firms....

Let's see what litigation brings... but I will vote with my dollars as well.

Guess what...it isn't just Ruger.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...Most-CA-Sales-Due-to-Microstamping-Regulation

And this is NOT a manufacturer's problem...this is over regulation being the problem. It's a solution in search of a problem.

Brooklyn · Jan 23, 2014

fightinbluhen51 said:
Guess what...it isn't just Ruger.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...Most-CA-Sales-Due-to-Microstamping-Regulation

And this is NOT a manufacturer's problem...this is over regulation being the problem. It's a solution in search of a problem.

What I am saying is that decling to bid on Leo contracts in CA is the only short term way to roll this back. This would include parts and support...
I know its not their doing. But they have leverage we do not.

CA is a large Leo market but I bet the civialian market is bigger. I think we all know what happens if this law holds in CA.

fightinbluhen51 · Jan 28, 2014

Brooklyn said:
What I am saying is that decling to bid on Leo contracts in CA is the only short term way to roll this back. This would include parts and support...
I know its not their doing. But they have leverage we do not.

CA is a large Leo market but I bet the civialian market is bigger. I think we all know what happens if this law holds in CA.

No, I got that...just saying that this is not a manufacture's problem...it's a problem created by tyrannical Sacramento.

Ruger Semi-Auto Pistols No Longer For Sale in CA

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Mountaineer

PM Bomber

Mountaineer

Mountaineer

Banned

Defenestration Specialist

Attachments

Free Thinking Member

PM Bomber

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Super Genius

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Defenestration Specialist

Ultimate Member

Hold my beer. Watch this.

I stand with John Locke.

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

I stand with John Locke.

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics