quade 4 #1 January 25, 2009 Ok, was just looking at the Walther SP22 and saw a note at the bottom of the page that said, "Important Note: The SP22 is not available for sale in California. Void where prohibited by law." http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=13152&storeId=10002&productId=65150&langId=-1&parent_category_rn=48316&isFirearm=Y This is on all variations of the weapon. In looking over the tech specs I can't see why. What am I missing?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #2 January 25, 2009 CA requires additional testing as well as a certification process which costs the manufacturers dough. Much in the same way CA treats auto parts. Walther may not have the desire to pay to sell in the CA market. I experienced the same thing when I wanted the XD45 with the silver slide. Nope...sorry it's not certified for sell in CA and likely never will be.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,483 #3 January 25, 2009 I don't see that _particular_ model on the list... but, the list there changes weekly and it may be so close to the P22 that it's not worth the hassle. http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/safeguns_resp.aspNobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybill 22 #4 January 25, 2009 Hi quade, Sorry about that. Glad I left the place back in 96'. Don't miss the BS but I do miss all the good Dives and Good times at Scare-Us_Valley and Old Elsinore!! Never mind the milk, GOT GUNS?? BTW The C&E Gun Show will be in Fayetteville NC weekend after next. Get'em while they last! CU ThereSCR-2034, SCS-680 III%, Deli-out Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #5 January 25, 2009 QuoteCA requires additional testing as well as a certification process which costs the manufacturers dough. Much in the same way CA treats auto parts. Walther may not have the desire to pay to sell in the CA market. I experienced the same thing when I wanted the XD45 with the silver slide. Nope...sorry it's not certified for sell in CA and likely never will be. This was one of the more insidious taxes levied against gun owners in CA. When it was implemented, I believe 3 of my pistols were no longer saleable, or replaceable. I believe it's a 10 or 20k cost per model, and niche products don't sell enough to warrant that. The .22 market is especially vunerable to this sort of attack, just as it would be with X cents/bullet tax proposals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #6 January 25, 2009 Are you saying you'd like a progressive tax with higher calibers being charged more? quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #7 January 25, 2009 Quote This was one of the more insidious taxes levied against gun owners in CA. When it was implemented, I believe 3 of my pistols were no longer saleable, or replaceable. I believe it's a 10 or 20k cost per model, and niche products don't sell enough to warrant that. The .22 market is especially vunerable to this sort of attack, just as it would be with X cents/bullet tax proposals. Good! If the auto industry had welcomed the mandate (by the CA gov.) of a certain percentage of zero emission cars, istead of recalling all the EV1's and crushing them and building hummers instead... then imagine how healthy the auto industry in the USA would be... toyota wouldn't be able to claim the Prius as the best thing since sliced bread because the EV1 would be, and it would be an american car not a japanese car, but america wanted a bigger gas guzzler... Allowing gun idiots to hoard guns for the pleasure of owning and firing them contibutes to the deaths of many. The guns the gun hoarders get bored of, end up in the hands of the insane. It is good to see more and more movement towards sanity rather than meat head gun totn' madness that prevails in most other states. Rock on California! "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #8 January 25, 2009 QuoteOk, was just looking at the Walther SP22 and saw a note at the bottom of the page that said, "Important Note: The SP22 is not available for sale in California. Void where prohibited by law." This is what the gun-o-phobes call "reasonable" gun control - banning simple .22 caliber target pistols. It reveals just how far they'll really go to eliminate all guns, and not just the "assault weapons" that they scream about in the press. This is their true agenda - there is NO gun that is too innocent for citizens to own, according to them. It also goes to show how far they'll go with a hundred different ways to slice and dice 2nd Amendment rights into oblivion. If small caliber target pistols aren't safe, then nothing is safe. And it's all coming soon, to your own states, or maybe even to America as a whole. See this: http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/ And this: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12125.php When guns are determined to be "unsafe" or "unreliable", they are forbidden from sale. But, of course, police and Olympic shooters can still use them, no problem - they are exempt from these regulations. Only you ordinary peons are forbidden to own them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #9 January 25, 2009 John, while I sympathize, I do not agree with your use of the word "ban." It doesn't look like the gun is banned at all. It looks like the manufacturer has simply decided it's not worth the certification. Can you show me otherwise?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #10 January 25, 2009 QuoteIt doesn't look like the gun is banned at all. It looks like the manufacturer has simply decided it's not worth the certification. Can you show me otherwise? So one state has a ridiculous regulation that prevents a normally legal firearm from being imported into that specific state and its not a ban? With that logic, nothing is banned, as long as your a FFL and can get ATF tax stamps.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #11 January 25, 2009 It's not a ban. It's an additional requirement that the manufacturer decided not to comply with. The automotive industry deals with California's additional smog regulations all the time and I can absolutely assure you that virtually any car you want to buy can be sold if the person making it wants to sell it badly enough.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #12 January 25, 2009 but would you pay $100,000 for a pinto, Lecar or a vw thing? Maybe not a ban in your eyes but makes it unreasonable to market. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #13 January 25, 2009 I can attest that the Pinto absolutely WAS sold in California. I owned one and it certainly didn't cost me $100,000. The issue is a matter of scale. If only a few of these guns would be sold then I can see why the manufacturer didn't think it financially prudent to go ahead with getting the certification. The certification law absolutely looks as if it's designed to keep out crappy guns that would go off just by being dropped or are of such shoddy construction they can't successfully fire 600 rounds without major failures. I don't think you'd want to buy those guns anyway. The "shame" of it is that the low sales volume guns like the SP22 get caught up in the bean counter's calculations of what is and is not worth selling in California.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #14 January 25, 2009 Quote Quote This was one of the more insidious taxes levied against gun owners in CA. When it was implemented, I believe 3 of my pistols were no longer saleable, or replaceable. I believe it's a 10 or 20k cost per model, and niche products don't sell enough to warrant that. The .22 market is especially vunerable to this sort of attack, just as it would be with X cents/bullet tax proposals. Good! If the auto industry had welcomed the mandate (by the CA gov.) of a certain percentage of zero emission cars, istead of recalling all the EV1's and crushing them and building hummers instead... then imagine how healthy the auto industry in the USA would be... toyota wouldn't be able to claim the Prius as the best thing since sliced bread because the EV1 would be, and it would be an american car not a japanese car, but america wanted a bigger gas guzzler... Allowing gun idiots to hoard guns for the pleasure of owning and firing them contibutes to the deaths of many. The guns the gun hoarders get bored of, end up in the hands of the insane. It is good to see more and more movement towards sanity rather than meat head gun totn' madness that prevails in most other states. Rock on California! I'd usually clip the text, but the ignorance in this posting has to be fully seen to understand the response. Taxing bullets is the same as taxing practice. Is there a safety gain to having 5 or 10 million Californians with guns but not practicing at the range? No, there is not. Would it have any effect on criminal behavior? Not in the slightest. A criminal only has to the use the threat of a gun to achieve most crime. And he doesn't give a fuck if his errant shots kills a bystander anyway. He might go an entire year on 2 boxes of ammo; even at 50 cents/bullet, that is $50 for the 100 rounds. People here use 200 or 300 rounds in a single session at the range. Taxing .22 at the same level as the others is even more idiotic, as it's costs 1/5 to 1/10 what other rounds do, and for that reason is often used for extensive practice, as well as for competitive sport. You can buy a brick of 500 for 10-15$, but this tax might be $250 on top. To bring your analogy in, it would be similar to recent suggestions to switch vehicle taxation from gas to miles driven, something that punishes the Prius or EV1 drivers to the benefit of those driving 3 ton SUVs. The only reason to do it is to discourage citizens from thinking about fuel economy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #15 January 25, 2009 Quote The certification law absolutely looks as if it's designed to keep out crappy guns that would go off just by being dropped or are of such shoddy construction they can't successfully fire 600 rounds without major failures. I don't think you'd want to buy those guns anyway. The "shame" of it is that the low sales volume guns like the SP22 get caught up in the bean counter's calculations of what is and is not worth selling in California. The 'stated intent' is as you suggest. But there are many ways to deal with so called junk guns. Taxing at 5 figures per model, and insisting that all minor variations be tested, indicates the real intent to diminish the choices available to the market. The matter of scale is the entire point. Driving up costs won't affect the well to do, it only prevents the poor from enjoying their right to own a gun. Much of the attack on the junk guns manufactured in CA had a racist/classist undertone to it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #16 January 25, 2009 QuoteThe "shame" of it is that the low sales volume guns like the SP22 get caught up in the bean counter's calculations of what is and is not worth selling in California. Glocks are in general "low sales volume guns" right? They did not go through Kalifornia's drop test or function tests. The company decided not to adhere to the absurd price and procedure that the state requires. So many LE agencies in the state carried Glocks and were exempt from the requirements since they were LE agencies, that the state decided that it "must be a safe gun" and allowed the sell in the state. Your state's tax dollars at work. How's your refund? Oh...--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #17 January 25, 2009 QuoteTaxing at 5 figures per model . . . Do you know if the certification process costs $10,000 or $99,999?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #18 January 25, 2009 Quote Do you know if the certification process costs $10,000 or $99,999? The last I heard, its the cost of the tests, plus 3 guns, plus $3500 for the trouble of the test being completed. That's 3 guns per variant of the weapon. If you offer the same gun with different sights. That's another test to sell the version with different sights. Take the Glock 22 and 22C for instance. The only difference is the porting on the barrel and slide for the compensator. That's a whole separate round of tests.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #19 January 26, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe "shame" of it is that the low sales volume guns like the SP22 get caught up in the bean counter's calculations of what is and is not worth selling in California. Glocks are in general "low sales volume guns" right? They did not go through Kalifornia's drop test or function tests. The company decided not to adhere to the absurd price and procedure that the state requires. So many LE agencies in the state carried Glocks and were exempt from the requirements since they were LE agencies, that the state decided that it "must be a safe gun" and allowed the sell in the state. Your state's tax dollars at work. How's your refund? Oh... Glocks are on the list now - along with a few of my others like the HK P7M8 that they held back on for a while. Interesting to note that all of them indicate an expiration date of this year or next. The code doesn't seem to indicate a lifespan to the cert, but each year the AG can select 5% of the models listed for a retest. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #20 January 26, 2009 QuoteQuote Do you know if the certification process costs $10,000 or $99,999? The last I heard, its the cost of the tests, plus 3 guns, plus $3500 for the trouble of the test being completed. I wasn't able to find anything more, so I think Dave's recollection is as good as we can do. Couldn't confirm if there is an annual fee as well. I did find that the Ring of Fire brands, obstensibly the target of the legislation, had no trouble passing the drop tests. further complication matters is each year or two more requirements are added in terms of magazine disconnects and chamber indicators or the certification tests won't be performed. More progress on eliminating models! Can't wait to hear the verdict on the technical availability of microstamping technology - if the AG says it exists next year, every current model is removed from the market. I bought a bunch of guns in 1999-2000 to beat any legislation, and I'm happy I did. I think I have 3 or 4 thousands rounds of ammunition as well, though based on that other thread I should probably start adding to it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #21 January 26, 2009 Quotefurther complication matters is each year or two more requirements are added in terms of magazine disconnects and chamber indicators or the certification tests won't be performed... Yep, the camel's nose is in the tent, and every new anti-gun politician will want to further restrict the available guns by ratcheting up the requirements. Anything to make guns more expensive to own, so that fewer people can afford them, is another one of their goals. And this law plays to that strategy. What's the purpose of this law? To prevent cheap guns from being bought by criminals? To eliminate unsafe guns? Okay, what are the stats. Has gun crime gone done in California at a significantly higher rate than elsewhere in the country where there is no such law? Have accidental gun deaths gone done at a higher rate than elsewhere? I don't think so. It's another liberal feel-good boondoggle that accomplishes nothing, and restricts the free market and free rights of citizens. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #22 January 26, 2009 QuoteJohn, while I sympathize, I do not agree with your use of the word "ban." It doesn't look like the gun is banned at all. It looks like the manufacturer has simply decided it's not worth the certification. Can you show me otherwise? The intent was to not allow them into the State unless the company spent a bunch of money. It is the same as the prohibitive tax put in place by FDR in 1934 when he created the NFA act. The idea is to make it so expensive that people do not bother (either buyer or seller). So while it is not a "ban" per text book definition, it is a ban in practice."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #23 January 26, 2009 Quote Allowing gun idiots to hoard guns for the pleasure of owning and firing them contibutes to the deaths of many. The guns the gun hoarders get bored of, end up in the hands of the insane. It is good to see more and more movement towards sanity rather than meat head gun totn' madness that prevails in most other states. Rock on California! Ah, more mindless spew without benefit of fact, Rhys? You were doing so well for a while, too...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #24 January 26, 2009 >So one state has a ridiculous regulation that prevents a normally legal firearm >from being imported into that specific state and its not a ban? Correct. Compare that to cars. California has more stringent emissions limits than any other state, and indeed a car legal to sell in Tennessee is generally not legal to sell in California. But if you claimed that therefore cars were banned in California, people would laugh at you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #25 January 26, 2009 Quote>So one state has a ridiculous regulation that prevents a normally legal firearm >from being imported into that specific state and its not a ban? Correct. Compare that to cars. California has more stringent emissions limits than any other state, and indeed a car legal to sell in Tennessee is generally not legal to sell in California. But if you claimed that therefore cars were banned in California, people would laugh at you. If he were claiming that ALL cars were banned in California, then rightly so. The point remains that, while it may not be a ban under law such as Roberti-Roos, it has the same effect.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
