California bill aims to end the single shot exemption for handguns

[Jgarrick]

http://www.guns.com/2014/04/29/california-bill-aims-to-end-the-single-shot-exemption-for-handguns/

A bill that passed the California state Assembly last week would break the popular practice of the ‘single shot exemption’ for modified semiautomatic handguns not on the state’s approved roster. “AB 1964 will ensure that all handguns purchased through a dealer in California are handguns which meet all safety and firing tests and contain all state required handgun safety features,” said Assemblyman Roger Dickinson (D-Sacramento) sponsor of the bill, in a statement. “By limiting the guns available for sale we can further protect our families and our communities from gun violence,” he added.

Dickinson maintains that the current law, which allows a gun shop to convert a semiautomatic handgun not currently on the state’s approved roster to fire single-shot only (no semiautomatic reload of a bullet in the firing chamber), typically through use of a magazine plug and extended barrel, is a loophole. To justify his concern, Dickinson cited figures that indicate before 2009 an average of 1,100 single-shot handguns were registered each year in the state, but by 2013 the number of registered single-shot handguns had grown to over 18,000.

His bill would limit the guns eligible to be converted to “break top or bolt action.” Further, the bill would require any gun that has been converted to meet all of the same testing requirements on the state’s semiautomatic handgun list. Guns must also retain the current requirement to have a barrel of no less than 6-inches and an overall length of no less than 10.5-inches. As such, AB 1964 is supported by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which labeled it a ‘priority bill,’ as well as the Coalition Against Gun Violence, and the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Both the National Rifle Association and the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (CAL-FFL), however, oppose the legislation. “AB 1964 does not address any legitimate public safety problems,” stated a release by the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “Criminals are not buying single shot handguns from firearms dealers to commit their crimes,” it continued. “By further banning common handguns from civilian use, AB 1964 violates the Second Amendment, and is likely to add to the litigation for which the State is already embroiled.”

(Excerpt, remainder of article at link)

Banning single-shot handguns? Really?

[rrneck]

1. I don't understand.

Aren't semiautomatic pistols legal in California? The barrel and magazine adaptations are absurd since they can be changed in about thirty seconds (as long as you buy another barrel and mag).



The state of California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale allows a Beretta that falls well within the minimum dimension standards listed in the bill.



It appears that the law (California Section 31900 of the Penal Code) refers to handguns that are required to have safety features including a chamber load indicator, magazine disconnect and to be drop safe. Those safety features also seem to include microstamping capability(?). What do the overall dimensions of the gun have to do with the safety features of the gun?

This is the screwiest load of bullshit I've seen in a while.

[Bazinga]

2. I've mentioned before,I have a brother who owns a gun shop in Northern CA.

He explained this to me once. This is what you get for allowing people like Leland Yee to write "safety" legislation.

Essentially it's a ploy to try and force gun manufacturers to pay ball with them. If your gun isn't on our state-approved list (that requires expensive licensing and testing, not to mention having to send the state hundreds of test models never to be seen again), it can't be sold in our state. A couple years ago there was a big kerfuffle when Glock refused to put a magazine (un)safety on their pistols and they were going to lose their spot on the authorized list. I don't remember exactly what happened, but I know my brother can still sell Glocks and they still only have the three safeties Glocks have always had.

The single shot rule was a loophole that allowed gun shops to sell guns that weren't on the list. Essentially the models were retrofit with an extended barrel with no feed ramps and a pinned magazine so it can only fire one shot. Now that it's a single shot pistol it can be sold without having to be on the authorized list. So the buyer comes in, buys his "single-shot pistol," leaves the store, turns around and walks back in the store, buys a replacement barrel and magazine, and goes home and drops them into his new "unapproved" semi-auto. Most of the time they just buy the original barrel that was removed for a dollar or two and hand back the dummy extended barrel so that it can be used for the next purchase.

My brother never did this in his store (I've never met a more honest person in my entire life) but you can bet all of his competitors did.

[rrneck]

4. Ah. Okay, that makes sense.

The explanation, not the law. I guess lawmakers don't realize that every time they try to regulate a product like that it's like a shot of nitrous into the marketing machine. Or maybe they do realize...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. It's time to put an end to the scourge of high-capacity single-shot pistols! nt

[blueridge3210]

5. Assault Pistol. (NT)

[Eleanors38]

6. I thought that stuff was the purview of Thompson-Center and the old J.P. Stevens Co.

Singleshot handguns. How quaint.

[ileus]

7. Because single shots kill people too...