The California “Roster” and Why You Should Care

Estimated reading time: 0 minutes

California is notorious for its strict, arguably draconian, gun control laws, which include magazine limits, an assault weapon ban, waiting periods, and ammunition background checks. One gun control measure that is the most onerous of them all. Universally hated by all Californians in the shooting sports…our handgun roster. 

The “Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale” dictates which brands, models, and even finishes can be sold in California. Two identical models with different finishes may have different legal statuses—one legal for civilians, the other banned.

I have heard many Californians say they could live with a lot of the other gun control laws…if we didn’t have to deal with the Roster. 

But to be fair…why should you care?  We’ll get to that.

The California Roster – History

In 2001 the California Legislature passed the Unsafe Handgun Act.  This law was intended to stop the sale of “Saturday Night Special” or cheap, and sometimes unreliable semi-auto handguns lacking a lot of modern safety features. 

To evaluate the guns’ ability to function reliably, they were required to pass a live fire evaluation, a drop test in a lab, and a handgun drop test in a lab to get added to the list.  This was to ensure only weapons deemed safe by these measures could be sold in California.

However, the state politicians were not satisfied with this.  Perhaps, once they gained the power to control what guns came into the consumer market here, they believed they should decide what is best, or “safest” for the California consumer.

A Growing List Of Requirements

Later, new laws required additional safety features for semi-automatic firearms, including a chamber-loaded indicator (CLI), a magazine disconnect safety (MDM), and manual safeties. This abruptly started to tamp down on the introduction of new weapons. Companies like Sig Sauer and Smith and Wesson continued to adapt and add weapons to the roster.

The state has tried to mandate the form and appearance of the loaded chamber indicator to prevent accidental shootings.  These can be large enough to be a distraction to your sight plane.  Some break easily, and others are just plain awkward to holster with. 

My question would be, what industry experts did they confer with to make these decisions?  In a legislature that treats gun owners and gun companies with such contempt, I am dubious about who they went to, or even if they did….

The Microstamping Question

In 2007 the California State legislature passed a mandate to require microstamping technology in all new firearms.  The technology would imprint a tiny code identifying the weapon and serial number, which could then be tracked by firearm registration to the owner.  The marks were to be made in two places on the ejected shell casing, one on the primer from the firing pin, as well as marking the casing to assist law enforcement in tracking the gun.  This mandate became effective once at least two companies had the technology and it was not restricted by patent. 

Manufacturers opposed the idea for several reasons. First, the technology was easily bypassed.  A gun owner could replace the firing pin for valid reasons.  Another issue is that these markings will change over time as the gun experiences wear.  The same is true of the microstamping parts.  Those with nefarious intent could deface the marking portions of the gun. 

Even today, firearms manufacturers as well as most industry experts say the technology still does not exist to be successfully implemented.  I would also wonder if this new technology creates issues for manufacturers concerning product liability, reliability, and manufacturing.  Additionally, this would inevitably increase the price of all new firearms.  It was a noble, but fundamentally flawed idea. 

The Back and Forth

In 2013, California’s Attorney General, Kamala Harris certified that microstamping technology had advanced enough that the earlier requirements for its mandate could be enforced.  This effectively stopped any new semi-automatic handguns being added to the roster since then.  Revolvers were unaffected by most of the requirements of the roster since most of the requirements were geared specifically at semi-auto pistols.  Single-action revolvers, single-shot handguns, and rimfire pistols were also exempt from many of the roster requirements. 

In 2020, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 2847 to simplify microstamping—but at a cost. Guns could be added to the roster with the firearm placing microstamping on only one location of the expended shell.  However, for each new gun added to the roster, three older handguns would be removed from the roster with no real indication of how those weapons would be chosen.  This was later ruled unconstitutional in 2021.

The idea, while noble, is unworkable and just not well thought out.  My proof, NO manufacturer could comply.  If the gun companies are all about the money and profit like the media says, then if this as possible, at least one of the big manufacturers would have stepped up to get that big market with a new firearm that would surely be in demand.

The Real Effect of the California Roster

After 2013, no new semi-automatic firearms were added to the roster as no manufacturer could comply with them.  It became a de-facto complete ban on any new firearms being added to the roster.  Older weapons could stay on the roster, such as the Glock Gen 3, or guns like the earlier California S&W Shield.  However, as the state rolled into the 2020s, many of the guns on the roster were approaching 25 – 30-year-old technology.

Certain groups were exempt from the roster, notably Law Enforcement who the Legislature acknowledged needed more modern weapons (but not civilians…).  Private-party transactions were exempt as well for used handguns.  You can understand why this drove prices in the used handgun market into orbit.

So, in essence, it was a hot mess…civilians were stuck with older, and arguably less safe technology.   

Recent Roster Developments

In 2022, the court case Boland v. Bonta reached Federal Judge Cormac J. Carney—and changed everything. (YouTube personality Reno May also joined the suit—thank you, Reno!) Judge Carney ruled that key roster requirements, including the loaded chamber indicator, magazine disconnect safety, and microstamping, violated the Second Amendment. The court issued an injunction, but as expected, California appealed it. However, the state, realizing it couldn’t enforce the microstamping mandate, chose not to contest that specific requirement. (Instead, lawmakers re-mandated it for 2028, likely hoping the technology improves by then.) The ruling allowed new handguns on the roster, provided they included a magazine disconnect and loaded chamber indicator. Most also feature manual safeties.

With that, the door cracked open. Companies like Sig, Smith and Wesson, and HK are rushing California Compliant firearms to market.  Consumers are hungry for new and more modern semi-auto pistols, so they are selling well.  While I could write a whole article about the safety concerns with the other two requirements, this is still a welcome change.  Californians still cannot buy most of the semi-automatic firearms available to everyone else such as Gen 5 Glocks.

Why Should Non-Californians Care?

OK, you may ask yourself why this should matter to you.  You may live in a free state that doesn’t have this.  It comes down to one fairly relevant thing…Kamala Harris.  She was the Attorney General who certified the microstamping technology as being ready for the mandate in 2013. 

Legislators had to know or reasonably should have known. The end effect would be a ban on new semi-automatic firearms.  Manufacturers said they could not comply with the requirement. The evidence was there.  If she was a true proponent of gun ownership, she would have reasonably seen this mess coming.  This part falls squarely on her shoulders.

The “Harris Effect”

If Vice President Harris had been elected President, I doubt she would have proposed such legislation. But would she sign it if it came to her desk? I cannot say for certain, but based on her previous stances on guns, I would guess so. What executive orders would she have issued regarding firearms? Would she push for changes to the Supreme Court?

Who we have in Congress also impacts this.  Such legislation cannot get higher up if it is not passed in either the Senate or the House.  This is why it is always so important to know who is representing you in D.C.

I can understand the desire to not allow faulty handguns or mechanically unsafe weapons.  There are civil remedies for that very thing.  (I know this is not what you may hear from the media…but yes if your firearm is unsafe from a faulty design, materials, or workmanship, they can very much be sued…)

Continually Changing Requirements

Let’s be clear, the Roster has nothing to do with safety.  Perhaps in its earliest form, it did.  But it turned into a system to continually change the requirements of what makes a “safe” handgun. 

I want to believe it’s the reaction by politicians to rare occurrences that they want to bubble wrap consumers from.  (Whenever there is a tragedy…they must do something…)  Instead of doing the painful thing of acknowledging that the owner of a firearm has made a terrible choice by allowing a child to get ahold of a gun, or they were careless and treated a loaded gun as if it were unloaded, they devise plans to force firearms manufacturers to make guns “stupidity-proof”. 

The truth is, that while owning a firearm is a fundamental right, it comes with responsibilities that fall directly on the shoulders of the owner.  We as gun owners should (and I believe largely do) acknowledge that those who make these kinds of tragic mistakes must be held accountable.

Read More: The California Sig P365…Opening a Door to Concealed Carriers

New Bills Every Day

Don’t think California is alone.  Other states already have a roster.  New York, Massachusetts, the District of Columbia, and Maryland have all joined this club with rosters of their own.  Some states like New York have requirements to be sold in the state.  Don’t think this is isolated to just California.

California Congressman Darrel Issa and New York Congresswoman Elise Stefanik proposed the Modern Firearms Safety Act in Congress to ban state handgun rosters on the federal level.  While this bill is gaining some traction, the makeup of Congress today will make its passing a very low probability.  It is, however, bringing this problem up for discussion on a national level.  Please be part of the discourse.  Reach out to your federal representatives and let them know how you feel. 

In the end, all I can say is this can happen to you if you are not diligent.  Being a citizen is not easy, and means we need to hold our elected official’s feet to the fire.  My hope is the Second Amendment will someday not be treated as a second-rate right. 

*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE! ***