GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-13-2007, 15:02   #1
Davis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Sacramento County, California
Posts: 846
New G21SF, Doubt it will ever be Ca Approved

Correct me if I am wrong...very possible.. but the ever so sweet looking G21SL doesn't have a magazine disconnect that new
guns must have along with a round indicator to get on the list

Ca SB 489 //Bummer , I was looking forward to swapping my 10mm upper on it

From Ken Lunde's site:

http://lundestudio.com/2007SHOTShow/
Davis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2007, 04:46   #2
ryan_kalani
Vivere Paratus
 
ryan_kalani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 253
"SB489 (Scott - Dem) Semi-Auto Handgun Bill - Requires all newly-designed semiautomatic handguns submitted to CA DOJ "safety" testing after January 2007 be equipped with a loaded chamber indicator and/or a magazine disconnect mechanism. SB489 was massively amended to achieve passage - the author had to agree to serious limitations on the bill's implementation and effect. While originally targeting all semi-automatic handguns manufactured after 2005, SB489 was amended to affect only newly-designed semi-automatic handguns. All existing semi-automatic handgun designs, as well as new designs which are submitted to CA DOJ safety testing before 2007, are now exempt from SB 489.
Many thanks to Smith & Wesson for their strong lobbying effort against SB 489."


Bad info? The Glock 21 SF may see CA after all.

Last edited by ryan_kalani; 01-15-2007 at 05:01..
ryan_kalani is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2007, 11:39   #3
m4rcus
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sac
Posts: 26
I thought I read a post on here that said Glock has no plans to make the 21SF Cali-legal. I tried to search it but I can't find the thread..

I'm curious what the feel of the 21SF is like. But I don't think I would buy one, even if they were Cali-approved. That rail is just so ugly. Besides I have long fingers and the 21 grip feels great to me.
m4rcus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2007, 18:33   #4
miwall
Senior Member
 
miwall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: California
Posts: 295
...CA Approved

May be a bit off topic, but I just looked at the DOJ list of approved handguns. I never realized the color of a gun would make it safe or not safe. The list has all Glock models with reference to "OD" so I guess the green ones are just as safe as the black ones. I would have thunk the OD green ones were more military than the black ones!
__________________
Miwall
miwall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2007, 20:30   #5
Chinaman Dan
Senior Member
 
Chinaman Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: It's the law in Kennesaw
Posts: 278
If you really want one, have a CO or LEO buy one and then have them transfer it to you.
Chinaman Dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2007, 20:59   #6
Davis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Sacramento County, California
Posts: 846
From Ca Attoney Generals webpage

SB 489 (Stats. 2003, ch. 500) (Scott) (2003 bill - Provisions are operative beginning 1/1/2006)

* Requires that effective January 1, 2006, no semiautomatic centerfire pistol model may be added to the roster of handguns certified for sale in California unless it has a chamber load indicator or, if it has a detachable magazine, a magazine disconnect mechanism. Also effective January 1, 2006, no rimfire semiautomatic pistol that has a detachable magazine may be added to the certified list of handguns for sale in California unless it has a magazine disconnect mechanism. Handgun models that have been placed on the roster prior to the new requirements becoming operative may remain on the roster without these features (PC 12126, 12130).
Webpage
Davis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2007, 21:07   #7
Chinaman Dan
Senior Member
 
Chinaman Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: It's the law in Kennesaw
Posts: 278
What does that have to do with my post? You can still have a CO or LEO buddy buy you one, let him hold onto it for like a month and then PPT it to you.
Chinaman Dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2007, 21:09   #8
Davis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Sacramento County, California
Posts: 846
it is my understanding of the safety test , the new glock has a change to the frame and a different designation number ,under the ca safe firearms law , it would be considered a new gun and must go thru the testing and annual extortion fee they charge.

So since it is now coming out I not hopefull
Davis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2007, 21:11   #9
Davis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Sacramento County, California
Posts: 846
Quote:
Originally posted by Chinaman Dan
What does that have to do with my post? You can still have a CO or LEO buddy buy you one, let him hold onto it for like a month and then PPT it to you.
I was responding to ryan_kalani post

as for using an LEO or CO, That would be great, Its that something that can be done?
Davis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2007, 19:36   #10
elsolo
Senior Member
 
elsolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: socal
Posts: 12,206
Quote:
Originally posted by Davis
as for using an LEO or CO, That would be great, Its that something that can be done?
The way to get around the CA safe pistol list is:
Be an LEO and buy it under certain conditions, you are exempt. You can then PPT it to a friend after you decide you no longer like it anymore.
Move into CA, decide you no longer want your un-approved handguns so you could sell them to me.
Have your out of state mother or father bring one to you at XMAS or whenever and gift it to you, pay DOJ their fine and the list is exempt for that transfer.
elsolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2007, 20:54   #11
Davis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Sacramento County, California
Posts: 846
Cool info thanks
Davis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2007, 23:14   #12
Merkavaboy
Code-7A KUZ769
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In The State Of Fruitloops (CA)
Posts: 5,374
Quote:
Originally posted by Chinaman Dan
If you really want one, have a CO or LEO buy one and then have them transfer it to you.
Unfortunately, your plan won't work.

All new model semi-auto pistols made after Jan 1, 2007 with the intention of being sold in CA will have to have the magazine disconnect & loaded chamber indicator. The new G-21SF pistol will not be CA compliant and there fore it cannot be sold to either civilian or law enforcement people. The only way a L.E.O. person is going to get one of these pistols is if the agency issues it, and even then, I don't think the law will exempt L.E.A.'s, but I'm not certain of that. EVEN if the L.E.O. has a letter from the CLEO (chief law enforcement official) giving him/her permission to purchase a handgun for "official duty use" and waive the 10 day wait, only CA compliant handguns and those guns that were actually owned by the gun store(s) prior to the gun safety testing law can be sold to L.E.O.'s.

In other words, your cop buddy cannot request to purchase the G-21SF from an out-of-state dealer because that gun still has to be brought into the state (i.e. "imported"), be "papered" by the FFL dealer, and registered by DOJ. Once DOJ sees the brand name & model number of "GLOCK" & "21SF", DOJ will know that this pistol is not CA compliant and will void the transaction. And if the wrong DOJ employee catches this attempt to bring in a non-compliant & forbidden handgun into the state, there could be some nasty repercussions for both the FFL dealer and your cop buddy.
__________________
"I spent the last two years of high school in a daze....attended classes sparingly, drank beer heavily, and tried drugs enthusiastically."
Barack Obama
One Bad Ass Mistake America

Last edited by Merkavaboy; 01-18-2007 at 23:30..
Merkavaboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2007, 00:50   #13
ryan_kalani
Vivere Paratus
 
ryan_kalani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 253
Quote:
Originally posted by Davis
it is my understanding of the safety test , the new glock has a change to the frame and a different designation number ,under the ca safe firearms law , it would be considered a new gun and must go thru the testing and annual extortion fee they charge.

So since it is now coming out I not hopefull
I see what you are getting at. Because Glock added "SF" to the model number those in CA are now screwed from getting it. Weak!

Even LEO pistols have to have to have the magazine in the weapon to fire now? You can't be serious!

Last edited by ryan_kalani; 01-19-2007 at 16:32..
ryan_kalani is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2007, 19:46   #14
Merkavaboy
Code-7A KUZ769
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In The State Of Fruitloops (CA)
Posts: 5,374
Quote:
Originally posted by ryan_kalani
I see what you are getting at. Because Glock added "SF" to the model number those in CA are now screwed from getting it. Weak!

Even LEO pistols have to have to have the magazine in the weapon to fire now? You can't be serious!
Not only a new model number, but new features including an ambi-mag release and IIRC some sort of external safety. Because of these changes, the pistol is considered a completely new model. Even if there were no new laws requiring the magazine disconnect and the loaded chamber indicator, it would have to still go thru the safety tests.

And now, because of the new laws regarding mag safety & chamber indicator, any new centerfire semi-auto has to have these features. In reading the law, I see nothing stating that L.E.A.'s are exempt from obtaining new model guns for duty issue.

So suppose GLOCK finally decides to manufacture their .380 Auto pistol wholely here in the U.S., CA. still won't be able to get them unless they make them with the mag safety!

Yeah, I know, STOOPID! But that's the scum sucking liberals for ya! And now that fruit cake Jerry Brown is our Atty General, like Samuel Jackson's character in Jurassic Park said: "Hold onto your butts!", because we're all going to be in for one hell of a rocky ride here in CA.
__________________
"I spent the last two years of high school in a daze....attended classes sparingly, drank beer heavily, and tried drugs enthusiastically."
Barack Obama
One Bad Ass Mistake America
Merkavaboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2007, 15:38   #15
Stanze
Senior Member
 
Stanze's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: San Diego, Ca
Posts: 435
Quote:
Originally posted by Merkavaboy
CA. still won't be able to get them unless they make them with the mag safety!
Unlikely IMO because you have to pull the trigger to disassemble a GLOCK pistol, a mag disconnect safety would make the gun impossible to field strip with it's current design.
__________________
G17 born in 1/06.
Stanze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2007, 17:57   #16
adamtheman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: California
Posts: 182
Quote:
Originally posted by Merkavaboy
Not only a new model number, but new features including an ambi-mag release and IIRC some sort of external safety. Because of these changes, the pistol is considered a completely new model. Even if there were no new laws requiring the magazine disconnect and the loaded chamber indicator, it would have to still go thru the safety tests.

And now, because of the new laws regarding mag safety & chamber indicator, any new centerfire semi-auto has to have these features. In reading the law, I see nothing stating that L.E.A.'s are exempt from obtaining new model guns for duty issue.

So suppose GLOCK finally decides to manufacture their .380 Auto pistol wholely here in the U.S., CA. still won't be able to get them unless they make them with the mag safety!

Yeah, I know, STOOPID! But that's the scum sucking liberals for ya! And now that fruit cake Jerry Brown is our Atty General, like Samuel Jackson's character in Jurassic Park said: "Hold onto your butts!", because we're all going to be in for one hell of a rocky ride here in CA.
I disagree. Check out Penal Code 12125 (b) (4). It states "Nor shall anything in this section prohibit the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of these agencies of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person." LE folks can purchase such pistols as the Kel-Tec P-3AT.
adamtheman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2007, 09:29   #17
Glocks&Ducs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,815


Quote:
Originally posted by elsolo
...
Have your out of state mother or father bring one to you at XMAS or whenever and gift it to you, pay DOJ their fine and the list is exempt for that transfer.
You can't transfer a handgun like this, without going through an FFL. And if the gun is not on the CA list, the FFL will not tranfer it.
Glocks&Ducs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2007, 15:37   #18
HarlDane
Senior Member
 
HarlDane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: San Joaquin Valley
Posts: 7,133
Quote:
Originally posted by Glocks&Ducs
You can't transfer a handgun like this, without going through an FFL. And if the gun is not on the CA list, the FFL will not tranfer it.
Thats not true, it only has to be on the list if it is a new handgun being offered for sale, or a handgun being brought into the state. You can transfer all the off list handguns you want if the gun is already in the state.
__________________
-HarlDane-
"Son of the San Joaquin"
The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly. A. Einstein
HarlDane is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2007, 16:02   #19
Glocks&Ducs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,815


Quote:
Originally posted by HarlDane
Thats not true, it only has to be on the list if it is a new handgun being offered for sale, or a handgun being brought into the state. You can transfer all the off list handguns you want if the gun is already in the state.
Read what I quoted, read what I wrote, do some reading, then tell me that isn't true. I wasn't referring to California law.

http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pu...3004/index.htm

And if your in-laws are bringing you a gun from out of state, that qualifies as a "gun being brought into the state" does it not?

Last edited by Glocks&Ducs; 01-29-2007 at 16:05..
Glocks&Ducs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2007, 22:53   #20
M4inCA
pho_kit_all
 
M4inCA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Southern Tip of the PRK
Posts: 1,505
So by all accounts, if I were to purchase a 21SF while living in Florida or Michigan, I cannot transfer said firearm with me to the California Communist Sector of the USA when I move back 6 months later?

Is this true??? I was under the impression only "BANNED" weapons such as the AK47/AR15 or any other "AW" was not allowed. NOT "Un-Tested in California".

Offically, I friggen hate this state.

Magazine disconnect, loaded round indicator.... pffft...

1st rule in gun handling - The weapon is ALWAYS loaded!!!!!
M4inCA is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 17:40.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,229
373 Members
856 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 16:42