18+ Content Warning

By clicking Enter, you confirm you are 18 years of age or older and agree to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws.

Notice: Any content or member activity - including anything you may buy, sell, transfer, or discuss - must comply with current and upcoming laws.

Members are encouraged to stay informed: California Firearm Laws: 2026 Outlook & 2025 Recap . Responsibility for compliance rests solely with the individual member.

What's new
caguns.net

Welcome to CAguns.net!
Join our growing community where you can ask questions, share knowledge, or browse our classifieds section.

Sign up for a free account today and unlock full access! Once registered, you can search, post, and take advantage of exclusive features unavailable to guests.

A note on why more of the site now requires an account: automated scrapers and AI systems have been crawling our forums and classifieds at a scale. Requiring sign-in for those sections is the most effective tool we have. It takes a minute to register, it's free, and it keeps what happens here between actual members.

New to California gun ownership or trying to keep up with the changing laws? Check out our sister site CA2A.com — free courses, plain-English legal updates, and step-by-step guides built for California owners.

Advanced features are available only to registered members. Register today!

Dereliction of CA DOJ

Somewhat on topic, and funny in a sad way: I recenlty contacted a USA manufacturer who makes pistol boxes. A couple are "CA DOJ approved" but the new model I wanted was not. I asked when it would be approved. Here is their response:

"It’s definitely in the plans, but we don’t have a clear target date yet.

They changed the program for this year, making it more complicated. The boxes need to be permanently marked with the part number and they added storage fees to the samples boxes in perpetuity if I’m reading it correctly.

We are trying to get some more clear guidance on what the new approval process looks like and what is involved."

For an effing metal box. CA leads the way in the dumbest electorate contest.
 
Experimentalist said:
I was going to add there's an 11% tax on firearm sales, but of course that's not used to the benefit of the firearms community.

According to Google:
The 11% state excise tax on retail firearm and ammunition sales in California (enacted via AB 28) is deposited into the Gun Violence Prevention and School Safety Fund. This money is spent on state programs for:
  • Gun violence prevention and community intervention programs
    • School safety improvements and security infrastructure
    • Mental health and counseling services
    • Research and education programs regarding firearms
(Note: This state-level tax is separate from the long-standing federal Pittman-Robertson 10%–11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition, which is spent nationally on wildlife restoration and public target-range construction.)

So our money is used against us. "Research and education". I know how that goes, having a Nephew who graduated an S.F. Bay area high school not so very long ago.

Edited to add: Hell, I'll do the approval processing for free. Sign me up.
Click to expand...
 
mygeaux said:
Somewhat on topic, and funny in a sad way: I recenlty contacted a USA manufacturer who makes pistol boxes. A couple are "CA DOJ approved" but the new model I wanted was not. I asked when it would be approved. Here is their response:

"It’s definitely in the plans, but we don’t have a clear target date yet.

They changed the program for this year, making it more complicated. The boxes need to be permanently marked with the part number and they added storage fees to the samples boxes in perpetuity if I’m reading it correctly.

We are trying to get some more clear guidance on what the new approval process looks like and what is involved."

For an effing metal box. CA leads the way in the dumbest electorate contest.
Click to expand...
It's by design
 
BONECUTR said:
I though Boland v Bonta or one of those has a hold on the add 1 remove 3 since the PC includes all the microstamping nonsense.
Think the goal was for every roster gun to having microstamping but since its not a requirement currently they cant remove the 3 for 1.
Click to expand...
California’s “3-for-1” roster rule wasn’t just a proposal, it was actually passed into law as AB 2847 in 2020. It required the DOJ to remove three older grandfathered semiautomatic pistols that did not comply with the newer roster requirements for every new qualifying semiautomatic pistol added to the roster. However, a federal court enjoined the 3-for-1 requirement in Renna v. Bonta in 2023, so it is not currently being enforced. California DOJ itself acknowledges that the 3-for-1 requirement is enjoined. The provision remains in Penal Code §31910, but the injunction is why new handguns are being added without DOJ automatically removing three older grandfathered models.
 
I did a little digging into the actual numbers just to put the recent additions in perspective. According to California DOJ, handgun roster additions/removals were:


2020: 44 added / 4 removed — 3.7 additions/month
2021: 9 added / 38 removed — 0.8/month
2022: 50 added / 33 removed — 4.2/month
2023: 63 added / 5 removed — 5.25/month
2024: 49 added / 7 removed — 4.1/month
2025: 117 added / 27 removed — 9.75/month

So 2025 really stands out. 117 guns were added and 27 removed, for a net increase of 90 models. The roster ended the year with 1,020 models.

The recent numbers do look noticeably slower. DOJ's current "Recently Added" page shows 11 models added since June 10, with the most recent additions dated July 2. As mentioned above, four of those 11 are Walther PDP variants.

So compared with the 9.75 additions per month averaged in 2025, the recent slowdown is certainly noticeable.

What we don't know from the published data is why. DOJ doesn't appear to publish the date it receives each completed application/test package, so we can't tell how long any particular gun has actually been sitting at DOJ waiting for approval. The numbers show the slowdown, but they don't tell us where the bottleneck is.
 
Guessing whoever updates the roster has been on vacation. Would be interesting to see if there was a gap last year around this time.
 
Educated guess from working with other state agencies in the past: There probably aren't dedicated people working only on the roster. More likely there are a few people who get involved on some days, and on other days they do other things.

That said, their budget has increased a lot in recent years (165% in the past decade). Even with all the new laws and new workload, they should be able to afford to pay staff (training them properly is a different issue). Your tax dollars at work.

Details from https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/5118

Funding for Firearm-Related Workload​

Background​

Bureau of Firearms (BOF) Primarily Responsible for Regulating and Enforcing State’s Firearm and Ammunition Laws. DOJ’s BOF is primarily responsible for the regulation and enforcement of the state’s firearm and ammunition laws. This includes conducting background checks for people seeking to purchase firearms and ammunition, licensing firearm and ammunition vendors, and administering various other firearm and ammunition programs. BOF engages in various activities related to these responsibilities. For example, BOF has enforcement teams who are primarily responsible for investigating the illegal purchase or possession of firearms and ammunition, as well as seizing them from people who are prohibited from owning or possessing them.

Overall BOF Funding and General Fund Support Increased Over Past Decade. As shown in Figure 2, support for BOF has increased over the past decade from $26.6 million in 2016-17 to $70.4 million in 2025-26—an increase of $43.8 million (or 165 percent). During this period, BOF also shifted from being fully supported by various special funds and began receiving General Fund support in 2019-20. Of the total $70.4 million provided to BOF in 2025-26, $36.2 million (or 51 percent) was from the General Fund and $34.2 million (or 49 percent) was from various special funds. A large portion of the General Fund support is used to support the Armed and Prohibited Persons System (APPS) enforcement teams, which seize firearms from people prohibited from owning or possessing them. Support for these teams was fully shifted over to the General Fund as part of the 2019-20 budget package. In the past couple of years, the General Fund—rather than special funds—have been used to support the costs of implementing some new firearm-related legislation and workload. (CJIS separately receives millions of dollars annually from several fund sources to maintain and update various databases needed to support BOF’s activities.)
 
I find it strange that Kimber announced that they were about to be on roster, shipped guns, advertised......and then a slow roll from CALDOJ.
 
Pythonfan said:
I find it strange that Kimber announced that they were about to be on roster, shipped guns, advertised......and then a slow roll from CALDOJ.
Click to expand...
Something had to have happened behind the scenes. Kimber was clearly expecting it to be added like a month ago now.
 
It sounds like the guns are at the distributors and possibly some of the retail locations already. And it seems like that's been the case for weeks.

Possible that the CAL DOJ didn't like that and just decided to slow roll it.

Are these the 1st 2011s to get on the roster? I can't think of any others.
 
Pythonfan said:
It sounds like the guns are at the distributors and possibly some of the retail locations already. And it seems like that's been the case for weeks.

Possible that the CAL DOJ didn't like that and just decided to slow roll it.

Are these the 1st 2011s to get on the roster? I can't think of any others.
Click to expand...
Depends if you consider the HD series a 2011.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom