Lieutenant Colonel (Ret.) Mike Wood is a bonafide revolver nut, a certified law enforcement instructor in handgun, shotgun, patrol rifle, less-lethal, and diversionary device disciplines, and the author of Newhall Shooting: A Tactical Analysis, the definitive study of the infamous, 1970 California Highway Patrol shootout in Newhall, California. Mike wrote the "Tactical Analysis" column at Police1.com for 8 years, and enjoys teaching both armed citizens and law enforcement officers.
View all posts by Mike
11 thoughts on “Lipsey’s – S&W Ultimate Carry Revolvers Now California-Legal”
Well, now ain’t that just nice of those Lesser Moronodons in Sacramento to allow their peasant serfs to add these guns to their personal arsenal . . . ooops, sorry, I mean their collection (no, that’s not it, either) their means of protection. (Yeah, that’s close enough for PC use).
I guess it was those dangerous adjustable assault sights (black, you know, means it’s dangerous) that had to be evaluated so as to reduce drive-by sight pictures.
Congrats, Kalifornistan inmates . . . another great addition to what you’re allowed to own. Now to get Alec Baldwin to host safety classes on how DAO revolvers work.
If the Handgun Roster was a list of approved books, this would have been settled in our favor, by now. Justice Thomas is correct in his admonition that the Second Amendment is being treated like a second class liberty.
Probably showing my ignorance here, but is it true that all new firearms–even low capacity revolvers like five-shot S&W J-frames–have to be approved by the State of California before being allowed to be sold there? If so, when did that law begin?
Yes, that’s correct Spencer. The state maintains a “Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale” which lists the new handguns that may be sold in California, minus some exemptions (some single action revolvers and olympic-style competition pistols, for example, which do not need to be on the Roster to be sold). Basically any double action revolver or semiautomatic pistol that can be sold new in CA must be on the Roster. I think the Roster dates back to 2001, but can’t recall exactly without looking it up–might actually be earlier.
The Roster differentiates between cosmetic variations of a gun and some features like sights, grips or barrel lengths, so a gun that is offered in three different barrel lengths and two finishes becomes six separate guns to consider, for example. Since manufacturers are charged numerous fees to get a particular model/SKU tested (including sending 5 samples of each SKU for lab testing), initially placed on the Roster, then renewed on the Roster each year (yes, an annual renewal fee is required to keep the gun on the list), most of them won’t offer every model in their catalog for sale in CA. They’ll just pick one or two SKUs that they think will sell the most, and the other options will be unavailable in CA.
This is why it’s notable that all four variants of the UC have been listed on the Roster, since S&W could have elected to pay for just one or two flavors, like a single .32 SKU and a single .38 SKU. It also helps to explain why the guns with the steel cylinders have been approved, but not the guns with the Ti cylinders yet, as CA considers them completely different guns that need their own testing and sin taxes . . . excuse me, fees.
As you can imagine, no manufacturer will pay the annual fees required to keep out-of-production guns on the Roster, so when they are discontinued by the manufacturer, they get removed from the Roster when their annual license expires. Therefore, we cannot buy old guns that are no longer manufactured (i.e. an 80s-era Ruger Security Six) and have them “imported” into the state. The only non-Roster guns which may be imported are Curio & Relics.
I could go on for many pages, discussing the Ins and Outs of the Roster, but the bottom line is it’s an unconstitutional infringement that we are suffering with, as we wait for SCOTUS to accept cases that have been appealed from the Ninth and other circuits (Maryland has a Roster system, too), and strike down the offending laws. I’m hopeful we’ll eventually get some legal relief, but this has already been a generational fight, and I’m not assured that we will get relief, based on current behavior from SCOTUS, and the apparent disregard that lower courts have for SCOTUS rulings like Bruen.
I think Maryland had the original roster, and the other states copied them. Massachusetts also has a roster of approved handguns (interestingly, no Colts or Kimbers are on the list), and DC used to use the California roster. (Don’t know if they still do.)
I find it odd that in those states it’s only legal to exercise your enumerated Constitutional right with certain tools, and that’s the only right that’s infringed in that manner. After all, if you choose to write your political representative, you’re not limited to email from an Apple product, or a phone call from an Android phone, or a letter (do people still write letters?) typed on a Smith-Corona typewriter or written with a Bic pen.
I would say “Don’t get me started,” but it’s too late.
Thanks 1811, I misspoke earlier–I meant to say Massachusetts but said Maryland. Easy to mix them up for us Left-Coasters, because they’re both antigun birds of a feather, like CA . . .
Mike how does the roster work for those traveling in from out of state? For example if I were to want to travel with a roster approved gun would I potentially face less hassle?
Well, this opens up a can of worms about complex CA gun laws.
The short version is the Roster is a restriction on sales to CA residents, and doesn’t directly affect non-residents who visit with their own firearms. In theory, the 1986 FOPA would protect you as a traveller passing through CA, if you transported IAW its provisions (essentially, unloaded and locked up, not in your span of control as a driver).
However, there are other CA laws which can be restrictive.
For example, if you have a semiauto pistol with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, the magazine would not be legal to bring into CA, even if the pistol itself was.
Additionally, CA has no mechanism to issue CCW permits to non-residents, and there is a prohibition on open carry, so you could not legally carry any firearm in CA as a non-resident. I will note that a recent case successfully challenged the non-resident permit prohibition, but the ruling is still so fresh that we haven’t seen how it will play out yet, and the practical effect is that there is still no clear mechanism for a non-resident to get a CCW permit. This will hopefully change, but inertia is holding things back, right now.
There are many other issues and complications (such as the agency culture of a law enforcement officer you might potentially interact with), but I’ll leave it at that for now.
Well, now ain’t that just nice of those Lesser Moronodons in Sacramento to allow their peasant serfs to add these guns to their personal arsenal . . . ooops, sorry, I mean their collection (no, that’s not it, either) their means of protection. (Yeah, that’s close enough for PC use).
I guess it was those dangerous adjustable assault sights (black, you know, means it’s dangerous) that had to be evaluated so as to reduce drive-by sight pictures.
Congrats, Kalifornistan inmates . . . another great addition to what you’re allowed to own. Now to get Alec Baldwin to host safety classes on how DAO revolvers work.
If the Handgun Roster was a list of approved books, this would have been settled in our favor, by now. Justice Thomas is correct in his admonition that the Second Amendment is being treated like a second class liberty.
Probably showing my ignorance here, but is it true that all new firearms–even low capacity revolvers like five-shot S&W J-frames–have to be approved by the State of California before being allowed to be sold there? If so, when did that law begin?
Yes, that’s correct Spencer. The state maintains a “Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale” which lists the new handguns that may be sold in California, minus some exemptions (some single action revolvers and olympic-style competition pistols, for example, which do not need to be on the Roster to be sold). Basically any double action revolver or semiautomatic pistol that can be sold new in CA must be on the Roster. I think the Roster dates back to 2001, but can’t recall exactly without looking it up–might actually be earlier.
The Roster differentiates between cosmetic variations of a gun and some features like sights, grips or barrel lengths, so a gun that is offered in three different barrel lengths and two finishes becomes six separate guns to consider, for example. Since manufacturers are charged numerous fees to get a particular model/SKU tested (including sending 5 samples of each SKU for lab testing), initially placed on the Roster, then renewed on the Roster each year (yes, an annual renewal fee is required to keep the gun on the list), most of them won’t offer every model in their catalog for sale in CA. They’ll just pick one or two SKUs that they think will sell the most, and the other options will be unavailable in CA.
This is why it’s notable that all four variants of the UC have been listed on the Roster, since S&W could have elected to pay for just one or two flavors, like a single .32 SKU and a single .38 SKU. It also helps to explain why the guns with the steel cylinders have been approved, but not the guns with the Ti cylinders yet, as CA considers them completely different guns that need their own testing and sin taxes . . . excuse me, fees.
As you can imagine, no manufacturer will pay the annual fees required to keep out-of-production guns on the Roster, so when they are discontinued by the manufacturer, they get removed from the Roster when their annual license expires. Therefore, we cannot buy old guns that are no longer manufactured (i.e. an 80s-era Ruger Security Six) and have them “imported” into the state. The only non-Roster guns which may be imported are Curio & Relics.
I could go on for many pages, discussing the Ins and Outs of the Roster, but the bottom line is it’s an unconstitutional infringement that we are suffering with, as we wait for SCOTUS to accept cases that have been appealed from the Ninth and other circuits (Maryland has a Roster system, too), and strike down the offending laws. I’m hopeful we’ll eventually get some legal relief, but this has already been a generational fight, and I’m not assured that we will get relief, based on current behavior from SCOTUS, and the apparent disregard that lower courts have for SCOTUS rulings like Bruen.
I think Maryland had the original roster, and the other states copied them. Massachusetts also has a roster of approved handguns (interestingly, no Colts or Kimbers are on the list), and DC used to use the California roster. (Don’t know if they still do.)
I find it odd that in those states it’s only legal to exercise your enumerated Constitutional right with certain tools, and that’s the only right that’s infringed in that manner. After all, if you choose to write your political representative, you’re not limited to email from an Apple product, or a phone call from an Android phone, or a letter (do people still write letters?) typed on a Smith-Corona typewriter or written with a Bic pen.
I would say “Don’t get me started,” but it’s too late.
What a rotten mess. Sure glad I don’t live in California.
It is a mess, but this was good news for us, nonetheless.
Oops, I misspoke (miswrote?) I just checked the Massachusetts roster, and there are now six Kimbers on it. No revolvers, though.
Thanks 1811, I misspoke earlier–I meant to say Massachusetts but said Maryland. Easy to mix them up for us Left-Coasters, because they’re both antigun birds of a feather, like CA . . .
And don’t get me started, either!
Mike how does the roster work for those traveling in from out of state? For example if I were to want to travel with a roster approved gun would I potentially face less hassle?
Well, this opens up a can of worms about complex CA gun laws.
The short version is the Roster is a restriction on sales to CA residents, and doesn’t directly affect non-residents who visit with their own firearms. In theory, the 1986 FOPA would protect you as a traveller passing through CA, if you transported IAW its provisions (essentially, unloaded and locked up, not in your span of control as a driver).
However, there are other CA laws which can be restrictive.
For example, if you have a semiauto pistol with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, the magazine would not be legal to bring into CA, even if the pistol itself was.
Additionally, CA has no mechanism to issue CCW permits to non-residents, and there is a prohibition on open carry, so you could not legally carry any firearm in CA as a non-resident. I will note that a recent case successfully challenged the non-resident permit prohibition, but the ruling is still so fresh that we haven’t seen how it will play out yet, and the practical effect is that there is still no clear mechanism for a non-resident to get a CCW permit. This will hopefully change, but inertia is holding things back, right now.
There are many other issues and complications (such as the agency culture of a law enforcement officer you might potentially interact with), but I’ll leave it at that for now.