California’s Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale is a cunning gun control scheme dressed up as public safety, designed to erode the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Californians. This restrictive list, managed by the California Department of Justice, dictates which handguns can be sold in the state, imposing arcane requirements like microstamping, chamber load indicators, and magazine disconnect mechanisms. The state limits the handguns that Californians can legally purchase to about 750 models, many of them variations of the same model. That’s a fraction of the variety available to Americans who do not reside in California – and it ironically bans the sale of newer firearms with cutting-edge safety features. Far from protecting citizens, the roster blocks access to modern firearms with cutting-edge safety features, reflecting the liberal elite’s agenda to disarm Californians through bureaucratic overreach. Legal challenges, including those led by the California Rifle and Pistol Association, are exposing this policy as an unconstitutional attack on fundamental rights.
The roster stems from California’s Unsafe Handgun Act, which mandates that new handguns meet stringent safety criteria. Since at least 2013, these rules have grown increasingly draconian, effectively halting the introduction of new handgun models. Manufacturers, deterred by costly and unproven technologies like microstamping—a process requiring firearms to imprint unique identifiers on cartridge casings—largely stopped submitting new designs. As a result, Californians are stuck with a dwindling selection of outdated firearms, many lacking the latest safety advancements available in other states. The irony is stark: the state claims the roster ensures safety, yet it prevents citizens from accessing handguns with superior safety features. This is not about protection—it is about control. Liberal lawmakers, led by figures like Governor Gavin Newsom, have created a system that turns exercising one’s constitutional right to bear arms into a bureaucratic nightmare, leaving law-abiding citizens with older, often less advanced models while criminals, who bypass laws entirely, face no such barriers.
Consider an example of modern safety features unavailable to Californians due to the roster. The Glock Gen5 series, released in 2017, includes a modular backstrap system for better grip customization, improving user control and reducing recoil-related mishandling. Despite its advanced safety profile, the Gen5 is excluded from California’s roster for failing to meet the state’s arbitrary criteria. These exclusions force Californians to settle for older models, often with heavier triggers or less ergonomic designs, compromising both safety and usability.
The landmark case Boland v. Bonta has brought this injustice to light. The California Rifle and Pistol Association, alongside plaintiffs like Gun Owners of California, argues that the roster violates the Second Amendment. In March 2023, U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney issued a powerful preliminary injunction against key provisions of the Unsafe Handgun Act. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, Carney ruled that the roster’s requirements lack historical precedent and unjustly burden the right to bear arms. The Bruen standard demands that gun regulations align with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation—a test the roster fails miserably. Carney’s ruling underscored that the state cannot force citizens to settle for “decade-old models” when newer, safer handguns are available elsewhere. It is worth noting that Carney’s injunction included stopping the enforcement of the microstamping requirement, which has already led to a few more firearm models being added to the roster.
This preliminary victory exposes the roster’s true purpose: to discourage lawful gun ownership. The state’s liberal establishment knows an armed populace is harder to control, so they’ve weaponized bureaucracy to achieve what outright bans cannot. The state’s appeal, filed by Attorney General Rob Bonta (in which the State noticeably drops its defense of the micro-stamping requirement, which was repealed by a Governor and legislature that knew it was indefensible) reflects their desperation to preserve this anti-gun policy, but the legal tide is turning. The fight against the roster is about more than a list—it’s about defending the constitutional foundation that guarantees self-defense and resists tyranny. As Boland v. Bonta progresses through higher courts, Californians must rally behind these challenges to dismantle a system designed to suppress their rights. The Second Amendment is not a privilege to be rationed by Sacramento’s elites; it’s a right, and the roster is a direct assault on it.
__
Jon Fleischman is the Publisher of the FlashReport Website on California Politics. permission to reprint granted with attribution.