Awesome ... Perhaps the floodgate of newly added pistols has been opened.
I am reading the asterisk note as handgun being added to the listing BECAUSE of
Boland v Bonta court ordered preliminary injunction, not pending on the ruling -
https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/certified-handguns/search
An asterisk (*) next to the model name below indicates that the handgun was added pursuant to the court's order in Boland v. Bonta.
And here was the ruling -
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-legal-challenges.913421/page-2#post-12581660
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Attorney General Robert Bonta, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order or know the existence of this injunction order, ARE HEREBY PRELIMINARILY RESTRAINED AND ENJOINED from implementing or enforcing California Penal Code sections 31910(b)(4)–(6), or from otherwise preventing the retail sale of handguns that do not have a chamber load indicator, a magazine disconnect mechanism, or microstamping capability but that meet the other requirements of the Unsafe Handgun Act.
CORMAC J. CARNEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
And in light of preliminary injunction for
Boland v Bonta by judge Carney, judge Sabraw held a telephonic status conference for
Renna v Bonta and issued a preliminary injunction -
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-legal-challenges.913421/page-3#post-12595428
Because the arms at issue (semiautomatic pistols) are handguns ... semiautomatic pistols categorically are “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment. The Amendment does not parse between types, makes and models of arms (See Heller) ... All handguns are covered ... Thus, Plaintiffs’ ability to commercially purchase offroster semiautomatic handguns falls within the plain text of the Second Amendment and is presumptively protected.
... b. Historical Precedent - The State has the burden of showing relevant “historical precedent from before, during, and even after the founding [that] evinces a comparable tradition of regulation.” ... The key question, therefore, is whether the challenged law, here the CLI, MDM, and microstamping provisions of the UHA, and the State’s proffered analogues are “relevantly similar.”
... the “why” of the 1805 stamping requirement is not comparable to microstamping under the UHA, as the former requirement served only to verify that the arm had been tested, was safe—in that it fired without barrel bursting or otherwise failing, and could be sold. California’s microstamping requirement is designed to assist law enforcement in criminal investigations, not firearm discharge safety.
... the CLI, MDM, and microstamping provisions prohibit retail sales in the state of a significant segment of the most common self-defense firearm sold in America today ... Under the three-for-one roster removal provision, for each approved semiautomatic pistol added to the roster, “three semiautomatic pistols lacking one or more of the applicable features ... are removed ... Therefore, the three-for-one removal provision cannot be severed as it is not “fully operative without the invalid provisions.” As such, the California Legislature could not have intended for it to stand independently of the invalid provisions. The three-for-one removal provision is therefore enjoined.
For these reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS the following:
(1) Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED as to California Penal Code §§ 31910 (b)(4), (5), (6) & (7) (CLI, MDM, microstamping, and three-for-one removal provisions);
(2) Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED as to all other challenged provisions of the UHA;
(3) Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing California Penal Code §§ 31910 (b)(4), (5), (6) & (7) (CLI, MDM, microstamping, and three-for-one removal provisions);
So I take it that CA had to allow addition of handguns "pursuant to the court's order" of preliminary injunction as they were enjoined (blocked) from enforcing CLI/MDM/microstamping but other provisions of UHA were enforcible during the duration of the trial.
All the models have the same annual expiration date and it's up to the manufacturer to renew submission for drop safety testing, etc. to be listed on the roster.
I tell you, all these are great news for Californians to buy more "modern" handguns. I will take Gen5 Glock with Marksman rifling for one if Glock decides to add Gen5 models to the roster.
]
>
