A combination of CA gun bills (California Unsafe Handgun Act) requires new guns sold in the state to have certain features:

1)  loaded chamber indicators, and
2)  magazine disconnects (can't pull the trigger without a mag inserted).

I found some other info on the history of CA's pistol requirements:

SB 15 of 1999 made it a misdemeanor to sell "unsafe" handguns. SB 15 defined "unsafe" handguns as: not having a safety device (not merely lacking a safety catch), failed certain shooting tests, or failed a drop safety test.

SB 489 in 2003 required that semi-automatic pistols have a loaded chamber indicator (a little bit of metal that protrudes from the slide when a cartridge in the chamber pushes the indicator out) and disconnected that keeps the gun from firing if there is no magazine inserted.

AB 1471 in 2007 added a “microstamping” requirement where the firing pin would imprint a microscopic serial number on any fired cartridge. In theory, law enforcement could trace a gun based on the cartridges it left behind. In reality, since this technology was patented and available from one manufacturer, it was not able to be used by the industry, so the requirement was not implemented.

See the article for discussions of the supposed merits and problems with the mandated features.

https://www.californiacarry.org/handguns.html

After they added microstamping of primers, a feature no pistol manufacturers offer on CA compliant pistols, it was obvious this was nothing more than another attempt to reduce the number of pistol owners in the state be preventing newly designed firearms from reaching the CA market. 

There have only been 16 pistol models added to this approved pistol list since its inception in 1999.  With the addition of the microstamping requirement, every single one of the 832 pistols already on the list no longer qualifies to be included without grandfathering, since no manufacturer on the planet incorporates microstamping on any production models.  After browsing the CA Approved Pistol Roster online, the models already on the list have expiration dates, most in 2024.  Once it expires, the model needs to be resubmitted for approval again, or it will be removed from the roster.

A judge ruled these kinds of laws do nothing for safety and violate the recent SCOTUS decision.

The judge issued an injunction to force the state to no longer enforce the law.  The state has 14 days to appeal the decision before the injunction goes into effect.

Yay, Bruen!!   

California Gun Control Ruled Unconstitutional

does this have any bearing on Hawaii?  like the fact that we can't acquire pistols where the mag well isn't in the pistol grip, etc.  the notion of restricting the type of gun that the public wishes to purchase?

don't we fall under the same circus court or something like that? 

Doesn't directly affect anything here, maybe a little with the NAGR assault pistol lawsuit (has a court hearing on Friday).

Have to see what the 9th circuit does.  My registration case will likely be the first 9th circuit appeals decision since Bruen and we'll see if the 9th follows the correct historical analogues.

The new decision (same as the old decision) should become precedence,
which would absolutely affect Hawaii's magazine limits.

The new decision (same as the old decision) should become precedence,
which would absolutely affect Hawaii's magazine limits.

A decision Hawaii will ignore.
You guys just don't get it.
They PTB will arrest you knowing it will be thrown out
after you have spent thousands of your dollars.
They spend YOUR tax dollars, not theirs doing it.
Dumb Fuks.
 

A decision Hawaii will ignore.
You guys just don't get it.
They PTB will arrest you knowing it will be thrown out
after you have spent thousands of your dollars.
They spend YOUR tax dollars, not theirs doing it.
Dumb Fuks.
 

We can buy tasers and stun guns now, because of the same situation as this ruling.

The AG also explained that the constitutionality of Hawaii’s ban had been “drawn into question”
by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Caetano v. Massachusetts, which unanimously
vacated the conviction of a woman who carried a stun gun for self-defense.

https://www.civilbeat.org/2021/08/chad-blair-how-tasers-became-legal-in-hawaii/

So, yeah, it took a HIFICO lawsuit to get Hawaii to repeal the ban, but the Massachusetts case set the precedent.  Without it, Hawaii would have fought the lawsuit rather than realize they would have lost in court.

Not saying that's how it'll turn out every time, but it does put the momentum on the side of law abiding gun owners.