District Court rejects challenge to CA "gun roster" law
CalGuns Foundation link to the ruling is here. You can read the first few pages and know what the outcome will be. California seeks to ensure guns are safe, etc., etc., so only very safe guns are put on the roster ("Safe" means, for example, that the gun must have a loaded chamber indicator that somehow allows a new user to know whether the firearm is loaded without consulting the manual. Every loaded chamber indicator I know of assumes that you read the manual or had someone point it out to you, so at least you know what to look for).
The contrast comes at the very end, when the court has to deal with the fact that the statute exempts law enforcement personnel (including, as I recall, employees of prosecutors' offices). The court simply pronounces that police may have different needs for firearms than do non-police. But if the roster would truly about safety, the question must be, do police and prosecutors have a special need for unsafe guns?
One plaintiff had no right arm, and wanted a Glock with an ambidextrous magazine release. But while the Glock he wants is on the roster, California does not list it with an ambidextrous release, and considers that a different, and unlisted, firearm.