"Off Roster": California Gun Laws .. go figure!

California is updating their anti-gun laws as fast as they can, in hopes that they can outpace otherwise-legal gun-purchasers' ability to keep track.  The sad fact is that they can .. and they are prosecuting the slow "subjects" (not 'citizens') of their state --- and they are prosecuting offenders.  Even Law Enforcement Officers who they see as "Offenders".

Former deputy, alleged accomplices go on trial for weapons charges Monday - Crime - Sacto 911 - The Sacramento Bee:   (October 2, 2014)

(the vendor) ....  is accused of purchasing handguns that cannot be bought directly from a dealer by members of the general public and selling them to civilians at a healthy markup
...
In an unsuccessful motion to dismiss the charges against Snellings, his lawyer maintained there was no law preventing the sale of a so-called “off roster” firearm from a sworn officer to a non-sworn private party, so long as both parties go through a licensed dealer. ---
...
 According to court papers, Kjellberg, 43, transferred at least five such weapons “to individuals who could not otherwise legally purchase” them.

(Emphasis Added)

Among the charges were those against one principle "for providing a large-capacity ammunition clip to an undercover agent".

Can anyone provide us with a definition of "large-capacity ammunition clip"?  Or cite current law which makes this .. provision, whatever it is .. a felony?

Hat TIP: Of Arms And The Law
(There are questions as to whether this was a "Straw Purchase",  If so, it would be good to be to whom, from whom, and for what purpose .. and who was the intended final owner?)

So... There were firearms which were legally for available for purchase by Law Enforcement Officers, but not available for purchase to civilian individuals.  The question remains whether the firearms were not available to "individuals who could not otherwise legally purchase them" because they were in violation of laws which prohibited sale of ... for example .. "full automatic firearms" (which is a National Law), or because they were not on the "roster" of specific make/model of firearms which are permissible in California only under conditions of "special permission" ... but generally available in other states.

There are questions as to whether this was a "Straw Purchase" .. I haven't seen any evidence of that yet, or if so on whose part.)

Are these purchasers being prosecuted by the State, or by the Federal Government.  The available information suggests that the Federal Government is not involved.  At all.

The Roster:

We won't try to define the details of this less-then-totally-revealing news report, but background information implies that the firearms involved were those which were not on the "roster" of guns which had NOT met California's litigious list of products from manufacturers .. many of whom were not willing to comply with the excessive "safety" requirements of new guns which might be sold in California.

California has introduced a "Roster" of new firearms (mostly Pistols) which may  be legally purchased within the state.  Firearms which meet these requirements are included in this roster .. by manufacturer, model, caliber, etc.  are legally available for retail sale here.  Those which do not, are not legally available for sale.

The assumption of this article is that the firearms in question have not been accepted to "The Roster". Note:  Not that they could not meet the arbitrary standards, but that the manufacturers, in at least some cases, have declined to subject their otherwise-legal product to this arbitrary scrutiny.

Those requirements, which might or might not be currently enforced in The Golden State, include certification that firearms newly introduced for retail sale in the state will .. (among other examples):

• meet the requirements for a destructive "drop test" to determine that they will not fire when dropped six feet to a concrete surface (for each make and model):
• have "microstamping" which supposedly identifies the firearm from which a cartridge is fired (for each individual firearm)

The other assumption of this article is that the sale of the subject firearms has been deemed illegal because .. for one reason or the other ... these firearms have not  been either submitted by the manufacture; or if submitted, has not been accepted --- whether or not they would have passed such scrutiny.

We're pretty sure that there other bizarre laws in California, relating to firearms, which are  supposedly 'safety" or "crime-solving" features, but which restrict the freedom of manufacturers to conduct business in California.

Sufficient to say that California has adopted the most bizarre set of regulations in the country, the purpose of which is to either 'enhance gun safety' or 'make it possible to enhance crime solving'.

Or words to that effect.

The interpretation of these news reports SEEMS to be that Law Enforcement Officers attempted to purchase pistols which were not on the "roster" of guns which are approved for sale in California.

That may not be the case. I may be wrong .. I might be Crazy.

But I'm not as Crazy as California Lawmakers, who seem to be happy with providing their law abiding citizens (and Law Enforcement Officers) with a set of gun-laws which are so entirely indecipherable that it's nearly impossible for an honest purchaser to be completely certain that he has abided by all the applicable laws .. today.  (They change so quickly, I'm trying to keep up with them here on this blog ... but I'm not sure I am always re-writing my interpretations as quickly as the California State Assembly is rewriting the laws!)

AND SO ... we may have completely misinterpreted the basis of this article.

It may be that there is some other reason why these otherwise-legal purchases (which "shall not be infringed") have been singled out for prosecution.

SO:
If these purchases have been subject to persecution prosecution because they were not on "The Roster" .. well, see below.

If the purchases have been subject to prosecution for other reasons, which were not defined in the referenced article, is that any reason to suppose that they will not be subject to prosecution, under a not-much-more crazy set of circumstances?

And if so ... is this Justice?  Or is this Politics?