Go Back   USA Carry > Location Specific Forums > California Discussion and Firearm News


SAF, Calguns Foundation Challenges California Handgun Ban Scheme

The Second Amendment Foundation, The Calguns Foundation and four California residents today filed a lawsuit challenging a California state law ...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-01-2009, 10:45 AM
lukem's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,744
Default SAF, Calguns Foundation Challenges California Handgun Ban Scheme

The Second Amendment Foundation, The Calguns Foundation and four California residents today filed a lawsuit challenging a California state law and regulatory scheme that arbitrarily bans handguns based on a roster of “certified” handguns approved by the State. This case parallels a similar case filed in Washington, DC, Hanson v. District of Columbia.

California uses this list despite a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court last summer that protects handguns that ordinary people traditionally use for self-defense, and a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments. The California scheme will eventually ban the purchase of almost all new handguns.

Attorney Alan Gura, representing the plaintiffs in this case, noted that California “tells Ivan Peña that his rights have an expiration date based on payment of a government fee. Americans are not limited to a government list of approved books, or approved religions,” he said. “A handgun protected by the Second Amendment does not need to appear on any government-approved list and cannot be banned because a manufacturer does not pay a special annual fee.”

“The Para Ordnance P-13 was once approved for sale in California,” Peña noted, “but now that a manufacturer didn’t pay a yearly fee, California claims the gun I want to own has somehow become ‘unsafe’.”

“The Glock-21 is the handgun I would choose for home defense, but California has decided the version I need is unacceptable. I was born without a right arm below my elbow and therefore the new ambidextrous version of the Glock-21 is the safest one for me. The identical model designed for right hand use is available in California, but I can’t use it,” said plaintiff Roy Vargas.

Added SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “The Supreme Court’s decision is crystal clear: Handguns that are used by people for self-defense and other lawful purposes cannot be banned, whether the State likes it or not. California needs to accept the Second Amendment reality.”

Co-counsel Jason Davis remarked, “The California Handgun Roster has always been about making the possession of handguns for self defense more difficult by imposing arbitrary and unconstitutional restrictions that limit choice and increase the cost of exercising a fundamental right.”

Joining plaintiffs Peña and Vargas are Doña Croston and Brett Thomas. Doña Croston’s handgun would be allowed if it were black, green, or brown, but her bi-tone version is supposedly ‘unsafe’ merely based on color. “I didn’t realize that my constitutional rights depended on color. What is it about two colors that makes the gun I want to purchase ‘unsafe’?”

Brett Thomas seeks to own the same model of handgun that the Supreme Court ordered District of Columbia officials to register for Dick Heller. However, that particular model is no longer manufactured, and its maker is no longer available to process the handgun’s certification through the bureaucracy.

“There is only one model of handgun that the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled is protected by the Second Amendment and yet California will not allow me to purchase that gun,” said Mr. Thomas.

“The so-called ‘safe’ gun list is just another gun-grabbing gimmick,” said co-counsel Donald Kilmer. “California can’t get around the Second Amendment, as incorporated, by declaring most normal guns ‘unsafe,’ and gradually shrinking the number of so-called ‘safe’ guns to zero.”
__________________




Reply With Quote


  #2  
Old 05-04-2009, 12:03 PM
 

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 69
Default About Time

Interesting argument, going after the "approved gun" list. Will Massachusetts be next, with their ridiculous lists of standard capacity, high capacity, etc. ? Concealed carry is a different issue. California delegated the issuance of carry permits to the respective County Sherrifs, and thus the success rate of applicants is vastly different in the different counties around the state. Sure would love to see that devolve back to the state, or better yet under a shall-issue doctrine.

Anyway, good to know there are still a few patriots left in Kalifornia.
__________________
""Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." -Thomas Paine 1775
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
ban, calguns, california, challenges, foundation, handgun, saf, scheme

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0

OpticsPlanet - DKNY Sunglasses, Golf Rangefinders, Yukon Binoculars, Energizer Batteries, Meopta Binoculars, Ray Ban Sunglasses, Glock Holsters, Bushnell Binoculars, motorcycle gloves, Blackhawk Gloves, Barska Binoculars, Under Armour Socks, Under Armour Gloves, ATN Night Vision, and Flir Thermal Imaging.





For more information of NFA Gun Trusts or to learn if your state permits ownership of Silencers, SBR's, or Machine guns without your CLEO's signature visit the Gun Trust Lawyer website.


More About Front Sight Firearms Training Institute and Ignatius Piazza
join NRA United States Concealed Carry Association