Four individuals, CalGuns.net, Second Amendment Foundation sue California over handgun restrictions

[slackmaster]

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=179227

...“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.”...

The complaint is available for viewing at http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/pena/Pena-v-Cid-complaint.pdf

[Turbineguy]

1. OooooooH

thanks for not shooting me.

[bossy22]

2. this has nothing to do with bazooka's

it only deal with personal handguns...and the roster system CA has set up.

please take your pointless comments elsewhere

[cabluedem]

22. The problem you have in CA is two fold in nature. First the laws are not going to be changed for one

person with no right hand. Sure you can use the canard about having a right to defend yourself, but you don't have a right to use a gun to do it under CA law. Two: the current California assault weapons ban provides a precident that the state not only can ,but DOES allow certain kinds of firearms, while banning others. Good luck on winning a lawsuit concerning guns in CA anytime soon. Not going to win, particularly with handguns or assault weapons at the table since you don't need these to hunt with. What a waste of money.

[bossy22]

51. you misunderstand very much

you are right, in one respect, the law wont change because it negatively affects one person....it will change because the law is arbitrary and doesnt do what it says it does. basically it doesnt make sense and discriminates against people with certain disabilities for no good reason (except in the name of public safety but i have yet to hear a good public safety argument to why guns shouldnt be made for left handed people.

"Not going to win, particularly with handguns or assault weapons at the table since you don't need these to hunt with."
oy vay, its not about hunting...its a about self defense....the right to own a gun was centered around the idea of defense. So the litmus test to which guns are allowed are those that are good for at the minimum personal defense....NOT HUNTING...but if you want to rephrase the debate in terms of hunting weapons, go ahead, you can waste all the time you want.

"but you don't have a right to use a gun to do it under CA law." ohh boy is this going to be fun....heres a link you should look at http://www.self-defender.net/law4.htm

like most other laws in states, you have the right to defend yourself, and to use firearms in certain situations for that defense in CA.

[slackmaster]

6. You have a right not to be shot

:D

[old mark]

3. Good. I certainly hope the plaintiffs win this one - California's

idiotic system is way over the line and its time somebody took it down.
the punky ACLU wont touch 2nd amendment stuff, so its up to these guys to start a campaign for freedom in California.
Best of luck.

mark

[Pullo]

5. This has ramifications for DC's current handgun law

Post Heller, DC revised their handgun law to allow only those handguns on the "California-safe" list.

*IF* this law gets scratched off the books, DC will be forced rewrite their handgun law.....again.

Time for Fenty & Co. to just respect the rights of their own citizens and be done with it.

[Caliman73]

10. Tell me about it...

I can buy a manufacturers pistol in blued steel, but I cannot buy the same exact model in nickel finish. It costs the manufacturer several hundred dollars to submit each and every model for "certification". I can understand the desire to improve safety features on firearms, but California's law is too arbitrary to be for that purpose.I am a periphery member of Calguns.net. They are awesome for legality discussions in the state. Much of their politics is too conservative for me, but I will be donating to this legal effort.

[krispos42]

33. One of the local gun dealers was talking about California's system

He said that if a gun isn't renewed on the list, people that own that now-disallowed gun can't sell it to anybody in the state anymore.



The entire concept is ridiculous. California is coming from the viewpoint that all guns in California are illegal to sell until and unless they get certified by the CADoJ. Well, there are thousands of handgun models, finishes, and varients out there. And many of them don't change after 5 years, but they have to be recertified anyway.

It's a hell of a lot of work to certify every single handgun varient, and the CADoJ clearly isn't up to the task. And the money that would need to be spend to make them competent to do so could be spend in a different way to make the people of California safer from murders.


Look, just specify what features a gun needs to be sold in California and investigate violations of the law. Manufacturers already make Massachusettes-legal and New Jersery-legal guns, and in fact generally carry over such features into their model lines. I'm sure if I asked, I could by a model of a gun that meets all of Massachusettes' requirements, 10-round magazine and all, at my local dealer. He might be kinda confused as to why, but it wouldn't be a problem.

[slackmaster]

60. Your local gun dealer is a bit misinformed

The list applies only to original sales of new firearms.

A person who owns a formerly listed handgun can sell it in a private-party transfer.

[krispos42]

69. Honestly, he was a nice enough guy, but he seemed to be rather confused

He thought that the 1993 AWB was an executive order or something.


But I wanted a job there, part time, so I let it slide.




He probably think's I'm the idiot... :crazy:

[jody]

4. This case proves the pro-RKBA community must fight more aggressively to preserve our win in Heller.

[cabluedem]

23. What win? Heller was one city. You still cant own handguns in NYC or Chicago. Heller proves nothing

since it was passed under the * regime. Good luck. You will need it when Mr. Obama signs the new assault weapons ban.

[benEzra]

25. So Roe v. Wade is void because it happened under the Nixon Administration?

Heller proves nothing since it was passed under the * regime.

So Roe v. Wade is void because it happened under the Nixon Administration?

Please. The Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller is not only settled law, it reflects the consensus of a majority of constitutional scholars (paid Brady Campaign lawyers notwithstanding) AND the consensus of >70% of the U.S. population and >60% of Democrats.

You will need it when Mr. Obama signs the new assault weapons ban.

I do not believe Mr. Obama is foolish enough to resurrect the "assault weapon" fraud. He is considerably smarter than Clinton was, and has more important things to do than outlaw rifle handgrips that stick out.

[cabluedem]

27. Roe vs Wade effected the whole country. "Heller" simply does not. If Heller were accepted as fact

..then most gun control laws could not exist, since it would put real teeth into the whole second amendment debacle that's been going on for many years, into the hands of the gun and ammo companies and the hoards of the NRA gun-nuts.

People in this century, not in the 19th, simply are not going to let criminals, felons,
and mentally ill people have easy access to firearms and ammo, much less machine-guns.

In California we have our own assault weapons ban which the new one will be adopted, when
congress and the President have time to pass the new AW ban in a few years, I am sure.

My guess is that the "Heller" decision will effect Wash. D.C., alone. NYC and Chicago are still outlawing handguns for the public and will be until long past the day we all die.

[benEzra]

28. Heller does in that the 2ndA has been affirmed to protect a right of individuals...

and a number of handgun bans nationwide have been repealed as a result. The Heller decision also elucidated the "in common use for lawful purposes" test as to what guns are protected by the 2ndA.

Yes, there will be future court fights; just as plenty of states and localities kept abortion restrictions on the books decades after Roe v. Wade until addressed individually by the courts, so will the gun prohibitionists. But Heller is indeed the Roe v. Wade of the Second Amendment.

[SecularNATION]

39. machine-guns?

What "machine-guns" are you talking about? No one in the United States has easy access to fully automatic firearms.

[Pullo]

40. Have you ever heard of Incorporation???

Its that little diddy called the 14th Amendment, which will apply Heller throughout the land before long.

Don't look now, but http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/04/20/0715763.pdf">9th Circuit just incorporated the 2A against a large swath of the western USA.


uh oh.....

[Caliman73]

41. This is the ignorance of many in my state...

The AWB has done nothing to reduce the crime rate. Felons, people with violent misdemeanors, and violent mentally ill individuals are already barred from purchasing firearms. Machine guns are legal to own, but are heavily regulated and prohibitively expensive. The vast majority of gun owners never consider making access to machine guns easier because we see that they do not function well for sport or for self defense. What drives the criminal firearms trade is the lucrative drug trade. Legalizing and regulating drugs would do far more than any firearms ban to eliminate violence because it would eliminate a large motivation for gangs and individuals to continue arming themselves.

California's record on mental health and education system are abysmal. Having worked in mental health for many years and my wife having been a teacher for over a decade, we have seen both systems decimated by lack of will to fund them properly. Having people with emotional, psychological, and psychiatric problems out there with very few resources and having children growing up without receiving an education that will allow them to compete is fuel to the fire.

Finally, the word is AFFECT not EFFECT. Laws, especially the arbitrary and nonsensical laws in California about firearms AFFECT the law abiding people of the state. The EFFECTS of poverty, lack of opportunity, drugs, and racism in this state have given us the problems we have today with gangs and violence.

[bossy22]

47. shows how much you know

i give the chicago handgun ban 2 more years

ohh and NYC DOES NOT BAN HANDGUNS....http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/permits/gun_licensing_faq.shtml#HowDoIApply

[TheWraith]

63. Technically, no, NYC doesn't ban handguns.

However in practice, they almost only issue pistol permits to police officers, retired police officers, and the rich or famous.

For those not in NY State, a pistol permit is required to even own a handgun anywhere in the state, not just carry it.

[bossy22]

66. hmm

they will issue a premises permit to almost anyone who is not a convicted felon

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

67. Who is proposing letting criminals, felons and mentally ill people have easy access to firearms?

[jody]

34. Thank goodness your post is not representative of the anti-RKBA crowd, their posts have a modicum of

truth to support their goal of disarming potential victims who if anti-RKBA policies prevail would be defenseless against violent criminals armed with firearms of their choice.

Please educate yourself because I would like to read your views when you can support them with facts rather than childish, unsupported assertions and ad hominem attacks against we pro-RKBA DUers who represent 80+ million gun-owners who made up a significant portion of the 130+ million voters in the last election.

Intelligent people know that Obama won by less than 10 million votes of the 130+ million votes cast and no intelligent person, particularly Obama, would alienate 80+ million gun-owners, their family, relatives, and friends by doing something outrageously stupid to anger the majority of voters on a divisive, polarizing political issue like the natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

Good luck when you take your first step toward learning the political dangers facing Obama if he waivers one iota in fulfilling his campaign promise, "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away."

[bossy22]

52. its called incorporation

brainiac....eventually it will be incorporated

and and again....in NYC you can own handguns LEGALLY

[villager]

7. Gun violence as public health issue:

<snip>

“I’m a child advocate, and a former prosecutor for the Manhattan DA’s office, so I come at it from two different angles.” Said Ms. Hilley “One is having had a lot of victims in my office for all those years I worked in the Manhattan DA’s office, and the second angle is when I was working as a child advocate in Westchester I did a study on the public health approach to gun violence, which is the approach that is promoted by the Harvard School of Public Health.”

Ms. Hilley explained that the Harvard study considers that the number of gun deaths in the U.S. each year is 30,000 people, and that if you have 30,000 people dying of any one thing in a year, be it cancer, or poisoning, or whatever, it is a public health issue.

The Harvard study approaches gun violence with available public health models. This approach seeks to consider the impact on public health and safety, and puts aside issues of second amendment rights, and focuses directly on gun violence as a public health issue.

In a study done in San Francisco, California, it was determined that 70 percent of victims of gun violence were born in public hospitals and use public hospitals as a primary source of health care. This information was then used to determine that public hospitals are a good place to get in touch with people who are victims of gun violence, and as a means to talk to them about ways to avoid gun violence. It is used as a way to educate and change behavior.

Another angle that the Harvard study considered is that of the 30,000 deaths by gun violence in the U.S. each year, at least 17,000, or more than half, are suicides. This information can be directly transferred into legislation and mental health policy that protects at risk individuals, such as those that are being treated for depression, who can be asked in a questionnaire if there are any guns in their home, and those guns can be removed.

Bringing the issue into a criminal justice model, a law in Connecticut that has been on the books for 10 years allows police officers to confiscate guns from people that have been reported to the police as behaving irrationally, the police have a right to take their guns, and within 14 days there will be a hearing in front of judge, at which time it will be decided if the guns will be returned. The Connecticut police have had about 230 cases of enacting this law over the last ten years, and have confiscated approximately 1,700 guns.

<snip>

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/15478/

[yay]

8. OK, and what exactly does this have to do with the topic at hand? N/T

[bossy22]

9. i dont think that the handgun roster really affects public safety

[Pullo]

11. DRIVE-BY!!! Everybody duck!!!

:hide:

[villager]

12. ??

??

[yay]

13. Drive by postings are raping the churches and burning the women!!

[jody]

14. Death by automobile is a much more serious "public health issue". n/t

[pipoman]

15. Rudolph

I heard "Rudolph" playing over the mall speakers as we sat in the food court having a bite of lunch. While the song really doesn't bear thinking deeply about, I couldn't help but remember how much I envied Rudolph as a child and then realize how much I kind of dislike him as an adult. Well, not him exactly but what he and the song represent.

So here we have this reindeer with a very shiny nose. All of the other reindeer used to laugh and call him names. They never let poor Rudolph play in any reindeer games. OK, I totally get all this. Those with differences are barely tolerated in a society that worships sameness. Where there is tolerance it is often grudging and meanly given. I don't have a real positive view of the community ... I think it's full of bigots and mean people. The human equivilant of Rudolph ... would be treated with the same scorn and rejection, I'm sure of it.

-snip-

Well that's where it ends for me. Shit. Damn. Why couldn't Rudolph just be valued because he's Rudolph, red nose and all? Why couldn't Rudolph just be seen as an equal even though different? Why did Rudolph have to 'save the planet' just to get a friend or two?


http://davehingsburger.blogspot.com/2008/12/rudolph-brown-nosed-reindeer.html

[villager]

17. And here I was thinking of Dasher...

n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

19. I guess about everything is a public health issue then.

Surely motor vehicle collisions have reached epidemic levels. A 25 mph speed limit enforced by speed governors would eliminate 90% or more of motor vehicle collision related fatalities.

David

[benEzra]

29. The "public health" argument goes all the way back to alcohol prohibition.

And when used as a justification for authoritarian laws controlling people's behavior, just as much a failure now as it was when Carrie Nation used it to justify her jihad.

Invoking the "public health" meme does not allow you to magically circumvent due process or the fundamental rights of mentally competent citizens with clean records.

[villager]

30. so we simply ignore the body count outright?

convenient...

[slackmaster]

32. The "safe handgun" roster has no relation to body counts

It's just a silly mish-mash of laws that unconstitutionally restrict peoples' choices.

[benEzra]

44. Recognizing that rifle handgrip bans or shiny-finish restrictions

have NOTHING to do with ameliorating "body counts" would go a long way toward a more rational discussion of the issue.

[Caliman73]

45. No

What you do is address the actual causes of violence rather than trying to stop it by prohibiting implements which are more likely never used for violence. 300,000,000 guns in the nation, 30,000 deaths. Even one death is tragic and needs to be addressed, but not by going on a which hunt for an object. Instead of going to the hospitals, start at the schools talking about safety. Use funds to actually provide people with a realistic opportunity to improve their communities and their lives. Take away the stigma and make accessible psychological services so that people have a place to discuss their thoughts and feelings. Have a genuine social safety net so that people don't sink to levels where living or dying are equalized. That will go way further in reducing violence than by demonizing guns.

[villager]

54. so -- drunks operating cars, okay, since cars are legal. Unstable people

--or with histories of violence -- also okay to have guns, since we only focus on the "militia" side of things and junk the "well-regulated" part, etc.?

[Caliman73]

55. I thought you were better than that. My opinion of you was misguided.

What the hell are you talking about? Who here has said ONCE that driving while intoxicated was a good thing? Who here has said ONCE that people with history of violence and criminal records should be able to own guns? Well "regulated" means well PREPARED as in training and supply. It does NOT mean controlled as in today's vernacular.

[villager]

56. instead of launching attacks, can you just answer a goddamn question?

What the hell is wrong with you people? I'm sick of this shit. I was paraphrasing your position: No need to take destructive implements out of the hands of people who might misuse them -- the "car keys away from drunks" thesis.

Does it apply to guns or not, yes or no?

Try to answer without an attack -- even though that violates the standing orders in this forum! sheesh.

You don't have to agree with me -- just answer the reply without being snotty about it; I wasn't being personal, but positing an analogy.

[Caliman73]

58. Not launching an attack, just re-evaluting my opinion of you based on your arguments,

As I said, where have I or anyone else in this forum said that guns should be in the hands of people who would misuse them? Your abilities to paraphrase are either severely limited or you are being willfully dishonest.

To answer your analogy (which has little bearing on issue of preemptive gun control) the answer is: NO. The "drunk's keys" analogy is inherently flawed and does not apply to firearms.


1. Driving is not a right and is therefore subject to whatever rules are determined by the jurisdiction. 2. Being intoxicated is not a right and also subject to whatever rules are created within a jurisdiction. You can get as drunk as you want at home as long as you stay at home and no one in your family is harmed by your intoxication. The moment you leave your home, you can be arrested for merely being drunk in most jurisdictions. That people who are drunk enough to require intervention (ie. someone taking their keys) then they are already behaving in an illegal manner. There is already substantial clinical evidence that alcohol intoxication impairs almost all functions in a person, therefore the person who becomes intoxicated had already misused alcohol and can be legally deterred from other activities.

Owning guns however, is a right that is shared by all citizens and legal residents unless sufficient evidence is available to legally restrict an individual from practicing the right. Unlike alcohol intoxication however, the mere act of owning a firearm is not correlated with impairment in any function of daily living. There are already circumstances that prohibit the right to own firearms. Some are based on demographics like age. Some are based on status. Most felonies, violent misdemeanors, and adjudication for mental instability prohibit people from owning any firearm or other weapons. There are also laws that prohibit certain behaviors with firearms from people who legally have a right to own. You cannot brandish a firearm, carry a concealed firearm without proper permission, or discharge a firearm within certain jurisdictions unless in the act of self defense.

SO...your analogy in which a person is ALREADY in violation of the law by being drunk and attempting to drive does not apply to the right of OWNERSHIP of firearms.

The felon or adjudicated mentally ill person is ALREADY in violation of the law be possessing a weapon. We already have laws dealing with that status.

I reiterate. I thought that you had some decent points in other posts, but I am disappointed that your posts are not thought out and was stating my opinion of that, not attacking you.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

65. We already have laws against people owning guns.

Quite a few of them, actually. If you're a convicted felon, or if you've been adjudicated as mentally incompetant, or if you have a violent misdemeanor on your record such as assault, then you're legally forbidden from ever even touching a gun or a single round of ammunition. Period.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

68. We have laws to keep firearms out of the hands of people who have shown a propensity to misuse them.

[cabluedem]

37. Public safety is an issue that trumps individual rights. Its been that way for many years too. n/t

[Caliman73]

42. Is that so?

Is that why employers and the public are not allowed to know whether someone has Tuberculosis? I would imagine that the public health impact of a highly contagious communicable disease would trump the individual's right to freedom, but I guess it is only when it comes to something that you agree with right?

[benEzra]

43. Well, that's what Bush said, but I'm surprised to see that argument taken seriously here.

Bush's critics rightly argued that you cannot suspend constitutional rights just because someone waves the "public safety" flag. You cannot torture someone just because you say you need to for the public safety; you cannot spy on people without warrants just because you say you need to for the public safety; and you cannot take away the freedoms of speech, press, or the right of law-abiding adults with clean records to own common firearms just because you say you need to for the public safety.

Public health advocates' blatant ignorance of constitutional law and jurisprudence is one reason why public health advocates' pronouncements should not be given the force of law.

[bossy22]

50. not always

but if you believe that you must have no problem with torture, warrantless wiretaps, the patriot act and all those good things that protect us from those evil terrorists

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

53. Since most gun deaths are suicides what individual right do you wish to take.

[slackmaster]

61. The California "safe handgun" list has nothing to do with public health

It's just a sleazy way of restricting peoples' choices and shaking gun manufacturers down for cash.

[slackmaster]

20. What does that have to do with the choices available to handgun buyers in California?

I've seen the numbers many times. Please explain how that has anything to do with the topic. Thanks in advance.

[cabluedem]

24. What can possibly be wrong with this law. Keeps guns away from the nuts. nt

[benEzra]

26. So anyone who seeks counseling for depression is a "nut" in your book?

Or you are, if your disgruntled neighbor calls in and says you are "acting irrationally"?

We have a tradition in this country called due process. The Bush Administration liked to summarily revoke rights based on claims and hearsay, but that is NOT the way this country is supposed to work.

If someone is indeed mentally incompetent or a danger to others, they can be brought before a court and declared so, and their right to possess a firearm revoked. But if you want to revoke gun ownership simply for seeking treatment for depression, because someone is eccentric, or based on unsubstantiated claims by others, that's asinine.

FWIW, the U.S. suicide rate is considerably lower than that of Canada, the U.K., most other European nations, and Japan. The suicide stats are therefore a red herring, since to match the suicide rates of gun-banning nations, our suicide rate would have to go up.

[cabluedem]

36. Talk about a red herring. Many people who are nuts never seek help. Thats why they are so paranoid .

that they talk crazy things about "FEMA camps" and stock up on guns, ammo and food thinking that the government in out to get them.As to removing the right to own a gun, that's a simple matter in most states if a person talks of committing suicide or homicide. The authorities are contacted by the conselor or doctor and the firearms are confiscated.

[jody]

38. There you go again, unsupported assertions & ad hominem attacks, ignorance won't trump knowledge.

[benEzra]

46. Did you even read the proposal you endorsed?

Here it is:

Another angle that the Harvard study considered is that of the 30,000 deaths by gun violence in the U.S. each year, at least 17,000, or more than half, are suicides. This information can be directly transferred into legislation and mental health policy that protects at risk individuals, such as those that are being treated for depression, who can be asked in a questionnaire if there are any guns in their home, and those guns can be removed.

Bringing the issue into a criminal justice model, a law in Connecticut that has been on the books for 10 years allows police officers to confiscate guns from people that have been reported to the police as behaving irrationally, the police have a right to take their guns, and within 14 days there will be a hearing in front of judge, at which time it will be decided if the guns will be returned.

I didn't see anything about "FEMA camps" in there. Just a frank proposal to confiscate the guns of anyone who owns guns and seeks treatment for depression.

Talk about a red herring. Many people who are nuts never seek help. Thats why they are so paranoid .

Quite so. But the proposal you endorsed would take guns from those with simple depression who do seek counseling and/or treatment.

[Hoopla Phil]

48. I guess anyone that followes this FEMA guidline would be a "nut" in your book?

http://www.fema.gov/plan/prepare/food.shtm

_______________________________________________________
Food

Store at least a three-day supply of non-perishable food. Select foods that require no refrigeration, preparation or cooking and little or no water. If you must heat food, pack a can of sterno. Select food items that are compact and lightweight. Avoid foods that will make you thirsty. Choose salt-free crackers, whole grain cereals, and canned foods with high liquid content.

*Include a selection of the following foods in your Disaster Supplies Kit:

Note: Be sure to include a manual can opener.

* Ready-to-eat canned meats, fruits and vegetables
* Canned juices, milk, soup (if powdered, store extra water)
* Staples--sugar, salt, pepper
* High energy foods--peanut butter, jelly, crackers, granola bars, trail mix
* Vitamins
* Foods for infants, elderly persons or persons with special dietary needs
* Comfort/stress foods--cookies, hard candy, sweetened cereals, lollipops, instant coffee, tea bags

Last Modified: Tuesday, 08-May-2007 16:04:24 EDT
__________________________________________________________

[slackmaster]

31. You are obviously not informed about this topic

Nobody is saying that people who have been adjudicated as mentally incompetent should be allowed to own firearms.

The subject is California's ridiculous "safe handgun" laws.

[bossy22]

49. you need to read up on the handgun roster law

the roster has nothing to do with felons- its a system that is supposed to authorize "safe handguns" for sale in the sate of CA. The problem is that it is very arbitrary, expensive (costs the manufacturer money to keep the gun on the list) and sometimes makes no sense. they will have one version of a gun on the list, but not another- even if it is the same gun and the difference could be something as little as that one has night sights. for example, (and this is right out the case at hand) the standard glock 21SF is authorized handgun for sale (it is on the roster as a safe handgun). Glock recently came out with the 21SF with an ambidextrous magazine release, so the gun would be more comfortable for left handed shooters, but california refused to put it on the list. The reason- because after 2007 all new semi-auto pistols on the list must have a magazine disconnect feature (glock doesnt have one). The Glock 21sf standard version is grandfathered in, but the one with the ambi mag release will not be allowed on the list. But here is the best part, you can buy the ambi mag release...install it on your gun, AND ITS LEGAL!!!!!....so does a law like that make sense?

ooo and the best part is...LAW ENFORCEMENT CAN BUY GUNS NOT ON THE ROSTER!!!!....those that are deemed "unsafe"

now why would LE want handguns that have been determined unsafe....shouldnt we be giving them the safest, most reliable handguns out there.

If you are defining unsafe handgun based on a gun being INHERENTLY (through its design) unsafe- then the user of it wouldnt matter. If you build a car with no brakes, its unsafe to drive, no matter if you are joe shmo or mario andretti.

[friendly_iconoclast]

64. In your own words, *how* does the CA register keep "guns away from the nuts"?

Do tell...

[starroute]

16. I don't trust anything with Alan Gottlieb's name attached to it

Old line movement conservative. Got freaked out in his college years by the anti-Vietnam War protests. Joined Young Americans for Freedom in 1969 and worked to support the war, even though he himself was safely ensconced in the National Guard thanks to family connections. Got a degree in nuclear engineering in 1971 but couldn't find a job. Felt betrayed by the government and turned into a hard-right activist.

In the 70's, founded the Committee For the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise.

Associated in the early 80's with Reverend Moon's CAUSA. Convicted of income tax evasion in 1984, served some time in jail, and was also sued (unsuccessfully) for fraud by his former employees. Became involved at that same time in the anti-environmental "Wise Use" movement. Released from prison in 1985, joined the Council for National Policy, and became a director of Reverend Moon's American Freedom Coalition.

In the early Clinton years, he was riding high as a direct-mail fundraiser. He's been less visible in recent years, but in 2004, he edited (and apparently self-published) a collection of George Bush's speeches, the synopsis of which begins, "Since the beginning of his presidency, George W. Bush has been blowing his critics away with the power and finesse of his speeches."

It looks like he's been testing the wind and decided that now is the time to get the old machine revved up again. I know some people here feel they have legitimate arguments when it comes to guns -- but Gottlieb is truly the last person you should ever want to get mixed up with

[villager]

18. Thanks for the "contextualizing" background!

;-)

[slackmaster]

21. Sure, but is he wrong about this?

Please explain how what you have posted has anything ot do with the topic.

Thanks in advance.

[virginia mountainman]

35. LOL but I trust..

Republican Sara Brady, Mike Bloomberg, and Paul Hemike so little I cannot describe how much I don't trust them, they have been caught telling so many lies, and spreading so much bullshit, I don't see why ANYONE does, Do you???

Honorable mention must go to Di Fi, and Caroline McCarthy.

[slackmaster]

62. Dismissing anything associated with a person you don't like is a lot easier than thinking

Enjoy your delusion of moral superiority.

[aikoaiko]

57. Good luck Slack, and all other freedom loving Californians,

Sometimes it takes lawsuits to keep government from infringing on civil rights.