« Jim Bovard remembers Mike McNulty | Main | National Firearms Law Seminar »
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.
10 Comments | Leave a comment
Well the communist state of California is well on it's way to complete ban of all weapons. And the ninth circus court will approve an out right ban.
I will repeat myself. Either suck it up and stay or leave California. Yeah, the money is good out there and the beaches are nice but life is more than that and there is plenty of room in other gun friendly states.
And
Thank the Supreme Court for its 1833 decision in Barron v Baltimore where the court decided that the Bill of Rights DID NOT BIND THE STATES.
Every problem in this country and every violation of the Constitution can be traced to some bs decision by the supreme court.
There is an element of Karma here. The district court cited the Peruta v. San Diego decision in upholding the law. CalGuns.nuts is a plaintiff in this case just as it is a plaintiff in the companion case to Peruta - Richards v. Prieto.
If the twisted logic in the Peruta decision is allowed to stand then you can expect a lot more decisions like this.
When lower courts are free to not only disregard US Supreme Court precedents but to declare that these precedents mean the exact opposite of what they mean then there is no rule of law. Judges are free to make things up as they go along.
Mr. Nichols - You forgot to take your medication.
kukuforguns - how is he wrong? After all, look at all of the circuit court decisions that claimed to cite US v. Miller, but claimed it was an appeal of a conviction....
Because of the reasons cited by other commenters, a district court ruling means little - UNLESS it is not appealed. So --- is this going to be appealed?
The drop test required by the State of California is so absurdly statistically weak that we use in our Six Sigma curriculum as an example of what happens when you do not understand how to design a test.
Folks,
Do please note that...
1. This is being appealed. :-)
2. There's a huge conflict already with recent winning "2nd waiting period case" (Silvester v Harris) in Fed court - which essentially held 'near strict scrutiny' and that a 2nd waiting period for existing gun owners acquiring firearms was an unacceptable burden on the right. (Yes, CA DOJ is now appealing, but it was a very.)
3. This decision continues to impair one of the plaintiffs (B. Thomas) - who wanted the exact same gun the US Supreme Court said Dick Heller could have! (landmark Heller v DC decision, 2008) - but since it's not "Rostered" (nor Rosterable given corporate history etc.)
This one aspect alone could get very interesting.
4. One other laughable situation: the one-armed plaintiff who wanted a "left-handed Glock" was told by former CA DOJ Deputy AG that - while he couldn't acquire the said left-handed variant directly - he was allowed to buy the Rostered right-handed variant and then send it to Glock in Smyrna, GA for retrofitting!
Onward & upward.
Bill Wiese
Calguns Foundation
One other thing to note: The Roster doesn't list guns that are "safe". It simply states that those guns that were submitted for destructive testing along with a tax are "Not Unsafe". It's not a "Safe Handgun Roster". It's a "Not Unsafe Handgun Roster".
Orwellian, eh?
All firearms have a loaded chamber indicator. If you pull the trigger, and there is a flash of light and a loud bang, the chamber was loaded.
Oh. You wanted an indication before that? Well....