Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Cases where legal gunowners stopped mass killings | Main | Supreme Court heating up: two petitions for cert. »

California "unsafe handgun" rules enjoined

Posted by David Hardy · 20 March 2023 02:02 PM

Preliminary injunction granted. The case is Boland v. Bonta, Central District of California.

4 Comments | Leave a comment

Bill Wiese | March 21, 2023 5:12 PM | Reply

While the CA Unsafe Handgun Act "Roster" requirements for LCI (loaded chamber indicator), MDI (magazine disconnect, and microstamping (unavailable technology) were all killed, the original Rostering requirement including filing fee & a drop test for each model still exist.

The PI has a 14 day stay to allow for appeal.

Even if everything holds on day 15 with appeal, no en banc, etc. it'll still take quite a bit of time for companies to get additional handguns Rostered:
- there are only a few certified test labs;
- CA DOJ may take its own sweet time on Roster filings - heck, even
people that paper their guns when moving to CA don't see results
for months.

DOJ may still even hold that trivial manufacturing changes (different materials, even different origins of rivets/screws) for a given model require re-drop testing, fees and resubmission to Roster.


Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

Windy Wilson | March 21, 2023 6:28 PM | Reply

Bill, thanks for the clarification. I had rather hoped that the whole "Pistols approved for Peons" structure, from prohibitions to rosters had gone, but we have to go with incrementalism.

Peter Zukowski | March 22, 2023 8:00 AM | Reply

I am not an attorney so correct me if I am wrong but this is a preliminary order and the case is still ongoining. If the judge would go back and reread McDonald and apply the common use test relating to banning fire arms in common use for lawfull purposes throughput the Country this entire bag of excrement would go away.

Peter Zukowski
Casper, Wy

Peter Zukowski | March 22, 2023 11:20 AM | Reply

I honestly must attribute this to Mark Smith of the Four Boxes Dinner.
He is a far better read legal scholar than I.

Peter Zukowski
Casper Wy

Leave a comment