PDA

View Full Version : Unsafe handguns list


GuyW
08-26-2008, 12:07 PM
Moved from here

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=86833&page=12


Quote: Originally Posted by lrdchivalry

"As I have said before, you can try and spin it any way you want but calling for a ban is exactly what you calling for. Again, put all that effort into removing the list instead of calling for another ban."

OK....some insist on painting a certain position as anti-LEO, and you create the "ban" boogeyman.....

BUT SINCE LEO (in general) WILL NOT PUBLICLY OPPOSE the unsafe handgun list in any reasonable numbers, lets look at this in a dispassionate way to find a realistic political pathway to getting rid of the unsafe handgun list:

Approach 1: just work solely to remove the safe gun list.


Situation:
A. gunrights citizens will publicly support.
B. Rank & file cops will sit out the PUBLIC debate, (even the pro-gun LEOs) because they are intimidated by the brass, and they can have non-safe guns anyway
C. Political brass LEO will publicly oppose any change
D. lib media slams proponents as nutcases opposed to public safety
E. Demos in Sacto feel they can torpedo or ignore issue


Result: limited number of proponents, and far more limited number of popularly-influential proponents. Safe list continues, average citizens lose...and LEO remain "special"


Approach 2A: Work to Remove LEO exemption from safe gun list (work to remove the safe gun list, BY increasing the # of proponents who PUBLICLY WANT it gone)


Situation:
A. gunrights citizens will publicly support.
B. Rank & file cops (privately?) oppose? Union involvement?
C. Political brass either sit it out or support removing LEO exemption
D. lib media talks about LEOs with unsafe handguns
E. Demos in Sacto can't ignore issue


Initial result: LEO loses "special" status, and/or there is a significant public discussion about "unsafe handguns"

OR - the discussion and politics leads directly to repealing the unsafe handgun baloney...


Approach 2B (follow-on to 2A): work to remove the safe gun list, with increased # of proponents who PUBLICLY WANT it gone


Situation:
A. gunrights citizens will publicly support.
B. Rank & file cops get their unions publicly involved so that they can have guns they want. Some may feel that they can publicly support removal of safe gun list under these conditions.
C. Political brass either sit it out or are neutered by union position
D. lib media has much harder time slamming opponents, discussion about "unsafe handguns"
E. Demos in Sacto can't ignore issue


Result: larger number of proponents, and more popularly-influential proponents (LEOs). Average citizens win and LEOs win.


This is not about being anti-LEO, its about convincing LEO to support our cause, because it will become their cause....and because I don't see an alternative realistic political path to getting rid of the unsafe handguns list.

If you have one - post it.

If I've made unwarranted assumptions - discuss it.
__________________

yellowfin
08-26-2008, 12:24 PM
I completely agree. The dual treatment, the privileged class and the outright legalized fiction has got to be thrown in the trash along with their ability to say "Sucks for you, not my problem."

SkyStorm82
08-26-2008, 12:44 PM
Why stop there? Lets work on making the rest of the country follow our lead in gun laws. We'll finally all be "equal" and they wont look down upon us "loony" Californians. Instead...they will stand with us and fight!

Lets go over to arfcom and pitch our plan. I really think they'll go for it.

Come on....and people wonder why the "wall" exists for some cops and some... "civilians":43:

lrdchivalry
08-26-2008, 12:52 PM
OK....some insist on painting a certain position as anti-LEO, and you create the "ban" boogeyman.....

Create the ban boogeyman? The unsafe handgun list is a ban on certain types of guns. Adding other people to the list of people who can only buy from the list is also a ban so there was no creation of anything other then another ban. Nice play on words to make it sound like it's not.


BUT SINCE LEO (in general) WILL NOT PUBLICLY OPPOSE the unsafe handgun list in any reasonable numbers, lets look at this in a dispassionate way to find a realistic political pathway to getting rid of the unsafe handgun list:

Approach 1: just work solely to remove the safe gun list.


Situation:
A. gunrights citizens will publicly support.
B. Rank & file cops will sit out the PUBLIC debate, (even the pro-gun LEOs) because they are intimidated by the brass, and they can have non-safe guns anyway
C. Political brass LEO will publicly oppose any change
D. lib media slams proponents as nutcases opposed to public safety
E. Demos in Sacto feel they can torpedo or ignore issue


Result: limited number of proponents, and far more limited number of popularly-influential proponents. Safe list continues, average citizens lose...and LEO remain "special"

Possibly but instead of taking up the challenge you're advocating the creation of another ban.


Approach 2A: Work to Remove LEO exemption from safe gun list (work to remove the safe gun list, BY increasing the # of proponents who PUBLICLY WANT it gone)


Situation:
A. gunrights citizens will publicly support.
B. Rank & file cops (privately?) oppose? Union involvement?
C. Political brass either sit it out or support removing LEO exemption
D. lib media talks about LEOs with unsafe handguns
E. Demos in Sacto can't ignore issue


Initial result: LEO loses "special" status, and/or there is a significant public discussion about "unsafe handguns"

OR - the discussion and politics leads directly to repealing the unsafe handgun baloney...

I see.. Let's get a gun ban repealed by adding another gun ban.


Approach 2B: work to remove the safe gun list, with increased # of proponents who PUBLICLY WANT it gone


Situation:
A. gunrights citizens will publicly support.
B. Rank & file cops get their unions publicly involved so that they can have guns they want. Some may feel that they can publicly support removal of safe gun list under these conditions.
C. Political brass either sit it out or are neutered by union position
D. lib media has much harder time slamming opponents, discussion about "unsafe handguns"
E. Demos in Sacto can't ignore issue


Result: larger number of proponents, and more popularly-influential proponents (LEOs). Average citizens win and LEOs win.

Might possibly work, however, adding an additional ban is not the way to go.


This is not about being anti-LEO, its about convincing LEO to support our cause, because it will become their cause....and because I don't see an alternative realistic political path to getting rid of the unsafe handguns list.

How about trying to repeal the list instead creating another ban.

If you have one - post it.

I did... My statement was to put the time and energy in repealing the list instead of creating a new ban, however, that wasn't good enough some people.

lrdchivalry
08-26-2008, 12:54 PM
I completely agree. The dual treatment, the privileged class and the outright legalized fiction has got to be thrown in the trash along with their ability to say "Sucks for you, not my problem."


Then work on repealing the list instead of instituting another ban.

GuyW
08-26-2008, 12:58 PM
I see.. Let's get a gun ban repealed by adding another gun ban.


How about actually engaging the topic and the thought process?


I did... My statement was to put the time and energy in repealing the list instead of creating a new ban, however, that wasn't good enough some people.

It wasn't good enough because it was merely a generic statement about "lets do something" with no plan of action or specificity at all.

It smells like "do anything except endanger MY special interests"
.

M. D. Van Norman
08-26-2008, 1:01 PM
How many rank-and-file cops actually care one way or the other about the handgun roster? They’ll carry what they’re issued.

elSquid
08-26-2008, 1:11 PM
While we wait for incorporation, another approach to take would be to get COE holders the ability to buy unrostered handguns. This would allow us to avoid attacking the registry head-on ( which we might not have the political capital to do ) and position an exemption that might be palatable to all parties involved.

-- Michael

GuyW
08-26-2008, 1:17 PM
While we wait for incorporation, another approach to take would be to get COE holders the ability to buy unrostered handguns. This would allow us to avoid attacking the registry head-on ( which we might not have the political capital to do ) and position an exemption that might be palatable to all parties involved.

-- Michael

OK - good post.

Now - how do we have enough political power to cause the Dems in Sacto to create this loophole in their own safe-handguns-list law?

GuyW
08-26-2008, 1:20 PM
How many rank-and-file cops actually care one way or the other about the handgun roster? They’ll carry what they’re issued.

The "issue" is NOT (so much) the LE officially-issued guns, its LEOs privately purchased handguns.....they can buy models that non-special CA citizens can't.

As to the number of cops that do (or would) care, I don't know - any estimates?

...some people are just more equal than others....

lrdchivalry
08-26-2008, 1:20 PM
How about actually engaging the topic and the thought process?

I did... You just didn't like my response.



It wasn't good enough because it was merely a generic statement about "lets do something" with no plan of action or specificity at all.
It smells like "do anything except endanger MY interests"

Edit: How about gun owners getting together to discuss a plan of attack to get the list repealed.

GuyW
08-26-2008, 1:29 PM
I did... You just didn't like my response.


Please show me _how_ your post was a substantive response to IDENTIFYING realistic political PATHS to success....

....rather just than a quick throw-off of, "don't mess with my ch%^, man"
.

GuyW
08-26-2008, 1:41 PM
Create the ban boogeyman? The unsafe handgun list is a ban on certain types of guns. Adding other people to the list of people who can only buy from the list is also a ban so there was no creation of anything other then another ban. Nice play on words to make it sound like it's not.


It's not a ban - its called "equal protection under the law"....

...that means everyone gets treated equally by the law unless and until a reasonable articulatable statement can be made that supports treating citizens unequally.

In this case, there is no reasonable articulatable idea supporting citizens and citizen-cops buying their PRIVATE guns from different lists.

Instead, it was just politically expedient for the Dems to (once again) use LEO to accomplish their goal at the least cost to themselves.

Since rank-and-file citizen-cops apparently don't have control of their unions and LEO-politician-talking-heads, they may just have to live under the same f$%^up laws as the rest of we serfs....

Now, IF it happens that CA LEOs lose their special privilege to buy unsafe handguns....it will be because they did NOT pro-actively fight to get rid of the handgun list (or failed in their attempt to remain unConstitutionally "special").

"...with liberty and justice for ALL..."



.

AaronHorrocks
08-26-2008, 1:50 PM
Screwing people over in an attempt to get them 'on your side' is not a good tactic.

GuyW
08-26-2008, 1:52 PM
Screwing people over in an attempt to get them 'on your side' is not a good tactic.

"...liberty and justice for ALL..." is "screwing people over"?

Do you have any substantive ideas to contribute?

GuyW
08-26-2008, 2:00 PM
....and people wonder why the "wall" exists for some cops and some... "civilians":43:


Gee - that wouldn't be because of special unConstitutional privileges extended to LE but not citizens, would it?

.

nicki
08-26-2008, 2:19 PM
SB15 was passed on emotion, not fact, many of the people who voted for the bill(yes, I know they are elected representatives) in all honesty are probably clueless.

The rhetoric that the law will save the lives of children is why this law passed and it will be the rhetoric that we have to go against.

What we need is a different approach, we need to attack this law for what it is, a fraud. Basically the law has two features most of us want knocked out of the law, the chamber indicator and the dreaded mag safety feature.

A young child isn't going to know the difference regardless of what kind of indicator we have on a gun, which is why we need firearms safety training in the schools.

The magazine disconnect is a feature that could render a fiream useless when needed most, if we approach that it does more harm than good and actually costs lives.

If it is such a great feature, why is it most militaries and police agencies don't have this feature on their guns.

The handgun drop test is something that would be a hard one to fight, I'll leave it at that.

One issue to consider is that most people who are non gun owners have no idea how expensive quality guns are and laws that drive up the costs of firearms disproportionately disarm lower income people.

Combine that with rules in public housing that prohibit gun ownership and you have created a victim class. If that class is non white, and they don't trust the police because of bad public relations, things can really get out of hand.

In essence, SB15 doesn't save lives, it actually costs lives, it is a dishonest smoke and mirrors solution to avoid dealing with "real social issues".

Nail Liberals for promoting solutions to "divert attention from real problems".

Most gun laws are in fact "diversion laws" so that the publics attention is shifted away from government policies that are disasters.

Nicki

hawk1
08-26-2008, 2:25 PM
First, you need to call the list what it is. It is not the "unsafe handgun list". I don't much care if those words were used so everyone will know what your talking about. Call it what they call it. The "Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale". You add the words "unsafe handguns" and the people or politicians are going to say they only want "safe" handguns to be sold, not unsafe ones...

Second, instead of calling LEO's "special" in your examples, why don't use the word "exempt"? After all, that is their status in regards to this. Your use of the word "special" is being used as an "anti-LEO" reference and shows your disdain for their exemption. The individual LEO did not fight for their exempt status, it was given by the politicians to get the LEO brass on board. My opinion is the brass could care less what the individual LEO cares or wants.

Third, you were given a great idea about using the COE as another class to be exempted. Run with it, debate it, and see what comes of that. As an outright removal of the "certified" list will not happen. Not unless "incorporation" helps to remove it. Nobody knows when or if that'll happen.
Many if not all gun owners can get a COE and that very well may be the best vehicle to get the "uncertified handguns" back into our hands.

AaronHorrocks
08-26-2008, 3:14 PM
"...liberty and justice for ALL..." is "screwing people over"?

Do you have any substantive ideas to contribute?

Violating the rights of LEOs in an attempt to get them to "come to our side" is infact screwing them over, just as the state has screwed us over. Two wrongs don't make a right. We don't need gun owners devided upon ourselves, because we need to win. Dirty (Clintonesque) tactics aren't going to solve the problem here.

Seeing that I chimmed in on page 2, my ideas were already mentioned. No need to repeat them.

rbgaynor
08-26-2008, 3:17 PM
Second, instead of calling LEO's "special" in your examples, why don't use the word "exempt"?

Because that is what the exemption does - it creates a special class of protected persons. The good thing is that, post incorporation, this special class gives us grounds to challenge the roster under the 14th amendments equal protection clause.

AaronHorrocks
08-26-2008, 3:20 PM
One issue to consider is that most people who are non gun owners have no idea how expensive quality guns are and laws that drive up the costs of firearms disproportionately disarm lower income people.

Darn tootin'!

I got the chance to talk to a cute chick from Texas that WASN'T a gun owner. She didn't see the need. I told her I was more of a collector, my last purchase being an old Czech vz52 pistol, roughly $200, plus another $100 for the transfer... I told her I was planning on getting a few more since they were so cheap.

"$300 is cheap?" she said. "For a pistol? You bettcha!" I then went on to quote prices on some very common handguns in the $800 to over $1,000 range and she was blown away that they were so expensive.

bwiese
08-26-2008, 3:39 PM
SB15 is readily attackable because it allows LEOs to bypass not just for duty sake, but for personal use too.

SB15 Rostering has already been made somewhat irrelevant because of single-shot & single-action revolver conversions.

Poor Alison's handcrafted law (when she worked for Jack Scott) has been riven asunder, and she's probably crying at her desk, seeing all the single-shot AR/AK pistols getting registered.

elSquid
08-26-2008, 3:59 PM
OK - good post.

Now - how do we have enough political power to cause the Dems in Sacto to create this loophole in their own safe-handguns-list law?

Well, if incorporation is coming, it's actually in the Dem's best interests to do it themselves.

COE requires fingerprinting and a background check; certainly getting a COE is more involved than the actual requirements for buying a firearm. Therefore, from a Dem "public safety" position, a person buying a firearm with a COE undergoes more vetting than one who buys without.

COE and a C&R currently allows one to skip the 1 handgun per 30 days requirement.

If the Dems were smart they would change the law such that:
1) COE allows one to buy unrostered handguns ( like a LEO )
2) COE allows one to skip the 10 day waiting period
3) COE allows one to not need to provide documents to prove CA residency.
4) drop the C&R requirement for 1 handgun per 30; COE only needed.

Once incorporation comes, legal challenges WILL come. The handgun roster will be challenged. As will the waiting period.

However, if the law was changed to the benefit of COE holders, when a challenge arose - and it will come on equal protection grounds - the gov't can come back and say: "Anyone who wants a unrostered handgun can get one - just get a COE." This stance allows the gov't to protect the population-at-large from firearms that haven't been through the safety testing ( :rolleyes: ), while not infringing on the 2nd amendment rights ( :rolleyes: x 2 ) of the residents of the state.

If the law isn't changed, then the gov't is risking the whole roster being tossed. And waiting periods being tossed. Etc.

Incentivizing applications for COEs increases the public safety, as more firearms enthusiast will be willing to go through the process to get one if there are concrete benefits. Purchases made with COEs will require less scrutiny during the DROS process, since the purchasers have been pre-vetted. As well, with a unique serial numbered COE, the gov't would have greater confidence in the identity of the purchaser. Gov't resources could then be focussed on the background checks for non-COE purchases, which of course would still be subject to a 10 day waiting period/1-per-30/handgun roster/etc.

Everybody is then happy: gunowners with a COE would essentially have the same access that gunowners generally have in other states. The state benefits by having the folks that generally buy more guns as a whole go through a more stringent initial background check, and scarce resources could then be focussed on transactions that involve purchasers that do not have the COE.

So it's win-win. ;)

-- Michael

Calguns2000
08-26-2008, 4:09 PM
While we wait for incorporation, another approach to take would be to get COE holders the ability to buy unrostered handguns. This would allow us to avoid attacking the registry head-on ( which we might not have the political capital to do ) and position an exemption that might be palatable to all parties involved.

-- MichaelThis is a great idea.

alex00
08-26-2008, 4:46 PM
Guy- I'm not sure I have anything to contribute in terms of ways to fight this law, but I see some problems with your proposal. Most, if not all, LE agencies in California have prohibitions against LEOs speaking out for political causes. This has been pointed out before. You may very well have many LEO supporters of your plan, ready, willing and able to speak publicly about the law. The only catch is they cannot identify themselves as LEOs when speaking out. So, you'll end up with a group of civilians speaking out, without any public LEO clout.

I don't think that any agencies would ever come around after a ban on non-rostered handguns. As long as they can have functioning handguns in the hands of their officers, they won't care what list they come from.

Your plan takes a big risk, creating a ban, in the hopes of swaying enough public support to repeal the whole thing. We need to remember that we live in California, and that we as gun owners are a minority. Gun owners that care about laws and changing them are an even smaller minority.

I wish I had the answers, but I don't. There have to be some challenges to the law. I'm hopeful that someday we will see the end of the AWB. I'm sure we can also see the end of the handgun list. I think the answer involves trying to involve the manufacturers. California is a big state, and even though gun buyers are a minority, we still make a big portion of sales for gun companies.

Meplat
08-26-2008, 7:13 PM
I think we may be getting a little too deep into the politics of envy here. As I see it the big problem with the “list” is:

(A) That it cuts way down on the available choices at the local retailer.

(B) It cuts down on choices for concealed carry.


You can own and or open carry anything you want. You can PPT “off list” pistols. I think the only thing the LE exemption does is allow an LEO to order off list from the retailer.

I don’t see that including LEO’s in this fiasco would create any significant amount of political pressure. I don’t see how it would increase the options for you and I at the local gun store, just the opposite. If an LEO buys an 1897 jerkwhacker from a dealer and decides he doesn’t like it, viola, it’s back in the store as a PPT.

Your efforts would be better spent electing sympathetic sheriffs. I have two “off list” pistols on my CCW.

nobody33
08-26-2008, 7:35 PM
This would in my estimate affect less than 1000 cops statewide. Not very many. And they wouldn't care very much. Cops in England don't even want to be armed. I know some cops who are the same way (very few). Your not going to get any more support now against the ban than you already have.

Cops can also buy AR's which is different from the list. Do you want to take those away too?

bulgron
08-26-2008, 8:26 PM
We have been divided and conquered.

The only reasonable way to attack the Safe Handgun List is to wait for incorporation, and then press a 14A equal protection lawsuit against it. The idea would be to get the federal courts to declare it unconstitutional to put cops on a different playing field than ordinary citizens. At that point, the ball would be in Sacramento's court: either abandon the list or make it apply to LEO too.

The right answer is that they would abandon the list.

Who knows if they would do the right thing? It depends on how much heat the police unions would bring to bear on Sacramento.

Good news is, if we managed to get that court decision, it ought to be the end of other "divided and conquered" laws such as microstamping.

bwiese
08-26-2008, 10:54 PM
Bulgron's got it - clearly & succinctly, as usual :)

SOneThreeCoupe
08-27-2008, 6:09 AM
I don't understand the list.

Loaded chamber indicators as well as magazine disconnects are not even covered by last year's HSC study guide. How is someone going to identify them correctly if they aren't even covered by the state study guide?

I just took my HSC yesterday. Were the magazine disconnect or loaded chamber indicator mentioned at all? No.

I did my handling demonstration as well. Was I asked to point out a loaded chamber indicator or how a magazine disconnect works? No. I did a press check to see if the weapon was loaded. I kept my finger the hell out of the trigger guard at all times.

The handgun safety booklet emphasizes gun safety through proper handling and storage methods. It does not force us to buy guns which pass a government test, at the expense of gun manufacturers, in order to be safe.

I'm all for an equal protection case. I want the roster done away with.

bwiese
08-27-2008, 8:46 AM
I don't understand the list.

Loaded chamber indicators as well as magazine disconnects are not even covered by last year's HSC study guide. How is someone going to identify them correctly if they aren't even covered by the state study guide?

Your mistake is assuming rationality in gun laws.

These are kinda passive safeties, and the gov't HSC test is a basic safety test (don't be an Iggy, etc.) The Roster is really just applicable to *dealers*, who are the ones who check the list and the line of enforcement. (CA gun dealers are really state agents for the DOJ.)

THe HSC card and the Roster are two separate laws and were not really coordinated.

lrdchivalry
08-27-2008, 9:08 AM
Guy- I'm not sure I have anything to contribute in terms of ways to fight this law, but I see some problems with your proposal. Most, if not all, LE agencies in California have prohibitions against LEOs speaking out for political causes. This has been pointed out before. You may very well have many LEO supporters of your plan, ready, willing and able to speak publicly about the law. The only catch is they cannot identify themselves as LEOs when speaking out. So, you'll end up with a group of civilians speaking out, without any public LEO clout.

I don't think that any agencies would ever come around after a ban on non-rostered handguns. As long as they can have functioning handguns in the hands of their officers, they won't care what list they come from.

Your plan takes a big risk, creating a ban, in the hopes of swaying enough public support to repeal the whole thing. We need to remember that we live in California, and that we as gun owners are a minority. Gun owners that care about laws and changing them are an even smaller minority.

I wish I had the answers, but I don't. There have to be some challenges to the law. I'm hopeful that someday we will see the end of the AWB. I'm sure we can also see the end of the handgun list. I think the answer involves trying to involve the manufacturers. California is a big state, and even though gun buyers are a minority, we still make a big portion of sales for gun companies.

Excellent post!

lrdchivalry
08-27-2008, 9:27 AM
Violating the rights of LEOs in an attempt to get them to "come to our side" is infact screwing them over, just as the state has screwed us over. Two wrongs don't make a right. We don't need gun owners devided upon ourselves, because we need to win. Dirty (Clintonesque) tactics aren't going to solve the problem here.

Agreed.

Seeing that I chimmed in on page 2, my ideas were already mentioned. No need to repeat them.

It wasn't good enough for him since it doesn't include a new ban. Remember it's the "if I can't have it no one can" mentality. Instead of putting all the time and energy in repealing the list we will just work on banning it from those people as well, under the guise of it's not a ban.

No matter how he spins it, removing access to guns from anyone is still a ban.

motorhead
08-27-2008, 9:46 AM
the ca handgun roster is one of the most repressive gun control laws ever passed. mfrs. want nothing to do with it for 1 very important reason, liability. what if a certain weapon fails? results are public, ambulance chaser freeding frenzy to follow. it limits drasticly, the number and type of new handguns entering ca.
as far as getting rank and file le to support any pro gun legislation, good luck with that. they are above this particular law and risk going against their depts. anti gun policies.

Librarian
08-27-2008, 1:16 PM
the ca handgun roster is one of the most repressive gun control laws ever passed. mfrs. want nothing to do with it for 1 very important reason, liability. what if a certain weapon fails? results are public, ambulance chaser freeding frenzy to follow. it limits drasticly, the number and type of new handguns entering ca.
as far as getting rank and file le to support any pro gun legislation, good luck with that. they are above this particular law and risk going against their depts. anti gun policies.

Generally right, except for this: mfrs. want nothing to do with it for 1 very important reason, liability. what if a certain weapon fails? 'Failing' the tests is pretty unlikely - even acknowledged low-end pistols in the Raven/Davis/Lorcin/Bryco category passed easily.

SOneThreeCoupe
08-28-2008, 5:28 AM
Your mistake is assuming rationality in gun laws.

I assume no rationality; I was just trying to point out the irrationality. It's not that I actually cannot understand, it's more that I cannot wrap my mind around their rationale for passing inane laws.

This is yet another example of the state trying to control our behavior. We are too stupid to reduce accidents ourselves, so they step in.