PDA

View Full Version : Wayne LaPierre on CA handgun roster.


lioneaglegriffin
01-05-2009, 11:29 AM
from: www.nra.org

D.C.'s New Gun Laws, Part 2


1/5/2009

Tucked away in one of the District of Columbia's new gun regulations is the following provision:

"Except as provided in subsections (c), (d), or (e) of this section, beginning January 1,
2009, a pistol that is not on the California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale, also known as the California Roster of Handguns Determined Not to be Unsafe, pursuant to California Penal
Code Section 12131 as of January 1, 2009, may not be manufactured, sold, given, loaned,
exposed for sale, transferred, or imported into the District of Columbia."

This means for a resident in Washington, D.C., to buy a handgun, it has to be approved by the California Department of Justice. And D.C. council members like to whine about taxation without representation? What about the loss of a right based on the whim of an unelected state bureaucrat almost 3,000 miles away?

And if you think California's roster of "safe" handguns is based on safety features, you're wrong. The state of California long ago began to disguise gun bans as gun safety.

For example, they say newly manufactured non-microstamped handguns will be considered "unsafe" on January 1, 2010. With the California legislature's declaration that a handgun is safe or unsafe based on cosmetic features they like or don't, they've opened a giant back door to gun bans. And not only Californians but also residents of D.C. are victims of these infringements of their Second Amendment rights.

I've pointed out just a few of the problems in D.C.'s new gun laws. Residents of the District deserve better. They deserve a city council that seeks to secure their rights, not restrict them. But in the absence of good politicians making good law, gun owners across the country will have to once again team up to ensure that the courts enforce the Constitution.

radioburning
01-05-2009, 11:48 AM
This is retarded, and yet at the same time not surprising at all.

lioneaglegriffin
01-05-2009, 11:54 AM
i suppose someone got the idea that whats state has to most strict gun laws that somehow pass for constitutional?... ah ha California! So next time a gun nut sue's us, we can say hey California's doin it!

so now our destinies are intertwined even more. What happens to D.C (heller wise) or CA (Nordyke wise) may effect the other.

CalNRA
01-05-2009, 12:03 PM
so now our destinies are intertwined even more. What happens to D.C (heller wise) or CA (Nordyke wise) may effect the other.

shh.....let the hole get dug deeper by the petty pencil pushers.

hoffmang
01-05-2009, 12:16 PM
shh.....let the hole get dug deeper by the petty pencil pushers.

:43:

"That's an awfully nice brier patch you got there mr pencil pusher..."

-Gene

Ding126
01-05-2009, 12:20 PM
This shows that stupidity is from coast to coast.

A bit off topic,,but relevant to stupid legislation.

Coming to a state near you.l..

As of Jan 01, 2009
The state of Arizona has now passed a law that, It is illegal for your license plate frame to cover up the states name. " ARIZONA " First offense fines will be over 100.00's.

Who ever came up with this or voted for this, needs to loose their position.

Sgt Raven
01-05-2009, 12:24 PM
This shows that stupidity is from coast to coast.

A bit off topic,,but relevant to stupid legislation.

Coming to a state near you.l..

As of Jan 01, 2009
The state of Arizona has now passed a law that, It is illegal for your license plate frame to cover up the states name. " ARIZONA " First offense fines will be over 100.00's.

Who ever came up with this or voted for this, needs to loose their position.

That's to help with their photo radar tickets, don't you know? :eek: ;) :rolleyes:

CalNRA
01-05-2009, 12:26 PM
:43:

"That's an awfully nice brier patch you got there mr pencil pusher..."

-Gene

"gee, let me donate some pencils so you can write some more memos, the more the better. And since you are so competent, feel free to cc the memo to as many people as you can, it's a surefire way to get on the 10-year track to be promoted to assistant deputy regional section supervisor :thumbsup:"

Hopi
01-05-2009, 12:32 PM
:43:

"That's an awfully nice brier patch you got there mr pencil pusher..."

-Gene

Except this 'pencil pusher' seems to be a 'cut and paster' instead....

DDT
01-05-2009, 12:39 PM
Why thank you Mr. Fox.

chiefcrash
01-05-2009, 12:52 PM
hmm, let's see if we can follow my crazy train of thought here for a second:

DC's gunlaws get shot down by SCOTUS for being unconstitutional. SCOTUS orders DC to change laws, right? So DC clones CA's gun laws...

Let's say SCOTUS smacks DC again for their gun laws, saying that their "new" laws are still too restrictive. Would that help us out at all? Would striking down CA law from DC as unconstitutional automagically mean it's no good over here in CA too? Or is that just more of my crazy "common-sense/logical" talk?

sorensen440
01-05-2009, 12:54 PM
so it seems to me that the law abiding gun owners of DC should be donating to the CGF ;)

FreedomIsNotFree
01-05-2009, 12:55 PM
HAHA...You mean DC can't write their own ineffective laws?

Mr. Gura, DC is on line 3 and they would like to deposit another $Million in your account...

lioneaglegriffin
01-05-2009, 1:00 PM
HAHA...You mean DC can't write their own ineffective laws?

Mr. Gura, DC is on line 3 and they would like to deposit another $Million in your account...

since its been so long since they wrote a consitutionally legal gun law they need a little help.:D

CalNRA
01-05-2009, 1:34 PM
since its been so long since they wrote a consitutionally legal gun law they need a little help.:D

sounds like an exciting career opportunity for the CA DOJ staff.

megavolt121
01-05-2009, 2:05 PM
So if we actually nullify the roster and make it disappear, DC has no roster either?

sorensen440
01-05-2009, 2:06 PM
So if we actually nullify the roster and make it disappear, DC has no roster either?

correct

RRangel
01-05-2009, 2:09 PM
Does that mean they get DC NRFs? :D

hawk1
01-05-2009, 2:50 PM
Could it be they actually just did a cut and paste of the California "roster law" to write into DC law and forgot to remove the info pertaining to California? :confused:

Or are they really going to not pay for their own roster testing program? :eek:

lioneaglegriffin
01-05-2009, 3:35 PM
Could it be they actually just did a cut and paste of the California "roster law" to write into DC law and forgot to remove the info pertaining to California? :confused:

Or are they really going to not pay for their own roster testing program? :eek:

it does seem lazy. but mr. gura is really emptyed the Coffers so they decided to outsource their antigun program.

Sutcliffe
01-05-2009, 3:48 PM
Or maybe not. They think that WE are idiots and are trying to get around a Supreme Court Ruling. Pisses me off.

FreedomIsNotFree
01-05-2009, 3:52 PM
So if we actually nullify the roster and make it disappear, DC has no roster either?

Remember that Heller stands in D.C. They can attack the roster with that in mind....they don't need anything to happen in CA first.

hawk1
01-05-2009, 4:52 PM
Remember that Heller stands in D.C. They can attack the roster with that in mind....they don't need anything to happen in CA first.

Maybe DC supremes will kill our roster before we can...:D

lioneaglegriffin
01-05-2009, 5:11 PM
Maybe DC supremes will kill our roster before we can...:D

does that help make it easier incorporatate the 2A in CA?

mikehaas
01-05-2009, 6:05 PM
Being as qualified as any average gun owner in constitutional law :p I see a danger. Perhaps Gene or another legal beagle can reassure me?

Might the roster survive Heller? I'm sure I have a painfully lay (and lame) view of these matters, but the roster does not ban handgun ownership. In fact, it specifically IDENTIFIES handguns that are approved for sale. You, me and Wayne all know the application is BS in this case, but who dares to stand in the path of government's intent to regulate the universe of available consumer safety standards?

I may have missed a key component of the discussion of the after affects of California's incorporation of Heller (I miss a lot), but is it expected to help do away with the roster? Don't get me wrong - I'm thrilled if so but didn't expect it. (Gun manufacturers supported SB15.)

yellowfin
01-05-2009, 6:26 PM
So if we actually nullify the roster and make it disappear, DC has no roster either?The real question is whether DC getting it voided automatically voids it here or if there's an extra step.

Slightly OT: does anyone other than me think LaPierre very strongly resembles Steven Colbert?

lioneaglegriffin
01-05-2009, 6:30 PM
Being as qualified as any average gun owner in constitutional law :p I see a danger. Perhaps Gene or another legal beagle can reassure me?

Might the roster survive Heller? I'm sure I have a painfully lay (and lame) view of these matters, but the roster does not ban handgun ownership. In fact, it specifically IDENTIFIES handguns that are approved for sale. You, me and Wayne all know the application is BS in this case, but who dares to stand in the path of government's intent to regulate the universe of available consumer safety standards?

I may have missed a key component of the discussion of the after affects of California's incorporation of Heller (I miss a lot), but is it expected to help do away with the roster? Don't get me wrong - I'm thrilled if so but didn't expect it. (Gun manufacturers supported SB15.)

as the statement states though, after 2010 only a non-existant handgun type will be allowed on the roster which is a defacto ban on handgun purchases.

hawk1
01-05-2009, 6:37 PM
does that help make it easier incorporatate the 2A in CA?

I wouldn't even attempt to give an answer as it's way above my knowledge of incorporation.

bwiese
01-05-2009, 7:10 PM
Being as qualified as any average gun owner in constitutional law :p I see a danger. Perhaps Gene or another legal beagle can reassure me?

Might the roster survive Heller? I'm sure I have a painfully lay (and lame) view of these matters, but the roster does not ban handgun ownership. In fact, it specifically IDENTIFIES handguns that are approved for sale. You, me and Wayne all know the application is BS in this case, but who dares to stand in the path of government's intent to regulate the universe of available consumer safety standards?

I may have missed a key component of the discussion of the after affects of California's incorporation of Heller (I miss a lot), but is it expected to help do away with the roster? Don't get me wrong - I'm thrilled if so but didn't expect it. (Gun manufacturers supported SB15.)


Hi Mike,

Firstly - wholly outside of Heller+Nordyke - the Roster has always had an equal protection issue: LEOs can buy for their personal, non-duty use handguns that other folks can't for their personal (and obviously non-duty use). Many of the guns acquired by LEOs for such personal nonduty usage are sufficiently different from their issue daily-carry guns it can't be said their LE training is extraordinary enough to warrant such a bypass: their training is focused w/the typical Beretta 92, Glock Fotay or S&W 4006 - not a Browning HiPower, Sig 250, revolver, etc. (This 'safety concern' is further diluted by the allowance for importation/PPTing of non-Rostered handguns: if they were so dangerous, they'd be banned completely.)



Secondly, [I]Heller prevents the ban of 'dangerous and unusual' guns. The right to have a gun is closely tied with commerce in and the ability to acquire one legally. If you're prevented from participating in commerce in same, you're prevented from full exercise of a fundamental enumerated right. (Setting up restrictions for printing presses would be similar - unless that press were, say, emitting gross toxics, etc. in operation.)

Just because a handgun is off-Roster doesn't mean it's not common as pie elsewhere, and certainly the typical non-Rostered handgun is no more dangerous than other guns. [The Staples case, in fact, asserts that ordinary semiauto AR15 rifles are common and ordinary! ;) - so that can perhaps help with this.]

Many guns are also not Rostered because they are copies & duplicates of Rostered ones and differ only in trivialities (finish/grips/sights) from a well-nigh identical Rostered brother which the mfgr didn't pay the fee for listing (i.e., that particular variant was low-production, and not worth paying Roster fees). Banning sales of those guns, in particular, would have the whole "tax a civil right" issue involved - because only a listing fee is required and no separate certification/drop test.


We've already partially killed the Roster by using single-action revolver and single-shot exemptions to bring in dimensionally compliant guns into CA. As you've probably seen, we're also in the process of shooting down the Roster to minimize the past damage CRPA's Jerry Upholt, CAFR's Kathy Lynch, and SASS' Robert Ricker (traitor!) did to us. We'll be setting up folks w/ "NRFs" (non-Rosterable frames), which are outside the scope of coverage of 12125PC et seq. Within the next couple of weeks (we're in orbit right now nailing down fine details) the legal flow/acquisition of non-Rostered frames into CA will begin. STI or Caspian, anyone? I myself will be getting an S&W M&P45 Compact.

yellowfin
01-05-2009, 7:26 PM
^ Any chance we can snag used stuff via NRF? There's a whole lot that would be on my shopping list that's not made anymore that needs NRFing.

CAL.BAR
01-05-2009, 7:27 PM
This is why I'm not worried about a Fed. AW ban (at least as to me here in CA) b/c THEY CAN'T DO WORSE THAN CA HAS ALREADY DONE 20 YEARS AGO!

bwiese
01-05-2009, 7:30 PM
^ Any chance we can snag used stuff via NRF?

Sure. NRF frame is NRF frame regardless of "freshness of origin".

You'd buy it off Gunbroker, have the seller ship you the slide/bbl/guiderod/spring, and the frame goes to your cooperating Leadership FFL.

[Remember that revolvers should have their bbls/cylinders removed [which can cause grief] to NRF.
I suspect for S&W wheel guns having 3+" bbls, the single-action conversion makes more sense.]

In fact the 1st gun I NRF may be a used gun (S&W 4506-1) with some interesting markings.

hoffmang
01-05-2009, 8:24 PM
Might the roster survive Heller?

I don't believe so for reasons in addition to some of the issues that Bill W points out.

There is no rational basis for why some firearms aren't approved for sale while a functionally identical version is. Heller states that at worst, the scrutiny to apply to firearms restrictions (and that is what this is) is intermediate scrutiny ala voting cases. Distinctions that aren't even rational can't survive that. As such I do believe we'll be able to get the roster and probably sooner than most people expect.

-Gene

lioneaglegriffin
01-05-2009, 8:28 PM
great i turn 21 this year.

Mikeb
01-05-2009, 9:15 PM
This is why I'm not worried about a Fed. AW ban (at least as to me here in CA) b/c THEY CAN'T DO WORSE THAN CA HAS ALREADY DONE 20 YEARS AGO!
I think you underestimate the people that want to disarm you. There are a lot of them and they are around the world.
Mike

lioneaglegriffin
01-05-2009, 10:38 PM
I think you underestimate the people that want to disarm you. There are a lot of them and they are around the world.
Mike

he does have a point the last Fed. AWB had a ban on rifles with TWO features, ours has one. :(

Mike's Custom
01-07-2009, 2:51 PM
Limiting DC residents to CA Handgun Roster guns is not as bad as it could be. Yes, it sucks but at least it gives them something to buy. If DC passed their own testing process and it had any difference from CA testing then the manufacturers would have to submit to another cost that would raise prices for everyone. Some, in this case, is better then none.

bwiese
01-07-2009, 3:04 PM
Limiting DC residents to CA Handgun Roster guns is not as bad as it could be. Yes, it sucks but at least it gives them something to buy. If DC passed their own testing process and it had any difference from CA testing then the manufacturers would have to submit to another cost that would raise prices for everyone. Some, in this case, is better then none.

Since it's in DC (not-a-state) and violates Heller, many new DC proposed gun laws - such as those mimicking CA's - can be readily taken down, without even needing state incorporation.

What's happening now is DC politicians aren't even concerned about gun control, per se: they're trying to "make a statement" that they are "keeping up the fight". It's all about appearances, and paid for by DC taxpayers.

I'm wondering what kinda car & home Alan Gura might be shopping for. If he has to apply for a new mortgage, he should be able to list the DC gov't as guarantor of his income stream :)