PDA

View Full Version : Lowers and fair trade


elenius
08-29-2007, 7:38 PM
As I understand it, some lowers, like Colt and Armalite, are still banned, right? Whereas others, like Rock River and Stag are not. But aren't there laws that prohibit arbitrarily treating different companies differently? I'm sure Stag and RR have made lots of money on the OLL situation, and Colt lost out big time, right? Isn't this a violation of interstate trade laws? Why isn't Colt and others suing the crap out of CA?

To me, this would be an argument for eliminating the list altogether, although to the powers that be it might be an argument to put everything on the list...

Just wondering. Sorry if I'm confused, I'm new to this stuff.

aplinker
08-29-2007, 8:04 PM
As I understand it, some lowers, like Colt and Armalite, are still banned, right? Whereas others, like Rock River and Stag are not. But aren't there laws that prohibit arbitrarily treating different companies differently? I'm sure Stag and RR have made lots of money on the OLL situation, and Colt lost out big time, right? Isn't this a violation of interstate trade laws? Why isn't Colt and others suing the crap out of CA?

To me, this would be an argument for eliminating the list altogether, although to the powers that be it might be an argument to put everything on the list...

Just wondering. Sorry if I'm confused, I'm new to this stuff.

As bans are by make and model I'm sure they could simply, if desired, stamp something different on their receivers.

I think just about every company has an OLL in one form or another (whether they're still sold or readily available is another issue).

JawBone
08-29-2007, 8:06 PM
:iagree:

Colt doesn't want to play in the civilian market anymore.

ccwguy
08-29-2007, 8:12 PM
As I understand it, some lowers, like Colt and Armalite, are still banned, right? Whereas others, like Rock River and Stag are not. But aren't there laws that prohibit arbitrarily treating different companies differently? I'm sure Stag and RR have made lots of money on the OLL situation, and Colt lost out big time, right? Isn't this a violation of interstate trade laws? Why isn't Colt and others suing the crap out of CA?

To me, this would be an argument for eliminating the list altogether, although to the powers that be it might be an argument to put everything on the list...

Just wondering. Sorry if I'm confused, I'm new to this stuff.

I figure that's why they amended the 2007 CFL..

AB 2728 (Stats. 2006, ch. 793) (Klehs)
C Repeals DOJ's authority under Penal Code §12276.1 to identify Colt AR-15 and AK-47 type
“series” assault weapons by name, or to seek a judicial declaration that a firearm is identical to
an assault weapon listed in Penal Code section 12276.

hoffmang
08-29-2007, 10:23 PM
The idea that the list is somehow a violation of the 14th Amendment has been tried as a legal theory to invalidate it. That legal theory didn't hunt and I don't remember right off what the judicial opinion was on it.

-Gene

elenius
08-29-2007, 11:23 PM
The idea that the list is somehow a violation of the 14th Amendment has been tried as a legal theory to invalidate it. That legal theory didn't hunt and I don't remember right off what the judicial opinion was on it.

-Gene

I figured someone must have thought of this.

Does this apply to both the AW list and the handgun list?

hoffmang
08-29-2007, 11:41 PM
The legal precedent was as to AW listings.

The theory wouldn't work against the "safe" handgun list as any manufacturer that complies with the requirements gets put on the list and thus it doesn't discriminate. I don't like that answer, but it does make legal sense.

-Gene

elenius
08-30-2007, 12:06 AM
The legal precedent was as to AW listings.

The theory wouldn't work against the "safe" handgun list as any manufacturer that complies with the requirements gets put on the list and thus it doesn't discriminate. I don't like that answer, but it does make legal sense.

-Gene

One could argue that the handgun list discriminates against small companies, since sending three guns in is going to hit them much harder than the big ones.

But even if it doesn't discriminate, couldn't the handgun list be seen as an illegal tariff/trade obstacle?

hoffmang
08-30-2007, 12:10 AM
Sadly, the courts are and continue to be just fine with essentially economic regulations that drive up the cost of things. Catalytic converter requirements drive up the cost of entry for small automobile manufacturers just the same.

The way the dormant commerce clause works - which is what you're alluding to - is to ask if the restraint of trade unfairly favors in state sellers over out of state sellers. Sadly, the "safe" handgun ban is just as onerous for a CA based handgun manufacturer to sell to a CA resident as it is for an Illinois based handgun manufacturer.

It probably does violate the 2nd Amendment though as a defacto long term ban on handguns. It will take Parker/Heller and a couple of more cases to get us there. Also, if there is a gun you really want that's not on the list, there are ways around that.

-Gene

elenius
08-30-2007, 12:15 AM
Sadly, the courts are and continue to be just fine with essentially economic regulations that drive up the cost of things. Catalytic converter requirements drive up the cost of entry for small automobile manufacturers just the same.

The way the dormant commerce clause works - which is what you're alluding to - is to ask if the restraint of trade unfairly favors in state sellers over out of state sellers. Sadly, the "safe" handgun ban is just as onerous for a CA based handgun manufacturer to sell to a CA resident as it is for an Illinois based handgun manufacturer.

It probably does violate the 2nd Amendment though as a defacto long term ban on handguns. It will take Parker/Heller and a couple of more cases to get us there. Also, if there is a gun you really want that's not on the list, there are ways around that.

-Gene

Alright, thanks a lot Gene and the rest of you for the clarifications!

FortCourageArmory
08-30-2007, 8:20 AM
Also, if there is a gun you really want that's not on the list, there are ways around that.
-Gene

Finding someone that has what you want and doing a PPT being one way....for anyone interested.:62:

bwiese
08-30-2007, 11:09 AM
I would also add that - despite AB2728's prohibitions and any (likely unsuccessful) interstate trade arguments - that an argument could well be made that if Colt didn't like their receivers being banned by name, they could come up with some new names.

In fact they did (wholly aside from any CA issues) and there are several Colt guns/receivers that are not banned (that is, they are not any of "AR-15", "Match Target" , "Sporter").