[hoffmang]

Today in cooperation with Alan Gura and SAF, we filed this complaint in the District of Columbia stating that the California Handgun Roster, as adopted by the District of Columbia, is unconstitutional.

There are three guns and issues at issue in this case.

1. An XD-45 Tactical Bi-Tone which couldn't be rostered because it's a different color than its rostered functional identical equivalents.

2. A Para P13 that was once rostered but fell off when Para Ordnance didn't pay the annual fee.

3. A Buntline style High Standard 9 shot .22 revolver - the same gun that the Supreme Court ordered DC to register in DC v. Heller.

Here is the press release that went over the wire minutes ago:


SAF CHALLENGES D.C. HANDGUN BAN SCHEME


For 
Immediate 
Release:
 
 
 
 
 Contact:

 Alan
 Gottlieb
 (425)
454*-7012

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and three Washington, D.C. residents today filed a lawsuit challenging a regulation by District of Columbia city government that arbitrarily bans handguns based on a roster of “acceptable” handguns approved by the State of California.

The District is using this list despite a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court last summer that protects handguns “that ordinary people traditionally use for self-defense.” This scheme could eventually bar the ownership of any new handguns.

Attorney Alan Gura, representing the plaintiffs in this case, noted that District bureaucrats “told Tracy Ambeau Hanson her gun was the wrong color.” Americans are not limited to a government list of approved books, or approved religions, he said. A handgun protected by the Second Amendment doesn’t need to appear on any government-approved list either.

“The Springfield XD-45 is approved for sale in Washington,” Gura noted, “so long as it is black, green, or brown, but her bi-tone version is supposedly ‘unsafe’.”

Added SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “The Supreme Court’s decision is crystal clear: Handguns that are used by people for self-defense and other lawful purposes cannot be banned, whether the city likes it or not. The city needs to accept the Second Amendment reality and stop this nonsense.”

Hanson, one of the individual plaintiffs in the case, wondered, “Do we really need a gun-fashion police? I just want to be able to exercise my Second Amendment rights without interference from the District government.”

Joining Hanson are Gillian and Paul St. Lawrence. Gillian St. Lawrence’s handgun would once have been allowed, until its listing expired, leaving her to observe, “I didn’t realize that my constitutional rights had an expiration date.”

Her husband sought to own the same type of handgun that the Supreme Court had ordered District officials to allow Dick Heller to possess. However, that particular model is no longer manufactured, and its maker is no longer available to process the handgun’s certification through the bureaucracy.

“The Supreme Court’s decision should really be the last word on whether I can own this model handgun,” said Mr. St. Lawrence.

“The so-called ‘safe’ gun list is just another gun-grabbing gimmick,” said Gura. “This is the same old, tried and failed D.C. handgun ban by another name. The city can’t get around the Second Amendment by declaring most normal guns ‘unsafe,’ and gradually shrinking the number of so-called ‘safe’ guns to zero.”

Valuable assistance is being provided by the CalGuns Foundation.

“CalGuns Foundation was saddened to see the California Handgun Roster adopted in D.C.,” CalGuns Chairman Gene Hoffman added. “Our state has a reputation as being a leader on many fronts. Unfortunately, this has included violating the rights of law abiding gun owners. After nearly a decade ofexperience with the California Handgun Roster, the CalGuns Foundation is uniquely able to assist in this case.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

-END-

Special thanks to the following Calgunners.

1. Brett Thomas/the_quark: Realizing that Heller's gun wasn't registerable in DC.

2. Ivan Pena/Ivanimal: Making a personal sacrifice to this case.

3. Two CGN'ers who wish to remain nameless: They want to remain "lowpro" but they were indispensable helping pull these guns together.


These things take a lot of work and a lot of money. The work on the CGF side is all volunteer. With that I would ask each and every one of you to consider a donation to the Calguns Foundation to help us offset expenses so far and moving forward. We plan to bring this to a victory and repatriate the decision to California.

And thus we begin the CGF offense.

-Gene

[7x57]

Heh, heh, heh. Smashing through the low countries on the way to the backside of the Maginot line? Naw, that'd never work.

7x57

[MudCamper]

What's the time line on this? And Gene, if you had to guess, what will be the most likely outcome? And if we win this in DC, could it help us with the roster here in CA?

[pavlov]

This is great news. Keep up the good works guys!

[wolf13]

Great news!

[wash]

This is very pleasing to me.

I like your little fib.

I will try to donate a little more at the San Jose gun show.

[yellowfin]

I can't wait to see what possible nonsense the other side has to argue this.

[7x57]

Originally Posted by MudCamper

What's the time line on this? And Gene, if you had to guess, what will be the most likely outcome? And if we win this in DC, could it help us with the roster here in CA?

Let's try to guess at the reasoning behind this.

Think of it as getting the roster declared unconstitutional without having to wait for incorporation to challenge it in CA. Then, when the 2A is incorporated against the states, we already have a ruling that it violates the 2A rather than having to start there. It saves a step, and litigation steps seem to take years.

It is not the same circuit, but if the DC circuit finds it unconstitutional, that should carry some weight in the ninth circuit. I also wonder if it will be easier to get it struck down in this context as well. The fact that it bans Dick Heller's exact gun seems to make the point really really well. At least, it's terribly ironic.

7x57

[Liberty1]

Three Cheers!!!

[sorensen440]

This is refreshing to hear !

[383green]

Wow, Gene, you weren't exaggerating about that Liberty Bell comparison! I feel like a maroon for not anticipating this action!

[Can'thavenuthingood]

Geeez I love this place
And I was just thinking the forums have been a bit less exciting the last few days.

I saw that term 'coalition' and got all excited all over again.
Love teamwork.

Vick

[nick]

NIce. Well, the lawsuits take money... And I have a paycheck coming in this week...

[383green]

Making a wild guess here: Will this case be called Hanson et. al. v. DC, and just Hanson for short?

ETA: Durr, never mind. I should have read the actual complaint.

[Racefiend]

I like the way CGF operates I feel all warm and tingly being able to experience the rebuilding of our 2nd amendment one step at a time.

[hoffmang]

Gents,

Here is an excellent story by Mike Stollenwork, who is also doing heavy lifting on this case. He has photos and backgrounds of the Plaintiffs.

We're at stage 1 of a federal lawsuit. It will take time for a decision to be rendered in the District Court.

A ruling that the CA Handgun Roster is unconstitutional in the DC Circuit will be highly persuasive sister circuit jurisprudence.

-Gene

[Liberty1]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

Gents,

Here is an excellent story by Mike Stollenwork, who is also doing heavy lifting on this case. He has photos and backgrounds of the Plaintiffs.

We're at stage 1 of a federal lawsuit. It will take time for a decision to be rendered in the District Court.

A ruling that the CA Handgun Roster is unconstitutional in the DC Circuit will be highly persuasive sister circuit jurisprudence.

-Gene

Ha, I just sent Mike a message about this Breaking News. I should have known he was involved.

Hanson's gun the WRONG color? That is rich in the age of Obama!

[glockman19]

You could also add a couple of Kimbers to the list that have identical working parts to ones on the list, but maybe different color/finish or grips.

Greta news.

If it is found unconstitutional in DC...How does that help us here? will it establish that our list is unconstitutional too?

[domokun]

Down with the roster!

[7x57]

Originally Posted by Liberty1

Hanson's gun the WRONG color. That is rich in the age of Obama!

For those that didn't click, Hanson is a black woman.

Hmm. D'ya suppose she has a dream that someday all guns will be accepted regardless of color? I'm just sayin'.

Hey, maybe we can figure out how to get the DC council to make gun owners ride in the back of the bus? Nah, probably even they aren't that stupid.

7x57

[wash]

After reading the article, I hope someone from CGF can personally thank all of the plaintiffs for their participation in this matter.

We are rooting for them!

[trashman]

Great news, Gene - just saw the post on ofarmsandthelaw...

--Neill

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by glockman19

You could also add a couple of Kimbers to the list that have identical working parts to ones on the list, but maybe different color/finish or grips.

Yes, I'm sure this is applicable to Kimber. But both ParaOrdnance & Springfield Armory are the worst in this regard - both changed SKUs/model #s every time they sneezed - sometimes even if the gun itself didn't change (but was part of a 'package', say, with extra mags or holster, etc.) If you look at Roster traffic over a several year period, you'll see a huge number of Paras & Springers go on & off the list. Browning Buckmark and Ruger Mk??? 22LR auto pistols also have their share of Roster traffic due to trivial changes.

If it is found unconstitutional in DC...How does that help us here? will it establish that our list is unconstitutional too?

Like Gene said, the finding in a DC circuit that the Roster is BS will have 'great weight' out here. Going thru DC was, happily, a short circuit that nicely presented itself at the right time.

I believe this will also help stop spreading CA laws further in other states - no more "let's just copy CA's laws". This can open up a whole 'nuther round of screwups.

[7x57]

Originally Posted by bwiese

I believe this will also help stop spreading CA laws further in other states - no more "let's just copy CA's laws". This can open up a whole 'nuther round of screwups.

I hadn't thought of that, but I sure hope so. It may seem a bit disloyal, but having come to California from America keeping CA laws from metastasizing to the rest of the body is almost more important to me than getting rid of them here. As I told my father-in-law once, "you may not plan to ever live in California, but California will come looking for you."

7x57

[tiki]

I certainly enjoyed reading this, but I doubt it will have much effect. Personally I think with Pelosi and Feinstein over there, we'll probably see the roster requirement go away in D.C. before this hits SCOTUS. I can't imagine they would go ahead with this case knowing that it has virtually no chance of being upheld by SCOTUS.
Of course I hope that it does go to the judges, but I'm not holding my breath on this one. We'll probably see the CA list get challenged in the 9th after incorporation. I think they may go with it for a while to see if the makeup of the court changes in a year or so, but I doubt they will take it to the current court.

[10001110101]

Just dropped another donation to CGF after reading.

This just brings a big grin to my face.

Paul Helmke's reaction probably went something like this:

A big thanks to all involved!

[xxdabroxx]

This is good news, but i could see DC dropping the idea of the roster prior to it getting to some judges. I hope that it does make it to the court room, but either way it is a win. Great job guys, if all the 2A groups were as proactive as CGF, think of where we would be now.

So DC said, where California did not, that you cannot possess a non-rostered handgun; because they will only issue permits for handguns on california's roster?

I like that the Chief of Police is being sued both as an individual and in her official capacities. (keep other gun grabbers from getting bright ideas so quickly)

[grammaton76]

Oh, c'mon, we want DC to adopt as many CA laws as possible now, particularly when they're lifted word-for-word from our statutes.

Heck, in DC you get to go straight up to federal.

[Flintlock Tom]

Gene,
I take my hat off to you and the team that put this together.

Donation sent.

[M. D. Van Norman]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

And thus we begin the CGF offense.

Outstanding!

[blackberg]

one word: Woot!

-bb

[thedrickel]

Good work Gene and crew. Too bad the Glock21SF w/ ambi mag release didn't make the cut tho.

[Monte]

This is a pleasant surprise. Thanks to everyone involved. Good work, as always.

[12voltguy]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

Gents,

Here is an excellent story by Mike Stollenwork, who is also doing heavy lifting on this case. He has photos and backgrounds of the Plaintiffs.

We're at stage 1 of a federal lawsuit. It will take time for a decision to be rendered in the District Court.

A ruling that the CA Handgun Roster is unconstitutional in the DC Circuit will be highly persuasive sister circuit jurisprudence.

-Gene

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A BIG THANK YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by xxdabroxx

This is good news, but i could see DC dropping the idea of the roster prior to it getting to some judges. I hope that it does make it to the court room, but either way it is a win.

DC now can't moot this case directly as they could always re-institute the requirement. However, if Congress passes the DC voting rights act that strips DC of gun control power, we could be mooted.

I'm ok with that as I'd prefer to end DC being recalcitrant. However, it doesn't look like the Federal bill will pass so we'll happily have California's Roster ruled unconstitutional in the DC Circuit.

-Gene

[yellowfin]

Originally Posted by 7x57

I hadn't thought of that, but I sure hope so. It may seem a bit disloyal, but having come to California from America keeping CA laws from metastasizing to the rest of the body is almost more important to me than getting rid of them here. As I told my father-in-law once, "you may not plan to ever live in California, but California will come looking for you."

7x57

I have a very long fight ahead of me to get that message to Pennsylvanians to help the fight in NY.

[thedrickel]

BTW whoever came up with the idea to use the XD-45 Bi-tone is a ****in genius!!!

[nobody_special]

I am intrigued by your ideas, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Oh wait -- I'm already signed up for Calguns alerts.

Woooo-hooo! Way to go guys. I've been wondering when this would happen.

[dirtyJ]

Aww, this is one of my favorite talking points to pro and anti gun people alike! Now you're gonna do away with it and make me have to change my nice little script I've got made up. Yeesh, make it harder for the little guy . (no seriously, awesome stuff here )

[IGOTDIRT4U]

Originally Posted by thedrickel

BTW whoever came up with the idea to use the XD-45 Bi-tone is a ****in genius!!!

Yeah, it's like the Kimber Warrior II is legal in CA, but the Desert Warrior is not on the list although it is the same gun, different color.

Good work guys. Timing is great. DC now gets to defend another costly suit or give up. And then comes Nordyke.