2022 08 01 Boland V Bonta - Handgun Roster : Appeal to 9th 3-27

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by Sgt Raven

BATFE Form 5490

Prerequisites
1. The pistol must have a positive manually operated safety device.


California Pistol requirement. this Disqualifies.

(1) It does not have a positive manually operated safety device, as determined by standards relating to imported guns promulgated by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.


Glocks, Sigs, H&K etc all meet this without a manual thumb safety. Anything on the roster from day one meets this.
Any pistol imported in the last 50 years meets this.

How come the Sig P365 California-compliant model has a manual safety switch, while the free state models do not?

[Sgt Raven]

Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven

How come the Sig P365 California-compliant model has a manual safety switch, while the free state models do not?

IDK. The manual thumb safety version has been available in a free state model, since 2019, so it's not a CA thing.

[ARFrog]

Originally Posted by Sgt Raven

IDK. The manual thumb safety version has been available in a free state model, since 2019, so it's not a CA thing.

According to Wikipedia:

"For Massachusetts Attorney General compliance requirements, a model with a manual safety and loaded chamber indicator is available. In May 2019, the P365-MS, a model with a manual safety, was made generally available."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_Sa...utdoors-P365-9

[PrayForAmerica]

I don't fully understand what you are differentiating @SgtRaven...

Originally Posted by Sgt Raven

You have misread and misunderstood the 'manual safety' requirement. The manual safety requirement is the same requirement as the Federal requirement for importing a hand gun.

Originally Posted by Sgt Raven

Glocks, Sigs, H&K etc all meet this without a manual thumb safety. Anything on the roster from day one meets this.
Any pistol imported in the last 50 years meets this.

I realize all firearms have built-in safety mechanisms (even models with no externally actuated safety).

But the Unsafe Handgun Act /AKA CA Roster includes the requirement of an externally actuated manual safety (link-y link to the Unsafe Handgun Act)

"unsafe handgun" means any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, for which any of the following is true:


So I'm not understanding what you're saying I'm afraid!

[PrayForAmerica]

Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven

Worry not. 99.999% of gun owners cannot mentally follow the utter maelstrom of toxic waste that forms Second Amendment litigation. You have a better grasp than most.

Thank you, and yes what a purposefully confusing mess of toxic waste is made of the 2A

The founders must be rolling in their graves...

[Sgt Raven]

Originally Posted by PrayForAmerica

I don't fully understand what you are differentiating @SgtRaven...


I realize all firearms have built-in safety mechanisms (even models with no externally actuated safety).

But the Unsafe Handgun Act /AKA CA Roster includes the requirement of an externally actuated manual safety (link-y link to the Unsafe Handgun Act)

"unsafe handgun" means any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, for which any of the following is true:


So I'm not understanding what you're saying I'm afraid!

What don't you understand? The manual safety in the CA law is the same safety requirement as the BATFE requirement for importing a semi-auto pistol. Any generation Glock pistol meets the BATFE manual safety requirement. Neither California nor BATFE require a manual thumb safety. The little safety in a Glock trigger meets the CA and BATFE manual safety requirement. Notice the CA USH act references the BATFE import regulation. I thought I spelled that out in my earlier post.



The manual safety device has been part of the CA USH act & roster from day one.



The gen 3 Glocks on the CA USH roster meet the manual safety device part of the BATFE import regulations and the CA USH act.

Your problem is you added "externally actuated" to the positive manually operated safety requirement.


What is keeping gen 5 Glocks off the roster right now is the mag disconnect and LCI requirements.



Is that clear enough for you? Do you now understand?

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven

How come the Sig P365 California-compliant model has a manual safety switch, while the free state models do not?

What??? Free state 365?s have a manual thumb safety version.

Sig just took that model and added a LCI and MD

[PrayForAmerica]

So I thought @SgtRaven that:

(Legal text of the Unsafe Handgun Act link)

...meant an external safety that was operated by a thumb.
If that is not the case, fantastic.
I hope we see more models in the meantime added to the CA UHA with internal-only safeties, removing the redundant thumb-operated safeties.
That would be awesome. My wife and I would be first in line to purchase those models.

Just for discussion:
My own greatest UHA grievances are the:
- Microstamping = It's just a common-use firearm ban.
- $200 fee for the manufactures EACH YEAR for EACH MODEL variant and each minor update = I fear it will mean we will ever only get the more common options. It won't be cost effective for them to offer all variants to us.
- I thought that a redundant externally-thumb-actuated safety in addition to all the internal safety features was required. I am happy to be shown to be wrong on this = I'm solidly in the camp of internal safety and holster as a safety. (notice I carefully don't say "no safety", nor do I refer to 13 round mags as "high-cap" mags. Language and definitions are important ).
- MDM = I don't like it, but it's further down on my personal list and yet it should for sure be booted on principle.
- LCI = Same as MDM.

Only posted that last part just for chatter. I'm curious others hot-button elements.

[Sgt Raven]

Originally Posted by PrayForAmerica

So I thought @SgtRaven that:

(Legal text of the Unsafe Handgun Act link)

...meant an external safety that was operated by a thumb.
If that is not the case, fantastic.
I hope we see more models in the meantime added to the CA UHA with internal-only safeties, removing the redundant thumb-operated safeties.
That would be awesome. My wife and I would be first in line to purchase those models.

Just for discussion:
My own greatest UHA grievances are the:
- Microstamping = It's just a common-use firearm ban.
- $200 fee for the manufactures EACH YEAR for EACH MODEL variant and each minor update = I fear it will mean we will ever only get the more common options. It won't be cost effective for them to offer all variants to us.
- I thought that a redundant externally-thumb-actuated safety in addition to all the internal safety features was required. I am happy to be shown to be wrong on this = I'm solidly in the camp of internal safety and holster as a safety. (notice I carefully don't say "no safety", nor do I refer to 13 round mags as "high-cap" mags. Language and definitions are important ).
- MDM = I don't like it, but it's further down on my personal list and yet it should for sure be booted on principle.
- LCI = Same as MDM.

Only posted that last part just for chatter. I'm curious others hot-button elements.

You're not the only one to be confused about the manual safety part.


As I posted in the other thread:
The CA USH act and roster was easy to pass before they added the mag disco & LCI. I'd love for the whole thing to be gone. Going back to the original USH roster would get us most the current popular pistols. CA is too big of a market for the big players to not get them on the roster.

[PrayForAmerica]

Originally Posted by Sgt Raven

You're not the only one to be confused about the manual safety part.

.....Going back to the original USH roster would get us most the current popular pistols. CA is too big of a market for the big players to not get them on the roster.

I do still suspect the $200 yearly fee for each variation will still insure we only have the best sellers, and not all variations.

Which will be a MASSIVE plus...

But ultimately I want the Iron Curtain gone, not just easier to get things through the Iron Curtain.

But any wins we can get is awesome.

[JiuJitsu]

Well, we still haven't hear jack from the 2A-hostile three judge panel in the 9th. Are they just going to slow roll their corrupt PI ruling until this case actually goes to trial?

The 9th Circuit is a joke at this point. They are staring at a large number of major 2A cases post-Bruen and many activist judges must be pondering how they can rule against ALL of them even though it would pretty much fly in the face of SCOTUS, case law, and their sworn duties as judges. At some point I wonder if there are some internal discussions honestly questioning their stance on all this. I sure would be if I were them.

[Sgt Raven]

Originally Posted by JiuJitsu

Well, we still haven't hear jack from the 2A-hostile three judge panel in the 9th. Are they just going to slow roll their corrupt PI ruling until this case actually goes to trial?

The 9th Circuit is a joke at this point. They are staring at a large number of major 2A cases post-Bruen and many activist judges must be pondering how they can rule against ALL of them even though it would pretty much fly in the face of SCOTUS, case law, and their sworn duties as judges. At some point I wonder if there are some internal discussions honestly questioning their stance on all this. I sure would be if I were them.

The 9th Circuit...

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by JiuJitsu

Well, we still haven't hear jack from the 2A-hostile three judge panel in the 9th. Are they just going to slow roll their corrupt PI ruling until this case actually goes to trial?

The 9th Circuit is a joke at this point. They are staring at a large number of major 2A cases post-Bruen and many activist judges must be pondering how they can rule against ALL of them even though it would pretty much fly in the face of SCOTUS, case law, and their sworn duties as judges. At some point I wonder if there are some internal discussions honestly questioning their stance on all this. I sure would be if I were them.

I truly believe that progressive judicial activists fully intend to try every available procedural machination and execute every possible bad-faith tactic to stall past the November 2024 elections to see whether a Democratic trifecta gets elected and packs the Supreme Court.

If Donald Trump wins, the liberal lower courts might finally give up and "acquiesce" to releasing the Second Amendment cases. Even then, they may still not, but at that point, the options would shrink dramatically.

[PrayForAmerica]

I agree. There seems to be absolutely no end to the lengths they will go. Remember the old article, The Flight 93 Election? This Biden presidency is what I, and I think many others suspected Hilary's presidency would have been. It was just pushed back 4 years.

I feel like we are at another drastic crossroads this 2024. I really have no earthly idea what will happen. I don't know if I would be surprised by anything at this point.
I'd still cry ha ha, but not sure I'd be surprised by anything anymore...