Remove California Handgun Roster

[Milsurp Collector]

Also, sorry if this has been answered somewhere already, but are there any pending cases against the handgun roster, declaring it unconstitutional and/or trying to remove it?

Yes. Details here http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=812117

[Sousuke]

Is it likely in the near future that the handgun roster will be removed and all handguns would be legal in California?

Also, sorry if this has been answered somewhere already, but are there any pending cases against the handgun roster, declaring it unconstitutional and/or trying to remove it?

To summarize the last ruling, the court found that the current number of handguns on the roster is large enough that the roster does not infringe on our rights. They didn't seem to take into account that the roster lost about 1/2 the available guns over 7 years.

Each appeal will naturally become stronger as the roster dwindles.

[HawkMan]

To summarize the last ruling, the court found that the current number of handguns on the roster is large enough that the roster does not infringe on our rights. They didn't seem to take account that the roster lost about 1/2 the available guns over 7 years.

Each appeal will naturally become stronger as the roster dwindles.

Is there any way to tell when the next appeal will be?

Also, a little off topic, is there the possibility to have certain requirements removed for roster guns, such as removing the magazine disconnect requirement?

[Garv]

OP:

When buying through Amazon, shop via www.shop42A.com
I bookmark it on my toolbar.

A percentage goes to the Calguns Foundation.
(No extra charge to you.)

[Sousuke]

Is there any way to tell when the next appeal will be?

Also, a little off topic, is there the possibility to have certain requirements removed for roster guns, such as removing the magazine disconnect requirement?

There was a bill that tried to add older guns back to the roster but was killed a few weeks ago.

If you check the link a few posts above there should be a schedule.

[ke6guj]

Is there any way to tell when the next appeal will be?

its currently still under appeal. but the wheels of justice turn extra slow. the suit started in 2009 and is still going 7 years later.

http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/penavcid/

Also, a little off topic, is there the possibility to have certain requirements removed for roster guns, such as removing the magazine disconnect requirement?

there's always the possibility. you'd just have to get a pro-gun amendment run through an anti-gun legislature.

[j-shot]

Is it likely in the near future that the handgun roster will be removed and all handguns would be legal in California?

Also, sorry if this has been answered somewhere already, but are there any pending cases against the handgun roster, declaring it unconstitutional and/or trying to remove it?

The state as a whole is being infringed with a list no other state has.

Join the NRA.

[Legasat]

That is one of the BIG issues in court right now.

[HawkMan]

The state as a whole is being infringed with a list no other state has.

Join the NRA.

In every other state can you buy any gun you want?

[L84CABO]

What would happen if the gun mfg's got together and all stated that they will no longer be selling handguns in California because the roster places an undue financial burden on them. Or something like that. So effective immediately no more handguns at all in Ca.

Would that enable a successful challenge to this nonsense?

[Milsurp Collector]

In every other state can you buy any gun you want?

Almost every other state. Maryland and Massachusetts also have "safe handgun" rosters, although both are larger than California's because there is no microstamping requirement. For example, both the Massachusetts and Maryland rosters have Gen 4 Glocks and other handguns not available (to non-LEO's) in California.

The other 47 states don't have any handgun rosters.

Also, most others states don't have any waiting period after firearm purchases, much less a ridiculous 10-day wait. Most states also don't limit the number of handguns you can purchase per month. Or the size of magazines you can use. And they don't require any "Handgun Safety Certificate". And they don't require you to buy a locking device or show proof that you own a gun safe. And concealed handgun licenses are "shall issue" or aren't even necessary.

That's why they are called "free states".

What would happen if the gun mfg's got together and all stated that they will no longer be selling handguns in California because the roster places an undue financial burden on them. Or something like that. So effective immediately no more handguns at all in Ca.

Would that enable a successful challenge to this nonsense?

No. California argues that if gun manufacturers decide as a business decision to longer sell their products in California, that's their decision, not California's. California is not completely banning those manufacturers from selling their products in California, California just wants them to meet certain standards, for "safety". If gun manufacturers choose not to meet those standards, California *shrugs* and says "Oh well, that's your decision. Let us know if you change your minds." The courts seem to agree with California's argument for now.

It is unlikely that the California handgun roster would ever be completely empty because revolvers are exempt from microstamping and can easily make the roster. California will point at the dozens or hundreds of revolvers on the roster and say "See, there are plenty of safe handguns available for sale in California". The courts seem to think that as long as Californians can buy dozens or hundreds of different models of handguns (revolvers and any grandfathered semiautos) then their Second Amendment rights are not unduly burdened by the state's interest in preventing "unsafe" handguns from being sold to Californians. The state is just showing concern for the safety of its citizens by protecting them from "unsafe" handguns.

[Jimmy's]

Is it likely in the near future that the handgun roster will be removed and all handguns would be legal in California?

Also, sorry if this has been answered somewhere already, but are there any pending cases against the handgun roster, declaring it unconstitutional and/or trying to remove it?

I've never laughed so hard! OP, are you a Froglube user?

[HawkMan]

I've never laughed so hard! OP, are you a Froglube user?

You tell me, what do my other threads' titles suggest?

[HawkMan]

Almost every other state. Maryland and Massachusetts also have "safe handgun" rosters, although both are larger than California's because there is no microstamping requirement. For example, both the Massachusetts and Maryland rosters have Gen 4 Glocks and other handguns not available (to non-LEO's) in California.

The other 47 states don't have any handgun rosters.

Also, most others states don't have any waiting period after firearm purchases, much less a ridiculous 10-day wait. Most states also don't limit the number of handguns you can purchase per month. Or the size of magazines you can use. And they don't require any "Handgun Safety Certificate". And they don't require you to buy a locking device or show proof that you own a gun safe. And concealed handgun licenses are "shall issue" or aren't even necessary.

That's why they are called "free states".



No. California argues that if gun manufacturers decide as a business decision to longer sell their products in California, that's their decision, not California's. California is not completely banning those manufacturers from selling their products in California, California just wants them to meet certain standards, for "safety". If gun manufacturers choose not to meet those standards, California *shrugs* and says "Oh well, that's your decision. Let us know if you change your minds." The courts seem to agree with California's argument for now.

It is unlikely that the California handgun roster would ever be completely empty because revolvers are exempt from microstamping and can easily make the roster. California will point at the dozens or hundreds of revolvers on the roster and say "See, there are plenty of safe handguns available for sale in California". The courts seem to think that as long as Californians can buy dozens or hundreds of different models of handguns (revolvers and any grandfathered semiautos) then their Second Amendment rights are not unduly burdened by the state's interest in preventing "unsafe" handguns from being sold to Californians. The state is just showing concern for the safety of its citizens by protecting them from "unsafe" handguns.

Are most of the gun laws in California actually voted in by citizens, or are they just enacted by the governor?

What chance do we have at abolishing any gun laws after this UCLA shooting? California says that UCLA is "safe," because it's a gun free zone... what happened... did the criminal not remember that law?

[North Bay Guy]

Are most of the gun laws in California actually voted in by citizens, or are they just enacted by the governor?

What chance do we have at abolishing any gun laws after this UCLA shooting? California says that UCLA is "safe," because it's a gun free zone... what happened... did the criminal not remember that law?

Personally I can't recall any gun laws being voted on by the people.