Rumors about FN pistol ban?

[Horhey232]

I have heard through people who heard from people (thus the rumor part) that there will be a ban on the importation of FN handguns in the state of California. I am skeptical but my friend is talking about it like a mad man and is insisting on selling his stuff so he can buy a FNP because of a ban. He has been eyeballing them at Turners and I am skeptical because I have heard and experienced that FN is not that great customer service wise. I told this to him but he is still pursuing this FNP for his first gun and as a friend I am looking out for him. Now I am also curious about the legality in this or if this is just Turners no longer carrying FN pistols or what? Any feed back would be appreciated. Thanks!

[blakdawg]

The two ways I can see for the FN to become legally unavailable is if the CA Legislature were to ban it (this would be very public, take a long time, and probably wouldn't take effect immediately) or for the CA Attorney General to remove it from the roster of approved handguns.

If this were going the legislative route, we'd have heard about it.

If the AG were going to do something sneaky, we wouldn't be hearing about it as gunshop rumors prior to the effective date.

I have no love or trust for AG Kamala Harris - but I do believe that she's smart enough that, if she were going to arbitrarily remove a gun from the approved list, she'd remove it first and then talk about it later.

The "sales going through the roof ahead of an impending ban" thing isn't exactly a surprise to the gun haters.

I suspect this is just a combination of election year FUD, the "telephone game", and some people's funny ideas about special "armor piercing" abilities of the 5.7 cartridge.

I got talked into buying a Browning Hi-Power in .40 S&W once because the guy in the gun store told me Browning was going to stop making them. It wasn't true, but it did get me to fork over almost $1000 for a gun I was on the fence about because I thought I might never get another chance to buy one. I bought it, shot it, didn't like it (hammer bite), ended up selling it used at a loss.

[skyscraper]

Ahh. I better buy another one

I wouldnt worry too much. They tried before and failed.

[Chaos47]

Never heard of it...

Most of their guns on the roster don't have to be retested till 2013.. I wouldn't be worried.

http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/

[elSquid]

I'm not really up to speed on FN's pistols, but I thought that the FNP is going to be/was discontinued. Isn't the new gun the FNX?

If the FNX doesn't have the required safety features, then it will not be on the roster...

-- Michael

[Kodemonkey]

Well, since they know who owns them because they are registered... wouldn't a ban include sending a nice letter to each of the registered owners instructing them to turn them into the police?

Considering there aren't that many out there in CA, and it's street name is "matapolicias pistola" ("cop killer pistol" for those of you who don't speak Spanish) you think they would get much backlash for confiscation and destruction?

Edit: I'm assuming we are talking about the FN Five Seven pistol here?

[Horhey232]

Thanks for the input guys but I don't want my friend spending extra money on a FNP when he thinks he is buying it because it will no longer be available. If he buys it because it fits him well and he likes it then I am all for it. But I don't want him making the mistake of buying it because he thinks he is under pressure of it potentially not being available anymore and coming in at a loss even though he is buying it from Turners. I am personally looking into getting my first NEW handgun. I already own 3 but they were passed down to me from my dad (Gen. 1 Glock 17, Colt Pocketlite (.380 ACP), and a S&W Snub nose detective special (.38)). I am looking at a Glock 34 but I really like the Sig 220 Sporter but I have heard its not California Approved. Does anyone know anything about that?

[Kodemonkey]

Thanks for the input guys but I don't want my friend spending extra money on a FNP when he thinks he is buying it because it will no longer be available. If he buys it because it fits him well and he likes it then I am all for it. But I don't want him making the mistake of buying it because he thinks he is under pressure of it potentially not being available anymore and coming in at a loss even though he is buying it from Turners. I am personally looking into getting my first NEW handgun. I already own 3 but they were passed down to me from my dad (Gen. 1 Glock 17, Colt Pocketlite (.380 ACP), and a S&W Snub nose detective special (.38)). I am looking at a Glock 34 but I really like the Sig 220 Sporter but I have heard its not California Approved. Does anyone know anything about that?

Oh, I thought we were talking about the Five SEven... The FNP, it depends if FN will continue to make them. I don't see them in their products list.

Here is the link to the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale : http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/

There are some generic Sig 220s in there. I'm not sure if the "sporter" fits in there or not. Sig has been making so many variants lately it is hard to keep up.

[tacticalcity]

Well, since they know who owns them because they are registered... wouldn't a ban include sending a nice letter to each of the registered owners instructing them to turn them into the police?

Considering there aren't that many out there in CA, and it's street name is "matapolicias pistola" ("cop killer pistol" for those of you who don't speak Spanish) you think they would get much backlash for confiscation and destruction?

Edit: I'm assuming we are talking about the FN Five Seven pistol here?

Laws are not retro-active in our country. They affect future conduct, and not past conduct. If it was legal when you bought it, you get to keep it. They can impose use restrictions such as only taking it to and from the range, and envoke a registration period, but since they are already "registered" it would not really affect existing owners much - unless it is their carry weapon and some use restriction was imposed prohibitting it as a carry weapon.

Unlike Canada, they can't legally make you turn them over here in the US just because the law changes on you.

Additionally, if they tried to ban all FN handguns, the law would quickly be thrown out. They would need to ban them by make and model. At which point FN could just change their model numbers and be legal again, not on the roster but legal. At which point you just SSE them and then you can legally have them. This is how we all have Gen 4 Glocks and other non-rostered handguns and how we all have ARs and AKs. Banning something is just not that easy.

They could try and remove all FN Handguns from the approved roster, but they would need some grounds to do so. As they meet the requirments by California to be on the roster. So again, a judge would nix that right quick. In the mean time we could all just SSE them.

They can ban a specific caliber, such as banning the 5.7 round (much more likely a scenerio than trying to ban all FN handguns) as they did with the 50 BMG. But that would only effect a small number of weapons and not all FN handguns. The 50 BMG was the first time this had ever been done, and they got away with it because of the damage a 50BMG can cause is hard to defend to non-gun types. Similar argument might be made for the 5.7, however the armor peircing version is already banned, so I am not sure how that would fly since the commercially available round is not more dangerous than any other round.

So no...it doesn't work that way. Bans are next to impossible to do in a way that actually keeps it out of peoples hands, and there is next to nothing they can do about the ones already in the state.

[CSACANNONEER]

Unlike Canada, they can't legally make you turn them over here in the US just because the law changes on you.

Sure "they" can. "They" just made legally owned +10 round mags a nuisance thus allowing LEs to cofiscate any that they want to.

[tacticalcity]

Sure "they" can. "They" just made legally owned +10 round mags a nuisance thus allowing LEs to cofiscate any that they want to.

What fantasy BS have you been reading online? Learn the law brother. You got it backwards.

That is not what happened at all. The ban only affected future importation and sales. Everybody who owned them before the ban took effect got to keep them legally. They are also legally allowed to repair and maintain them.

No cop would do as you describe in real life. But if an LEO tries to take your magazines ask for his on duty supervisor to show up at the scene. Be polite but insistant, because the officer is confused. Make sure to get his name and badge number. Hint, the number is on his badge and his name is on his uniform. Again, be polite. Insist on a written receipt that includes the date, his name, the badge number, the number of magazines, magazine type, their condition, and the number of rounds in the magazine. Again, be polite. Insist that he sign the receipt.

Provided you legally owned the magazines before the ban, you will be getting them back.

Since every single part of the magazine is allowed to be new, as part of a repair kit for existing magaines that went bad over time, the only way they could prove you did not own the magazine inside California before the ban is if the gun was produced after the ban (and that magazine was not used in an older version of the gun) or you were not a California resident prior to the ban.

This is one of those laws that virtually impossible to enforce. Officers do not go around inspecting and confiscating peoples magazines unless it is totally impossible for those magazines to have been owned before the ban, and they have some other cause to be searching you and your belongings.

[IVC]

If there is anything to it, it's likely about Five seveN [sic], not FNP. FNP is chambered in standard calibers, so it annoys antis as much as any generic handgun. The Five seveN is chambered in 5.7x28 caliber which, for some reason, tends to rub the antis the wrong way. It's the same chambering as P/PS-90, which are very "evil looking" bullpup black rifles. Some of the bullets are already not available to general public as they are considered "armor piercing".

Again, if there is any truth to the rumor, it would almost certainly be Five seveN through the ammunition ban (another helicopter-downing round according to antis).

[ACLU hero]

takings clause

as i see it- they certainly can take my fiveseven.

but they do have to pay me for it. that's the reality of forfeiture, eminent domain, etc., under the 5th amendment. i.e. "no taking without just compensation."

i doubt they want to- it's well established that my pistol isn't dangerous to LEO's unless i have AP ammo, which is tightly controlled and already unlawful in california.

frankly, my fiveseven is hands down the nicest target shooting weapon i own: ridiculously accurate, no recoil (girls love it), and the ammo isn't any more expensive than that which my .45 eats.

the DOJ could de-list it- but they have to wait for the end of the approval period (i think.)

[tacticalcity]

as i see it- they certainly can take my fiveseven.

but they do have to pay me for it. that's the reality of forfeiture, eminent domain, etc., under the 5th amendment. i.e. "no taking without just compensation."

Law doesn't work that way. But you could give it to them voluntarily if you wish. Laws are not retro-active...they are proactive. They would be changing the entire legal system by doing so.

the DOJ could de-list it- but they have to wait for the end of the approval period (i think.)

They could, and they would. But then you could just get one using the single shot exemption I mentioned above. So it would be useless to do so. It would not stop people from getting them.

[CSACANNONEER]

What fantasy BS have you been reading online? Learn the law brother. You got it backwards.

Sorry but you obviously have never read PC 32390. Sorry but that is how the NEW law reads. So far, no one knows for sure what might happen. Anyway, here's a little online reading for you: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=503489