Roster violates constitution?

[huntercf]

I did a search and looked through the gunwiki so if this is a dupe I apologize.

It seems to me that the handgun roster violates the 14th amendment, the equal protection clause.

Case in point: If someone in another state buys an off-list handgun (because other states are not as stupid as CA and don't have lists) and then moves to CA they are exempt from the roster. Furthermore, they do not have to acquire the handgun as a SSE and shoulder an additional unnecessary cost. They will however be a resident of CA in 6 months and fall under the jurisdiction of CA.

Wouldn't this violate the 14th amendment because as a CA resident we are denied purchasing these firearms because they are not on a 'safe' list, but future CA residents are allowed to buy them and bring them into the state. Also, we are not allowed to buy them out of state and bring them back or have them shipped here.

How about all of us who have purchased a handgun in CA chip in some $$ for a class action butt whooping lawsuit on the state and DOJ?

[Fundamentals]

The first thing that popped into my head, with no research done, is that the roster may be protected by the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" or Article 4, section 1, which says that states need to respect the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings in other states. Case law, however, later established that states do not have to substitute for their own statute, so it is very limited.

[BigFatGuy]

It violates the 2nd ammendment too, guys.

The problem is, there's no penalty for ignoring the constitution, so people do it freely.

[Bull's_eye]

It may also be construed as hindering interstate commerce, by making manufacturers jump through hoops and pay fees to sell their product in CA.

[Librarian]

The Roster is certainly useless, but I don't think it fails on any of the grounds commonly offered; this thread is far from the first to bring it up.

Easiest: Interstate commerce. CA FFLs are licensed both by the Feds and the State. The Roster is a limitation on activities of California's licensed gun dealers - it restricts what guns they may sell to whom. People who move here are exempt. Private party sales are exempt. Intra-family transfers are exempt.

14th Amendment Equal Protection: Police are given lots of other powers that non-police do not get. They get to carry handguns in public, they get to use pretty red and blue lights when driving in a hurry. I personally think that employing agencies ought to be supplying guns the same way they supply patrol vehicles and the jail, but since that is not universal, allowing police to purchase essentially any gun they think they need to do their jobs is not going away anytime soon.

2A: this one has some traction, see http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Pena_v._Cid

[gunsandrockets]

What really gives the commiefornia handgun roster force is the Federal gun control act of 1968. It's the GCA 68 which forbids the interstate sale of handguns. Without the GCA 68, a California resident could easily bypass the handgun roster by purchasing a handgun in another state.

Since DC v Heller, I strongly suspect that the Federal ban on interstate sales violates the 2nd Amendment. Heck, the ban on interstate sales is the primary reason why people in Washington D.C. still can't buy a handgun, despite DC v Heller!

[Fundamentals]

The Roster is certainly useless, but I don't think it fails on any of the grounds commonly offered; this thread is far from the first to bring it up.

So now it is a waiting game for the appropriate case to come up to the Supreme Court? Oh goody.

[motorhead]

already underway.

[rolo]

Soooo, who is going to write up that timeline of 2nd Amendment progress in California and sticky it so we don't have to rehash it ever time a thread drops off the first two pages?

[NytWolf]

CA's state constitution does not even uphold the U.S. Constitution's 2nd Amendment. How can you expect the laws within CA to respect the U.S. Constitution?

[bwiese]

The Roster is so screwed up there's a whole slew of other state & Fed litigation opportunities...

• Harrott-style clarity: Roster is full of entries that are of doubtful descriptiveness to identify guns as
  either allowed or prohibited. [One quick example: what does "stainless" mean? Does that mean actual
  composition or shiny metallic? There are many stainless guns/slides that are "blued" (coated with something).
  Varying standards across the list is confusing and legally BS. Some guns are banned by make/model,
  others via SKU, others by description.
  
  Harrott specificity to reduce confusion must carry over here. Otherwise CA DOJ has to hold the position that,
  "Yes, Harrott holds for AWs only, but we want this other list of guns - which also gates access and triggers
  penalties in a similar fashion - to be murky."
  .
• The Roster makes a monopoly market of warranty replacement parts. Two identical parts from different mfgrs
  and/or having nonsubstantive differences will cause a gun to lose Rostering status. Putting a Colt hammer in
  in your rostered Springfield 1911 will cause CA rostering status to be lost.
  
  [Midstream production changes from suppliers likely affect Rostered status of Rosterd guns too.]
  
  Imagine losing your car warranty or registration status because you used a to-spec Wix oil filter or fan belt instead
  of a "genuine" Ford or GM part, or Michelin tires instead of Firestones that came with the car.
  
  [In a past life, Porsche USA tried to refuse warranty service on a car, and sue my prior company, for a 'power chip'
  seizing and breaking the water pump. That power chip was EPA and CARB certified, so it was indeed a legal warranty
  replacement part.]
  
  Lots of controlling Fed law in this area...

[P5Ret]

I personally think that employing agencies ought to be supplying guns the same way they supply patrol vehicles and the jail, but since that is not universal, allowing police to purchase essentially any gun they think they need to do their jobs is not going away anytime soon.

Most departments are moving away from personally owned duty guns, there are exceptions of course. I don't think I have ever heard of someone allowed to " purchase essentially any gun they think they need to do their jobs". I'm sure there are patrol officers in some parts of the state that feel a Dillon Aero mounted on the hood of the patrol car could come in handy, but I don't quite see that happening.

[huntercf]

It violates the 2nd ammendment too, guys.

The problem is, there's no penalty for ignoring the constitution, so people do it freely.

Amen to that, but I believe CA thinks they can ignore that one, but if a law or 'roster' could be shown to violate numerous parts of the constitution then it would be easier to take down. IANAL, it just seems like CA is denying our rights based off of our zip codes that other citizens of the US can freely exercise. Yeah, I'm preaching to the choir and beating a dead horse, but sometimes I need to ask and complain because crap like this violates my logic gene.

[Wherryj]

It may also be construed as hindering interstate commerce, by making manufacturers jump through hoops and pay fees to sell their product in CA.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the roster and all of CA's other unconstitutional laws ended up being overturned by the "Commerce Clause"? At least given the typical abuse that the CC has caused.

[Wherryj]

Most departments are moving away from personally owned duty guns, there are exceptions of course. I don't think I have ever heard of someone allowed to " purchase essentially any gun they think they need to do their jobs". I'm sure there are patrol officers in some parts of the state that feel a Dillon Aero mounted on the hood of the patrol car could come in handy, but I don't quite see that happening.

What??? The Dillon Aero isn't on the roster?