The Down Range Forum

Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: ericire12 on March 10, 2009, 02:26:13 PM

Title: Bi-Tone XD unsafe by D.C. Standards
Post by: ericire12 on March 10, 2009, 02:26:13 PM
http://www.dcexaminer.com/local/DC-rejects-womans-handgun-over-color-40983407.html

Quote
D.C. rejects woman’s handgun over color

By Scott McCabe
Examiner Staff Writer 3/9/09
A D.C. woman claims she was banned from registering her .45-caliber handgun in the District because the weapon was “the wrong color.”
Tracey Ambeau Hanson was one of three city residents who filed a lawsuit against the District on Monday that challenges a city handgun regulation prohibiting handguns not on a list of handguns approved by the state of California.

The trio is being represented by Alan Gura, the Alexandria attorney who successfully argued the U.S. Supreme Court case that overturned the District’s 32-year ban on handguns.

According to Gura, the District bases its list of approved handguns on the California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale. Hanson’s Springfield XD-45 was on the government’s approved roster of guns, but hers was black and silver, the attorney said.
The law only permits that Springfield model if it’s one of the approved colors: black, green or brown, Gura said. "[H]er bitone version is supposedly 'unsafe.’ ”


Hanson said she just wants be able to own a handgun without interference from the D.C. government.
"Do we really need a gun-fashion police?” she asked.

District officials did not immediately respond Monday to requests for comment.
Another plaintiff had her gun application denied because its manufacturer had not paid a fee to California to keep the gun on the California gun roster.

In June, the Supreme Court tossed the District’s ban on handguns, holding for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to self-defense and gun ownership.

In the wake of that ruling, the District enacted new regulations for gun ownership. The District requires firearms owners to renew their registrations every three years, take a safety course and undergo a background check every six years.

I guess they wont allow those evil pink guns either
Title: Re: Bi-Tone XD unsafe by D.C. Standards
Post by: tumblebug on March 10, 2009, 03:11:10 PM
 Commifornia leading D C on guns that is funny. ;D ;D ;D ;D Sick but funny.
Title: Re: Bi-Tone XD unsafe by D.C. Standards
Post by: ericire12 on March 10, 2009, 03:23:48 PM
I guess they wont allow those evil pink guns either

(http://www.canyoncreekcustom.com/images/albums/NewAlbum_cecb1/pink_side.jpg)
(http://www.roadsterdrift.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/duren_1.jpg)
Title: Re: Bi-Tone XD unsafe by D.C. Standards
Post by: tombogan03884 on March 10, 2009, 03:27:40 PM
Apparently not, neither will Nassau county in NY. It's part of Bloomie's vendetta against Dura Coat.
Title: Re: Bi-Tone XD unsafe by D.C. Standards
Post by: tt11758 on March 10, 2009, 04:00:47 PM
The racist BASTARDS!!!     ;D
Title: Re: Bi-Tone XD unsafe by D.C. Standards
Post by: tombogan03884 on March 10, 2009, 04:02:33 PM
They are the ones the NAACP should be going after for discriminating against "guns of color".
Title: Re: Bi-Tone XD unsafe by D.C. Standards
Post by: tt11758 on March 10, 2009, 04:03:54 PM
They are the ones the NAACP NAACP (D) should be going after for discriminating against "guns of color".

I fixed it for ya.
Title: Re: Bi-Tone XD unsafe by D.C. Standards
Post by: blackwolfe on March 10, 2009, 06:32:41 PM
Are you prevented from changing the color after you get it?  What if your gun is dropped from the California gun list after you register it?  What if your gun rusts or the finish wears, are you guilty of violating the DC gun laws fashion laws?  Of coarse everyone knows that rusty worn pink guns are the most lethal of all the fashion options.
Title: Re: Bi-Tone XD unsafe by D.C. Standards
Post by: m25operator on March 10, 2009, 06:53:58 PM
NAACP

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored Pistols
Title: Re: Bi-Tone XD unsafe by D.C. Standards
Post by: Hottrockin on March 10, 2009, 07:11:50 PM
Racially challenged?  For a pistol?

Hmmmm….

 :P

Sick dude, sick!
Title: Re: Bi-Tone XD unsafe by D.C. Standards
Post by: Rob10ring on March 10, 2009, 07:13:07 PM
NAACP

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored Pistols
I'd support that version.
Title: Re: Bi-Tone XD unsafe by D.C. Standards
Post by: Rob10ring on March 10, 2009, 07:19:52 PM
They have to go by our stupid laws?! And do they have to occasionally re-register at some insane interval? What if your gun is dropped from California certification at a later date? In January, all semi-automatic handguns are to be dropped from our list, because no one makes guns with micro-stamping technology. There are still rumors that the big gun companies won't sell to California police either.
Title: Re: Bi-Tone XD unsafe by D.C. Standards
Post by: r_w on March 10, 2009, 09:44:35 PM
In January, all semi-automatic handguns are to be dropped from our list, because no one makes guns with micro-stamping technology. There are still rumors that the big gun companies won't sell to California police either.

GOD I pray that the big guys will stand up like Barrett and tell Kalifornia.gov that they only get the same guns that the civilians can get.

Title: Re: Bi-Tone XD unsafe by D.C. Standards
Post by: D-Man on March 11, 2009, 10:24:07 AM
They have to go by our stupid laws?! And do they have to occasionally re-register at some insane interval? What if your gun is dropped from California certification at a later date? In January, all semi-automatic handguns are to be dropped from our list, because no one makes guns with micro-stamping technology. There are still rumors that the big gun companies won't sell to California police either.
Not true!  The law says that there has to be viable technology available before they can enforce that standard.  So far, nobody has it, so it isn't going to happen at that date.  Doesn't mean it won't happen at some future date.

Title: Re: Bi-Tone XD unsafe by D.C. Standards
Post by: Rob10ring on March 11, 2009, 02:22:43 PM
Not true!  The law says that there has to be viable technology available before they can enforce that standard.  So far, nobody has it, so it isn't going to happen at that date.  Doesn't mean it won't happen at some future date.


Attorney General Jerry Brown has already decided that the available technology is viable, but that is not what is required by law. The only requirement in the law is that at least 2 companies have to be able to create the imprint. These companies want the money, so of course there going to allow someone else to do it.

"provided that the Department of Justice certifies that the
technology used to create the imprint is available to more than one
manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions" - AB 1471