Lawsuit against Kalifornia approved gun list

[blackwolfe]

I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV and I didn't stay at Holiday in last night.  I am but a simple man that thinks the reasoning and strategy behind this lawsuit brought against kalifornia is brilliant.

From the shooting wire:

http://www.shootingwire.com/

FEATURE


Lawsuits, we go lawsuits
Yesterday, the Second Amendment Foundation, the Calguns Foundation and four California residents filed suit that challenged a California state law that bans handguns based on a listing of "certified" handguns approved by the state.

For years, the state has maintained that sort of list, requiring the notation on many firearms ads and materials that reads "Not approved for sale in California". In the new lawsuit, the plaintiffs assert the law is unconstitutional, based on the Supreme Court's ruling that the protects handguns that ordinary people traditionally use for self-defense, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision that the Second Amendment applies to both state and local governments.

The plaintiffs in the case are represented by Alan Gura. He says California "tells Ivan Peña that his rights have an expiration date based on payment of a government fee. Americans are not limited to a government list of approved books, or approved religions," he said. "A handgun protected by the Second Amendment does not need to appear on any government-approved list and cannot be banned because a manufacturer does not pay a special annual fee."

"The Para Ordnance P-13 was once approved for sale in California," Peña noted, "but now that a manufacturer didn't pay a yearly fee, California claims the gun I want to own has somehow become 'unsafe'."

"The Glock-21 is the handgun I would choose for home defense, but California has decided the version I need is unacceptable," says plaintiff Roy Vargas, "I was born without a right arm below my elbow and therefore the new ambidextrous version of the Glock-21 is the safest one for me. The identical model designed for right hand use is available in California, but I can't use it."

The other two plaintiffs in the case have similar stories.

Doña Croston's handgun would be allowed if it were black, green, or brown, but her bi-tone version is supposedly 'unsafe' merely based on color. "I didn't realize that my constitutional rights depended on color. What is it about two colors that makes the gun I want to purchase 'unsafe'?"

Brett Thomas seeks to own the same model of handgun that the Supreme Court ordered District of Columbia officials to register for Dick Heller. However, that particular model is no longer manufactured, and its maker is no longer available to process the handgun's certification through the bureaucracy. "There is only one model of handgun that the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled is protected by the Second Amendment and yet California will not allow me to purchase that gun," said Mr. Thomas.

Attorneys representing the group say the "approved" list in California is, essentially, gun control by degrees. "Gradually," says co-counsel Donald Kilmer, the list of "so-called 'guns' will shrink to zero."

[Fatman]

You go, boy!

[MikeBjerum]

"The Para Ordnance P-13 was once approved for sale in California," Peña noted, "but now that a manufacturer didn't pay a yearly fee, California claims the gun I want to own has somehow become 'unsafe'."

It isn't about safety.  It is all about the money    Fill out the forms, and more importantly, write the check, and we will let you sell your guns in our state 

I actually believe that that is what is behind a lot of the registration push.  I do think they want to get list for confiscation eventually, but first they can charge us fees, just like our boats, atv's and snowmobiles, to fund their anit-gun programs.

[TAB]

the fee is $7 and its good for 3 years.  once your on the list, the gun never needs to be tested again unless you make major changes to it.

its the testing that is about 10k.

[tombogan03884]

It's a legalized shakedown.

[Sponsor]