Saf, calguns foundation challenges california handgun ban scheme

This is a discussion on Saf, calguns foundation challenges california handgun ban scheme within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; SAF, CGF Challenges California Handgun Ban Scheme - Calguns.net For Immediate Release: 4/30/2009 BELLEVUE, WA and REDWOOD CITY, CA – The Second Amendment Foundation, The ...

Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Saf, calguns foundation challenges california handgun ban scheme

  1. #1
    Member Array Bacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    187

    Saf, calguns foundation challenges california handgun ban scheme

    SAF, CGF Challenges California Handgun Ban Scheme - Calguns.net


    For Immediate Release: 4/30/2009

    BELLEVUE, WA and REDWOOD CITY, CA – The Second Amendment Foundation, The Calguns Foundation and four California residents today filed a lawsuit challenging a California state law and regulatory scheme that arbitrarily bans handguns based on a roster of “certified” handguns approved by the State. This case parallels a similar case filed in Washington, DC, Hanson v. District of Columbia.

    California uses this list despite a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court last summer that protects handguns that ordinary people traditionally use for self-defense, and a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments. The California scheme will eventually ban the purchase of almost all new handguns.

    Attorney Alan Gura, representing the plaintiffs in this case, noted that 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. 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,” said plaintiff Roy Vargas.

    Added SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “The Supreme Court’s decision is crystal clear: Handguns that are used by people for self-defense and other lawful purposes cannot be banned, whether the State likes it or not. California needs to accept the Second Amendment reality.”

    Co-counsel Jason Davis remarked, “The California Handgun Roster has always been about making the possession of handguns for self defense more difficult by imposing arbitrary and unconstitutional restrictions that limit choice and increase the cost of exercising a fundamental right.”

    Joining plaintiffs Peña and Vargas are Doña Croston and Brett Thomas. 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.

    “The so-called ‘safe’ gun list is just another gun-grabbing gimmick,” said co-counsel Donald Kilmer. “California can’t get around the Second Amendment, as incorporated, by declaring most normal guns ‘unsafe,’ and gradually shrinking the number of so-called ‘safe’ guns to zero.”

    The Second Amendment Foundation (Second Amendment Foundation Online) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

    The Calguns Foundation (Calgunsfoundation.org Home Page) is a non-profit legal defense fund for California gun owners. The Calguns foundation works to educate government and the public and protect the rights of individuals to own and lawfully use firearms in
    NRA Life Member

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,166
    I hope they bankrupt those idiots in Kalifornistan even further
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  4. #3
    Member Array Rivers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by dukalmighty View Post
    I hope they bankrupt those idiots in Kalifornistan even further
    First, I will assume that you are commenting on the legislators and not the residents.

    Second, you're too late, except for the paperwork.

    News today: Gov. Arnold S. has a dismal voter approval rating of 33%. As bad as that is, it is more than twice the approval rating of our legislature, 14%. Our problems in CA are the direct result of the legislators, not the Gov. He's only the Terminator, not Superman. He can't make it all right by himself.

  5. #4
    Member Array socal2310's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Camarillo, CA
    Posts
    467
    Quote Originally Posted by Rivers View Post
    Our problems in CA are the direct result of the legislators, not the Gov. He's only the Terminator, not Superman. He can't make it all right by himself.
    Not to say that he hasn't been doing his best to assist them. As soon as he discovered that Republican legislators were impotent to help him and that voters were apathetic he crawled into bed with the Democrats (not surprising, he'd already been sleeping with [strikethrough]the enemy[/strikethrough] a Kennedy for years).

    Ryan

    P.S. Is there a code for strikethrough? The standard [s] doesn't work.
    Those who will not govern their own behavior are slaves waiting for a master; one will surely find them.

  6. #5
    Member Array AmmoSphere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26
    Thats great kalisfonistan.

  7. #6
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    44,398
    Stick it to them...
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  8. #7
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Rivers View Post
    First, I will assume that you are commenting on the legislators and not the residents.
    What is the difference?

  9. #8
    Senior Member Array DPro.40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    611
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    What is the difference?
    Thats a pretty unfair comparison. Not very Californian is a part of Feinstein movement. That would be like saying everyone in Arizona wears aluminum foil head dress to keep the aliens (and I dont mean the south of the border) from reading their minds.
    You should retract your narrow point of view that allows you to slander our own.
    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
    Ronald Reagan

  10. #9
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by DPro.40 View Post
    Thats a pretty unfair comparison.
    I didn't make a comparison. A distinction was asserted that representatives of the people are not the people. We live in a Republic, not a democracy for a very good reason.

    Not very Californian is a part of Feinstein movement.
    The people of California can vote for whoever they want to represent them. There will always be people who disagree with the winners of elections.

    You should retract your narrow point of view that allows you to slander our own.
    Your own? Who are you referring to? And what libel to you think I have committed?

    Thanks for the advice, but I will continue to support the Founders' vision of America.

  11. #10
    Senior Member Array DPro.40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    611
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I didn't make a comparison. A distinction was asserted that representatives of the people are not the people. We live in a Republic, not a democracy for a very good reason.



    The people of California can vote for whoever they want to represent them. There will always be people who disagree with the winners of elections.



    Your own? Who are you referring to? And what libel to you think I have committed?

    Thanks for the advice, but I will continue to support the Founders' vision of America.

    I know, I know...your intentions were of the purest in nature.
    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
    Ronald Reagan

  12. #11
    Member Array Rivers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I didn't make a comparison. A distinction was asserted that representatives of the people are not the people. We live in a Republic, not a democracy for a very good reason.

    The people of California can vote for whoever they want to represent them. There will always be people who disagree with the winners of elections.
    I made the same distinction as one who would call you a socialist because BHO is the POTUS and since you are a US citizen, you must believe in everything he says and does. From your closing, I think it's a safe bet that you didn't vote for him. Nevertheless, he is YOUR President, my President, and the President for every other US citizen who believes in the Constitution. It doesn't matter whether I like it, or if I voted for him, only that he did win and my duty as a citizen is to respect the process. But don't even think that I subscribe to BHO's agenda, or support the lunacy of the CA legislators who blatantly work to undermine the civil rights of millions of CA residents. Being lawfully elected does NOT automatically make you right. And I do resent over-generalized sniping that equates all CA residents as drinking the ultra-liberal coolaid. It just ain't so!

  13. #12
    Member Array crewdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    california
    Posts
    15
    And do not forget about the military people who may be a legal resident of another state but are forced to comply with the rules of california without being able to vote in the state.
    I spent 14 years paying Ca taxes (sales tax) and never got any representation for it.
    I was stationed in Ca but a legal Oregon resident.

    I know many who have had to sell firearms before moving to this state.

  14. #13
    Member Array runamuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Surprise Az
    Posts
    82
    California is kind of like reality but it's not.

    Muk

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. A Calguns Foundation Success Story
    By mrreynolds in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 25th, 2009, 06:39 PM
  2. Email from CalGuns
    By UnklFungus in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 22nd, 2009, 03:56 PM
  3. Taking a Handgun to California?
    By CEW58 in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: November 9th, 2008, 03:38 PM
  4. Shipping a handgun to California?
    By Dolphin in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 9th, 2008, 02:32 PM
  5. California handgun purchase
    By ppkheat in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: September 11th, 2007, 11:41 PM

Search tags for this page

calguns comparison

,
calguns foundation bankrupting
,

calguns handgun roster

Click on a term to search for related topics.