CALIFORNIANS REACH FOR FREEDOM

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.”