0
   

CALIFORNIANS REACH FOR FREEDOM

 
 
Reply Fri 1 May, 2009 12:57 pm
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.”
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,134 • Replies: 10
No top replies

 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2009 01:08 pm
The author here has neglected to indicate the source for this article. The source is the Second Amendment Foundation.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 May, 2009 04:42 am
@Setanta,
I only posted cause Im trolling you this fine morning. Dave can kiss my grachkies on this.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 May, 2009 04:49 am
I am always amused at gun nuts who equate their desire for unbridled license with firearms with freedom. If you ain't with 'em, you ain't just agin 'em, you're a "freedom hater" . . .
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 May, 2009 04:51 am
@Setanta,
and better make sure they arent packing when they get into a debate. Most of em are wired to the tune of a high "E"
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 May, 2009 05:03 am
@farmerman,
quote="farmerman"]
Quote:
I only posted cause Im trolling you this fine morning.

Welcome, Troll. Happy Saturday to u !



Quote:

Dave can kiss my grachkies on this.

and the reason for you osculatory hostility IS . . . ?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 May, 2009 05:06 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Because, You are as obsessive about this subject as I am re "fake science" and religion hustlers.

Guns are a tool not a life choice.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 May, 2009 05:07 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
and better make sure they arent packing when they get into a debate.

Most of em are wired to the tune of a high "E"

R u accusing the citizens of California
of being tense ? I don 't know; I 've not been there since 1957.





David
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 May, 2009 05:12 am
@OmSigDAVID,
The good citizens of California didnt start this thread, now did they?
Are you packing right now?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 May, 2009 05:24 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Because, You are as obsessive about this subject
as I am re "fake science" and religion hustlers.

Is obsession objectionable ?

Well, I can be obsessive.
I was obsessed with a chick named Joyce
from 1958 to 1981.

It 'd not occur to me to bear u antagonism
qua your attitude to "fake science".



Quote:

Guns are a tool not a life choice.

Thay can be considered a choice to live, to survive, by their owners -- but that aside,
any citizen can freely choose have his favorite tool abide with him,
and make frequent use of it;
for instance, Paul Teutul might well choose motorcycles.

Will that evoke your malice, if he does ?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 May, 2009 05:32 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Quote:
The good citizens of California didnt start this thread, now did they?

The good citizens of California did not start this thread;
nor the bad ones. Is that relevant ?




Quote:
Are you packing right now?

No.
I have no need to pack anything while I am at home.

Defensive ordnance is close at hand
n will be available in the unlikely event that I need it.



David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

McDonald v. Chicago - Discussion by wandeljw
Best Form of Government - Question by gollum
Separation of Powers question - Question by rdmarcus
Nuclear Option - Question by FKramerJr
Separation of Powers-SCOTUS - Question by samuel46383
Huckabee and the Constitution - Discussion by puzzledperson
Preamble implication in rulings - Question by Dr Preamble
 
  1. Forums
  2. » CALIFORNIANS REACH FOR FREEDOM
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/21/2021 at 12:09:43