Attention Californian's!!!!

[Furyataurus]

CRPA FOUNDATION TO ASSIST IN LAWSUIT

CHALLENGING D.C. HANDGUN BAN SCHEME


The Calguns Foundation and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), along with three Washington, D.C. resident plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit on March 9 challenging a regulation by District of Columbia city government that arbitrarily bans handguns based on the roster of “acceptable” handguns approved by the State of California. In an unusual move, the DC government incorporated California law into its law, and decreed that only guns on the California approved list can be sold in DC.



CRPA has been working with SAF and Calguns Foundation as members of the NRA led coalition of civil rights groups attacking ill-conceived gun control laws through the courts.



DC did not completely adopt the California “unsafe handgun” law, which generally bans the sale of handguns not tested and approved for sale by the California Department of Justice. California’s law has exceptions, such as for private party consignment sales, that factually distinguish the DC case and may legally distinguish the DC challenge from a potential California challenge to the California law.



Nonetheless, there is the potential that the DC suit could affect California law. So CRPA will be submitting friend of the court amicus briefs in the case and coordinating the efforts of other amicus brief submissions through its litigation arm, the 501(c)(3) CRPA Foundation. Contributions to the CRPA Foundation are tax deductible.



The District is using the California list despite a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court last summer that protects handguns “that ordinary people traditionally use for self-defense.” That protects many handguns not on the California list.



The DC suit challenges the arbitrary exclusion of firearms from the approved list. For example, the Springfield XD-45 is approved for sale in DC as long as it is black, green, or brown, but a bi-tone version is supposedly ‘unsafe’. Other guns are banned only because their listing on the California roster expired when an annual renewal fee was not paid, or because the manufacturer has gone out of business so the gun’s maker is no longer available to process the handgun’s certification through the bureaucratic process. Please help us fund this important litigation.



Sincerely,



John C. Fields,
Executive Director

http://www.crpa.org/dept.aspx?dept_id=08

[Furyataurus]

Hopefully these plaintiffs win! Should they win all that's left is to get rid of the AWB and high capacity magazine restriction!


BTW, I made this a sticky.

[Furyataurus]

SAF, Calguns Foundation Challenges California Handgun Ban Scheme

By: PR Newswire
Apr. 30, 2009 08:18 PM


BELLEVUE, Wash. and REDWOOD CITY, Calif., April 30 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- 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 Pena 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," Pena 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 Pena and Vargas are Dona Croston and Brett Thomas. Dona 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 (www.saf.org) is the nation's 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 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.


The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org) 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 California.

http://in.sys-con.com/node/944438

[Furyataurus]

Unloading civil rights



By Richard LoConto
Canyon Country
Posted: June 28, 2009 9:31 p.m.
POSTED June 29, 2009 4:55 a.m.

The woods are burning, and the Mensa members in Sacramento are occupied with really important problems like the size of the font on name tags and growing blueberries.

Oh, but that's not all. They are also obsessed with shredding the constitutional civil rights of all Californians - a cherished goal of Democrats who hate that pesky document.

On June 3, Assembly Bill 962 was passed by a 42-31 vote. AB 962 now heads to the state Senate where it will be heard by the Senate Public Safety Committee on Tuesday.

Sponsored by Assemblyman Kevin De Leon (D-45), AB 962 would make it a crime to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month, even between family and friends, unless you are registered as a "handgun ammunition vendor" in the Department of Justice's database. Ammunition retailers would have to be licensed (they already are) and store ammunition in such a manner that it would be inaccessible to purchasers.

The bill would also require purchasers to submit to fingerprinting, which would be submitted to the Department of Justice. Lastly, mail order ammunition sales would be prohibited.

Fingerprinting to exercise a civil right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights? How about fingerprinting clergymen? How about fingerprinting journalists? After all, isn't the pen mightier than the sword?

And for sure we need to fingerprint that rabble assembling for a redress of grievances. Those picket signs can be deadly weapons.

This fascist attempt to disarm Californians is clearly a violation of the Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Ninth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. Even the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, hardly a bastion of conservatism, recognized the often overlooked Fourteenth Amendment when they recently ruled against another ill-conceived firearm restriction.

Then there's the matter of the violation of the Constitutional bans on Bills of Attainder and ex post facto laws, not to mention violations of FOPA (Firearms Owners Protection Act) and the U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 241, Conspiracy Against Rights.

Leaders of the Democratic Party have always crowed about defending civil rights. But in Sacramento, with this bill, they feel no qualms about enacting laws in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens.

Why do they do this? Who will obey this law? Only Dad at the firing range who tells his daughter, "Sorry, honey. I can't give you any of my .22s. Go sit in the car."

The result of this bill is an unarmed citizenry, making the world safe for home invasions.

AB 962 is the full-employment act for smugglers and gangbangers. Criminals will not only ignore it, but will have a new cottage industry dealing ammunition just as they do dealing drugs. Disarming the peasants has long been a dream for Democrats.

What do the Democrats have in mind for the future of American citizens, that they need to have you disarmed?

If you think this assault on the rights of California citizens has anything to do with fighting crime, you'd believe Lois Lane has to open the pickle jar for Clark Kent.

[djv38]

Wow. That really sucks.

[Once A Marine]

AB962 passed with Arnie's signature and endorsement.

At least I have until Feb 2011 to (a) escape, or (b) stock up!

[fltsrgn]

Hey Marine--

Do both!

[M1P90]

I'm glad I got out when I did!!! :razz:

I wonder how this will affect truehuntersupply? Robert is in Kalifornistan.


California: Governor Takes Action on Two Anti-Gun Bills in Sacramento

Monday, October 12, 2009

This weekend, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) vetoed Senate Bill 585 but signed Assembly Bill 962 into law.

SB585 would have prohibited the sale of firearms and ammunition on the property or inside the buildings that comprise the Cow Palace in Daly City, just outside of San Francisco. Simply put, SB585 was a stepping-stone to banning gun shows on all publicly-owned property in California.


Unfortunately, the Governor did sign AB962. This bill requires individuals purchasing ammunition be fingerprinted and registered at the time of sale, mandates that dealers keep these records and make them available for inspection by the California Department of Justice. Ammunition retailers would also have to store ammunition in such a manner that it would be inaccessible to purchasers. Finally, mail order ammunition sales are prohibited under AB962. Over twenty years ago, Congress abolished similar requirements because ammunition sales records were found to be useless for solving crimes. AB962 is a dire threat to our Second Amendment rights in the Golden State.


Thank you to all of the NRA members who answered the call in opposition to SB585.


Please contact Governor Schwarzenegger TODAY and respectfully voice your disapproval with his signing of AB962. The Governor can be reached by phone at 916-445-2841 or via fax at 916-558-3160. To email Governor Schwarzenegger, please visit http://gov.ca.gov/interact.


If you are unable to contact the Governor at the numbers listed above, you may also contact him at the following regional offices:

Fresno Office
2550 Mariposa Mall #3013
Fresno, CA 93721
Phone: 559-477-1804
Fax: 559-445-5328

Los Angeles Office
300 South Spring Street
Suite 16701
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Phone: 213-897-0322
Fax: 213-897-0319

Riverside Office
3737 Main Street #201
Riverside, CA 92501
Phone: 951-680-6860
Fax: 951-680-6863

San Diego Office
1350 Front Street
Suite 6054
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-525-4641
Fax: 619-525-4640

San Francisco Office
455 Golden Gate Avenue
Suite 14000
San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone: 415-703-2218
Fax: 415-703-2803

Washington D.C. Office
134 Hall of the States
444 North Capitol Street NW
Washington D.C. 20001
Phone: 202-624-5270
Fax: 202-624-5280

[Once A Marine]

Hey Marine--

Do both!

Roger that. I have 6K or so of 5.7 on hand, along with 2k of .308/7.62 - is that a good start?

[Thermallator]

CRPA FOUNDATION TO ASSIST IN LAWSUIT

CHALLENGING D.C. HANDGUN BAN SCHEME


The Calguns Foundation and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), along with three Washington, D.C. resident plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit on March 9 challenging a regulation by District of Columbia city government that arbitrarily bans handguns based on the roster of “acceptable” handguns approved by the State of California. In an unusual move, the DC government incorporated California law into its law, and decreed that only guns on the California approved list can be sold in DC.





http://www.crpa.org/dept.aspx?dept_id=08