fbpx
Oklahoma's Headquarters for Guns & Gear

Tag: <span>California</span>

California gun control bill SB 916 contains a requirement that manufacturers of guns that have fallen off California’s “roster of handguns that have been determined not to be unsafe” pay a fee to the CA Department of Justice in order to be added to the list again.

Currently, if a gun falls off the roster the manufacturer addresses whatever changes are needed and petitions the state Attorney General “for reinstatement and successful retesting.”

According to FlashReport.org, SB 916 changes the law by putting forth these requirements, among others:

1. The manufacturer petitions the Attorney General for reinstatement of the handgun

2. The manufacturer pays the Department of Justice for all the costs of the reinstatement…

3. The three handgun samples shall only be tested once for reinstatement. If the samples fail it may not be retested.

4. The manufacturer shall provide the Attorney General with the complete testing history for the handgun model.

SB 916 also leaves open the option that that Attorney General may be able to randomly test any gun that has already been reinstated to the roster – seemingly to give that pistol one more opportunity to malfunction or fail to meet reinstatement requirements.

8digit_NanoTest

NEWTOWN, Conn. – The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI) have filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on behalf of their members against the State of California in Fresno Superior Court to prevent enforcement of the state’s microstamping law. The state statute enacted in 2007, but not made effective until May 2013, requires that all semiautomatic handguns sold in the state not already on the California approved handgun roster incorporate unproven and unreliable microstamping technology.

Under this law, firearms manufacturers would have to micro laser-engrave a gun’s make, model and serial number on two distinct parts of each handgun, including the firing pin so that, in theory, this information would be imprinted on the cartridge casing when the pistol is fired.

“There is no existing microstamping technology that meets the requirement of this ill-considered law. It is not technologically possible to microstamp two locations in the gun and have the required information imprint onto the cartridge casing. In addition, the current state of the technology cannot reliably, consistently and legibly imprint on the cartridge primer the required identifying information from the tip of the firing pin, the only possible location where it is possible to micro-laser engrave the information, said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel.

“The holder of the patent for this technology himself has written that there are problems with it and that further study is warranted before it is mandated. A National Academy of Science review, forensic firearms examiners and a University of California at Davis study reached the same conclusion and the technical experts in the firearms industry agree,” Keane said. “Manufacturers cannot comply with a law the provisions of which are invalid, that cannot be enforced and that will not contribute to improving public safety. Today, we are seeking injunctive relief against this back-door attempt to prevent the sale of new or upgraded semiautomatic handguns to law-abiding citizens in California.”

In 2007, California Assembly Bill 1471 was passed and signed into law requiring microstamping on internal parts of new semiautomatic pistols. The legislation provided that this requirement would only became effective if the California Department of Justice certified that the microstamping technology is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by patent restrictions. The California legislature subsequently reorganized certain statutes concerning the regulation of firearms, including the microstamping law in 2010. On May 17, 2013, Attorney General Kamala D. Harris provided such certification.

Smith & Wesson and Sturm Ruger have separately announced that they would no longer be selling new or improved semiautomatic handgun models in California because of the impossibility of complying with the new law.

See additional Fast Facts backgrounder on Microstamping from NSSF.

http://nssf.org/factsheets/PDF/Microstamping.pdf

NSSF: We Wish We Never Knew Yee

The news stunned those who follow politics and government in California. The FBI is charging State Sen. Leland Yee with conspiracy to traffic in firearms and public corruption as part of a major investigation centered in San Francisco, the city he represents. Term limited from running again for what had been his safe state Senate seat, the arrest ends Yee’s quest to become California secretary of state.

Yee is alleged to have met on several occasions with an undercover FBI agent, soliciting campaign contributions in return for setting up a sale with international arms dealers. This is the same Yee who sponsored numerous pieces of anti-gun legislation that have seriously infringed the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding California citizens.

Specifically, Yee is charged with conspiracy to traffic in firearms and to illegally import firearms, as well as six counts of attempting to defraud citizens. Each corruption count is punishable by up to 20 years in federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000, while conviction on the gun-trafficking count could mean five years in federal prison and another $250,000 fine.

Federal prosecutors should throw the book at Yee and his co-conspirators, including well-known Chinatown gangsters among them the infamous Raymond “Shrimp Boy” Chow  One incredulous California newspaper  reported, “The charges are particularly shocking given that Yee has been among the state Senate’s most outspoken advocates both of gun control and of good-government initiatives.” Good start, but there’s more involved here than Olympic-level hypocrisy, fooling the voters and hoodwinking political reporters.

We are reminded of the concept strongly held by our founding fathers, but perhaps best expressed by John Adams that “the only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”

Yee endangered the public liberty while simultaneously endangering the public safety.  Indeed, history shows that the two are inextricably linked. There are many who well understand that the exercise of our right to keep and bear arms helps to ensure our liberty while enhancing our safety. This connection is little appreciated in the State Capitol in Sacramento, however, where short-term politics and theatrics intended to impress low-information voters prevail.

One can debate whether power corrupts or it is the power that attracts the corruptible.  Both propositions are true.  So, we will henceforth remember that Leland Yee once corruptly wielded power and freely exercised undue influence over citizens while secretly plotting with criminals.

For our part, we will work proudly with those citizens seeking to restore their Constitutional rights in the Golden State through the courts and at the polls.  Alas, that inevitably means a struggle against those “with the power to endanger the public liberty.”

In a major decision today, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that California’s “good cause” requirement for handgun carry licenses violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In May 2009, during a short period when the federal Second Amendment legally applied to California through the Ninth Circuit’s Nordyke v. King decision, civil rights attorneys Alan Gura and Donald Kilmer filed a federal right-to-carry lawsuit against Sacramento County’s then-sheriff John McGinness and Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto on behalf of The Calguns Foundation (CGF), the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and a number of individual plaintiffs. That lawsuit, then named Sykes v. McGinness, challenged the California statutes requiring “good cause” and “good moral character” as facially unconstitutional. The Sykescase also challenged the two sheriffs’ local policies as unconstitutional “as-applied” to the individual plaintiffs’ facts. Sacramento County eventually settled out of the lawsuit by agreeing to implement a “shall-issue” policy; the case continued against Yolo County and Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto as Richards v. Prieto.

Months after the Sykes case was filed, a lawsuit that replicated the CGF/SAF lawsuit was filed in San Diego County by Mr. Edward Peruta. Thankfully, the National Rifle Association intervened in the Peruta matter, adding new plaintiffs and significant resources to the case’s legal team including noted civil rights law firm Michel & Associates as well as former Solicitor General Paul Clement. The Peruta case result today is due in large part to the strength of the arguments mirrored from the Sykes lawsuit as well as the excellent legal work by Michel & Associates and Mr. Clement.

Though the Richards and Peruta cases were heard by the same three judge Ninth Circuit panel on the same day, the Court has only released its opinion on the Peruta matter so far. We look forward to the Court’s Richards decision and continuing our efforts to ensure that all law-abiding Californians have an accessible way to fully exercise their right to bear arms for self-defense.

The Calguns Foundation thanks the National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Michel & Associates, and Mr. Paul Clement for their fantastic work to advance the fundamental Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and congratulates them on their very important victory for all law-abiding Californians.

For more on these cases and the legal status of the right to bear arms (carry) in California, please visit http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/carry.

Logo courtesy The Calguns Foundation

SW
Smith & Wesson Corp. announced today that although it continually seeks ways to refine and improve its firearms so that consumers have access to the best possible products, the State of California is making that impossible when it comes to California residents.

Under California’s “Unsafe Handgun Act,” any new semi-automatic pistol introduced into that state must comply with microstamping laws. In addition, California asserts that anything other than a cosmetic change to a handgun already on the California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale, including performance enhancements and other improvements, requires it to be removed from the roster and retested. For semi-automatic pistols, this means it must comply with the microstamping requirements, as well.

Smith & Wesson does not and will not include microstamping in its firearms. A number of studies have indicated that microstamping is unreliable, serves no safety purpose, is cost prohibitive and, most importantly, is not proven to aid in preventing or solving crimes. The microstamping mandate and the company’s unwillingness to adopt this so-called technology will result in a diminishing number of Smith & Wesson semi-automatic pistols available for purchase by California residents.

This is not a problem unique to Smith & Wesson. The microstamping legislation and California’s position regarding performance enhancements and other improvements creates the same challenge for all firearm manufacturers, since presumably all of them refine and improve their products over time.

Smith & Wesson currently produces a California-compliant version of its M&P® Shield and SDVE™ pistols. Both of these new products were launched last week at SHOT Show® in Las Vegas and are expected to begin shipping within 90 days. They are expected to more than offset the impact of those M&P pistol models that will not remain on the Roster. Both the M&P Shield and the SDVE pistols are expected to remain on the California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale as long as no changes are made to those models and the company does not plan to make changes to them for this reason. All other Smith & Wesson handguns are at risk of eventually falling off the roster over time. The company expects that any current production revolvers that fall off will be re-tested and returned to the roster, since microstamping does not apply to revolvers. Without some change in position by California, however, any semi-automatic pistols (other than the California-compliant models referenced above) that are removed from the roster will not be returned and law-abiding citizens will not be permitted to buy them from a licensed dealer in California.

James Debney, Smith & Wesson President & CEO, said, “As our products fall off the roster due to California’s interpretation of the Unsafe Handgun Act, we will continue to work with the NRA and the NSSF to oppose this poorly conceived law which mandates the unproven and unreliable concept of microstamping and makes it impossible for Californians to have access to the best products with the latest innovations. At the same time, we will do our best to support our customers in California with state-compliant products, enabling them access to at least a portion of the firearms to which we believe all citizens are entitled. In these challenging times, we hope you will support Smith & Wesson, and all gun manufacturers, in our fight to make the Unsafe Handgun Act about safety. We also encourage you to support the NSSF’s lawsuit and other efforts to stop microstamping, before it impacts your Constitutional rights.”

Unless California changes its position, all M&P pistols other than the M&P Shield, will fall off the roster by August, 2014, due to performance enhancements and other improvements we have made to those firearms. This includes the M&P9c, which has fallen off already and several other M&P models that will fall off by the end of this month. Other models already have fallen off and will continue to fall off for the same reason. Visithttp://oag.ca.gov/sites/oag.ca.gov/files/pdfs/firearms/removed.pdf each week for a list published by the California Department of Justice of the handguns no longer on the roster.

California firearms dealers should check the official California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale frequently, to determine which handguns are certified for sale in California. This list can be found athttp://certguns.doj.ca.gov/.

Anti-Gun Senator Makes a Fool of Himself

Rabidly anti-gun CA State Senator Kevin de Leon (a Democrat from Los Angeles) made a real fool of himself at a press conference for his new gun control bill when he demonstrated both his command of the English language and the extent of his firearms knowledge.

Watch the full video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI6eE_FAwao

Advocates gather to spark a California recall election.
Advocates gather to spark a California recall election.
California gun owners are making a push to get back at those lawmakers who sold their Second Amendment rights down the river by endorsing various gun control measures that Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law earlier this month.
At a rally on Thursday, advocates from Gun Owners of California gathered on the steps of the state Capitol building to announce a recall effort against vulnerable pro-gun politicians.
“Every single assemblyman and state senator swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution,” Assemblyman Tim Donnelly (R-Twin Peaks), who is helping to lead the call to action, told theSacramento Bee. “And when they violate that oath by trying to erase the Second Amendment, then I think we have a duty” to “remove that threat.”
The impetus to hold lawmakers accountable comes on the heels of a successful recall campaign in Colorado where two Colorado state senators were ousted for supporting laws that require background checks for private transfers or gun sales, including those made over the Internet and at gun shows, and a ban magazines that hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition.
The leader of the Colorado grassroots recall movement Tim Knight attended the event along with Sam Paredes of Gun Owners of California. Both men spoke about the fight ahead.
“Since the governor’s action in signing the bills and vetoing bills, we have been inundated with calls and emails, communications with people all over the state of California asking us, what are we going to do about this?” Paredes said, adding that “the recall is one way to send a message: if you continue to do this, we’re going to continue to fight.”
According to Jennifer Kerns, a Donnelly aid, the recall movement will target the following lawmakers: Sens. Norma Torres and Ben Hueso, Assemblywomen Lorena Gonzalez, Sharon Quirk-Silva and Speaker John A. Pérez, each of whom supported the gun control measures Brown signed into law. Those bills include:

– AB48 makes it illegal to purchase the parts necessary to convert guns into assault-style weapons and requires people selling or transferring ammunition to record the identification of the buyer and report the sale to the state Department of Justice.
– SB683 will require people who buy rifles and shotguns to first pass a written firearm safety test and obtain a certificate, just like the buyers of handguns must.
– AB500 allows the Department of Justice to extend the waiting time to purchase a firearm if a background check can’t be completed within 10 days.
– AB170 requires assault weapon permits to be issued to individuals, rather than to partnerships, corporations or other groups.
– AB1131 extends from six months to five years the period during which a person who threatens violence is prohibited from purchasing a firearm.
– SB127 requires licensed psychotherapists to disclose to local law enforcement within 24 hours the identity of a person who threatens violence against a reasonably identifiable person.
– AB711 a bill that will ban hunting in the state with lead ammunition by 2019.

Meanwhile, California Democratic Party spokesman Tenoch Flores said that the recall movement is nothing more than a publicity stunt.
“This initiative is designed with one purpose in mind and it isn’t to recall any members of the legislature,” Flores said. “It’s a ploy to boost Tim Donnelly’s upstart campaign for governor.”

Less-toxic bullets and shot will be required by July 2019 in bid to protect wildlife, the environment and hunters’ health.

In a move to protect wildlife and the environment, California on Friday became the first state to ban lead in hunting ammunition.
The measure, signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown, phases out lead bullets and shot by July 2019, with regulations due by July 2015.
“Lead poses a danger to wildlife. This danger has been known for a long time,” Brown wrote in a signing message, noting that a leading conservation wrote about lead poisoning in 1984. The federal government banned lead ammunition from waterfowl hunting in 1991.
The measure expands an earlier ban on lead hunting ammunition in California condor habitat. The new law covers all wildlife, including “game mammals, game birds, nongame birds and nongame mammals” such as coyotes.
“The risks to California’s incredibly diverse wildlife are many,” Brown wrote. “We must manage our state’s wildlife for the use and enjoyment of all Californians. It is time to begin this transition and provide hunters with ammunition that will allow them to continue the conservation heritage of California.”
Brown noted changes to the legislation that “better protect the hunting community,” including authorizing the state’s Fish & Wildlife director to suspend the ban if the federal government outlaws nonlead ammunition because it can pierce armor.
Supporters also said the ban would protect the health of hunters and their families.
“Switching to nontoxic lead ammunition will save the lives of eagles, condors and thousands of other birds every year – and, importantly, will keep hunters and their families from being exposed to toxic lead,” the Center for Biological Diversity said in astatement.
But the organization representing state game wardens had urged Brown to veto the lead ban.
“California Game Wardens are on the front line enforcing the ban on lead ammunition for most hunting in condor range. But there is insufficient data to justify such a drastic action across the entire state,” the association’s leadership wrote in aletter to the governor.
The bill was one of 11 gun-regulation measures the Democratic governor signed.
But Brown vetoed seven other firearms bills introduced in response to the Connecticut school massacre last December. The most controversial sought to ban the manufacture, sale and importation of semiautomatic combat-style rifles with detachable magazines.
“I don’t believe that this bill’s blanket ban on semiautomatic rifles would reduce criminal activity or enhance public safety enough to warrant this infringement on gun owners’ rights,” Brown wrote in veto message. He said the bill applied to “low-capacity rifles that are commonly used for hunting, firearms training and marksmanship practice, as well as some historical and collectible firearms.”
The measure would have also required current owners to register their weapons and would have prohibited them from selling or transferring them.
Noting that gun violence had killed more than 1,100 Californians since the the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, a Democrat representing Sacramento, said he sponsored “because I believe aggressive action is precisely what’s needed to reduce the carnage in our communities, and to counter the equally aggressive action by the gun industry which is intent on exploiting loopholes in our existing ban on assault weapons.”
Brown also rejected legislation to allow Oakland to draft stricter gun regulations and to let San Francisco and San Mateo County supervisors ban gun shows.

Call Now ButtonCall Us Now