Heller Part II

[Bombard]

Originally Posted by THE Gimper

Also, since CA requires certain features (such as magazine release safety) it requires that manufacturers either a) spend extra money to design in that feature that wouldn't otherwise be necessary, or b) spend extra money to design a California version of the gun specifically to meet the requirement.

I'm thinking of manufacturers that actually already have guns that would pass. Seecamp isn't submitting his .380 because he's told that having exposed brass isn't enough of a loaded chamber indicator. Kahr isn't submitting the PM45, he figures it's too much work and he sells all he can make anyway.

But I agree, there are many guns that are clearly safe, and yet cannot be approved. The most significant is the O frame. We are now stuck in a technological dead end, even if improvements are made the cannot be incorporated into guns that are grandfathered in, that would make for a change in model, and the new model can't be approved.

[libertarian]

Originally Posted by Bombard

I'm thinking of manufacturers that actually already have guns that would pass. Seecamp isn't submitting his .380 because he's told that having exposed brass isn't enough of a loaded chamber indicator. Kahr isn't submitting the PM45, he figures it's too much work and he sells all he can make anyway.

But I agree, there are many guns that are clearly safe, and yet cannot be approved. The most significant is the O frame. We are now stuck in a technological dead end, even if improvements are made the cannot be incorporated into guns that are grandfathered in, that would make for a change in model, and the new model can't be approved.

I think it's actually a ban already, in effect. I've heard that since the last set of requirements, where LCI and mag disc are both required, no really 'new' guns have been approved because DOJ hasn't identified ANY LCI they consider 'adequate.' The ones that have come in are getting in as 'slight modifications of approved designs.'

[sholling]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

and that a handgun has to pass a fairly REASONABLE (for now at least) safety test and I don't see the Courts getting involved in that, as there are LOTS and LOTS of guns one can own from dozens of makes representing every type from single action revolvers to modern semi autos... I think both would survive a "Strict Scrutiny" challenge.

Perhaps I'm wrong but I see this as an unconstitutional restraint of interstate trade and the fee for inclusion in the list as a form of tariff. Now perhaps if it were free... Am I off base? While you or I as mere citizens might not have standing wouldn't a firearms manufacturer be able to challenge the ban on that basis? Especially now that access to firearms may be as constitutionally protected as access to printing presses. It would make an interesting argument.

[CCWInstructor]

Originally Posted by sholling

Perhaps I'm wrong but I see this as an unconstitutional restraint of interstate trade and the fee for inclusion in the list as a form of tariff. Now perhaps if it were free... Am I off base? While you or I as mere citizens might not have standing wouldn't a firearms manufacturer be able to challenge the ban on that basis? Especially now that access to firearms may be as constitutionally protected as access to printing presses. It would make an interesting argument.

It would be viewed as a "reasonable restriction".

[ADIDAS]

Maybe I am naive, but is it possible that the courts may view DC's. actions as contempt and really hammer them.

I mean, if the SCOTUS ruling is ignored, how about the rest of court orders?

Adidas

[NSP]

I can see that this is a clear act against the court. Why do they have to take it back to court? Supreme court defines law and they are directly breaking the law, where the eff is the law enforcement.

[sholling]

Originally Posted by CCWInstructor

It would be viewed as a "reasonable restriction".

Possibly, possibly not. But that does not address the interstate tariff issue. And that does not even get into the civil rights can of worms opened by requiring "features" that add so much to the cost that it prices a civil right out of the reach of mere common citizens. Think pole tax. There is also room for action based on arbitrary and capricious standards. For example how was the number 10 chosen when capacities of 15 are common. What makes 10 plus a reload safer and better than 11 in a mag? I see lots of room for challenges now that we are talking about a newly rediscovered enumerated right.

[RomanDad]

Originally Posted by sholling

Possibly, possibly not. But that does not address the interstate tariff issue. And that does not even get into the civil rights can of worms opened by requiring "features" that add so much to the cost that it prices a civil right out of the reach of mere common citizens. Think pole tax. There is also room for action based on arbitrary and capricious standards. For example how was the number 10 chosen when capacities of 15 are common. What makes 10 plus a reload safer and better than 11 in a mag? I see lots of room for challenges now that we are talking about a newly rediscovered enumerated right.

Certainly there are room for challenges, and I wouldnt dissuade anybody from bringing any....

However, a healthy dose of reality is in order with this one. The interference with interstate commerce argument is far from absolute. The states MAINTAIN sovereignty when it comes to POLICE POWERS, i.e. Health & safety matters, so long as those powers are exercised in reasonable ways. I personally think the Cal safe handgun list AS CURRENTLY ADMINISTERED, walks a VERY TIGHT balance between violating the second amendment and interstate commerce as its NOT UNREASONABLE for a state to regulate DEFECTIVE firearms. That is, firearms that are designed to operate without sufficient safety features to ensure they work ONLY AS DESIGNED, and don't work by accident. Which under the California system is what we have right now....

If it were someday implemented in such a way (and its possible that that day may be right around the corner) that the number of legal guns for sale in California became unreasonably low (much lower than it is now), and acted as a defacto ban or near ban that effected market forces by establishing monopolies, the law would be struck down.

[RomanDad]

Originally Posted by NSP

I can see that this is a clear act against the court. Why do they have to take it back to court? Supreme court defines law and they are directly breaking the law, where the eff is the law enforcement.

We're a few procedures away from that....

[8-Ball]

I've read this thread and the microstamping law comes to mind. If manufacturers decide not to offer a CA model, or if the cost of such a feature makes the gun unreachable for the average citizen, then wouldn't the MS law be subject to scrutiny?

[RomanDad]

Originally Posted by 8-Ball

I've read this thread and the microstamping law comes to mind. If manufacturers decide not to offer a CA model, or if the cost of such a feature makes the gun unreachable for the average citizen, then wouldn't the MS law be subject to scrutiny?

Yep.

[CCWInstructor]

Originally Posted by 8-Ball

I've read this thread and the microstamping law comes to mind. If manufacturers decide not to offer a CA model, or if the cost of such a feature makes the gun unreachable for the average citizen, then wouldn't the MS law be subject to scrutiny?

Mike,

That law will not take effect. The law states the technology must be unencumbered. A patent has the technology tied up.

Greg

[8-Ball]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

Yep.

Originally Posted by CCWInstructor

Mike,

That law will not take effect. The law states the technology must be unencumbered. A patent has the technology tied up.

Greg

Interesting... seems like it was a waste of time and money to pass it.

Thanks.

[NikNak]

Originally Posted by 8-Ball

Interesting... seems like it was a waste of time and money to pass it.

Thanks.

Never underestimate the power of your politicks to waste your tax$$$$

I foresee the Hi-Cap ban, the "list" and the AWB going away in time, but it will be a few years. At least we have Heller as a baseline. I can't wait for Heller II, or III where he open carries, or CCWs in DC.