Something Feral

Digging up the flower-beds.


Friday, May 1, 2009

Endeavoring to persevere

Are you gonna pull those pistol-bans or whistle Dixie?
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.”
Let me be brief in my analysis: the California Department of Justice can die in a fire for their "approved list", and I hope they choke on the ashes of their paperwork, cursing their mouth-breathing socialist overlords.

I am truly weary of this state being the laughing-stock of the nation.
By what power does the federal government operate? By the power of the sovereigns who chartered it. Arbitrary power exists nowhere in a free republic.

- Thomas Jefferson

4 comments:

Erik said...

I have a list of "approved" firearms for self defense. Its somewhat complicated so bear with me...

The following handguns are banned for self defense usage, subject to penalty of being beaten over the head with a large stick:
.17HMR
.22 (any)
The following are banned, subject to penalty of being slapped upside the head:
.32
.380

All other calibers are hereby approved for self defense with the exception of the .500 S&W Magnum unless one is being attacked by a rampaging elephant.

MikeT said...

Department of Justice is right up there with Ministry of Love and Ministry of Truth.

Something Feral said...

For the curious, here's the list of firearms that are "acceptable". The Ministry of Justice is known for giving multiple answers to questions about legality of certain firearms (much like the BATFE), and they'll not be held responsible for wrong answers.

This is from a related story:

According to Gura, the District bases its list of approved handguns on the California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale. Hanson’s Springfield XD-45 was on the government’s approved roster of guns, but hers was black and silver, the attorney said.

The law only permits that Springfield model if it’s one of the approved colors: black, green or brown, Gura said. "[H]er bitone version is supposedly 'unsafe.’ ”

Ugh.

Hopefully this scoots through the legal-system like a greased pig with swine-flu: no one can catch it, and they're fighting to stay away from it...

Better yet, a rampaging elephant with swine-flu. Maybe we can arrange something with a Mexican zoo, and they can drop it off in Washington D.C. as a "pachy-gram" from the minority party, with a card reading:

"WHERE IS YOUR .500S&W NOW? HAHA!"

Triton said...

They ban based on colour scheme? Good grief...