by Jack
According to industry sources, firearms dealers in California are being told by Colt that many of their pistols are going to fall off the roster of “approved” handguns for sale in the state within the next 60 days due to a change in manufacturing.
In order to make doing business in California extremely difficult for firearms manufacturers, democrats have layered the import system with red tape and redundant, but costly testing of firearms to be sold within the state.
Not only must all imported firearms comply with arbitrary design changes made mandatory by this state, but all manufacturers must supply test firearms and pay for the testing on them, to insure safety. This is repeated by CA even though the manufacturer has already done this in their quality control department and submitted the same firearms to the federal bureau of A.T.F. for safety certification.
There is simply no good reason why this process should be repeated a 3rd time, except that it is another tool used to obstruct the sale of firearms in California, albeit under the guise of “safety.”
This is a fraudulent and underhanded method to deprive citizens of their Constitutional rights on several levels, first is a restraint of trade and it also it violates the 2nd amendment, a citizens right to bear arms. But, this is nothing new for these reprehensible democrat legislators. They have long violated a citizens property rights by a blanket imposition of an arbitrary “10 day waiting period” before a citizen can pick up the property (a firearm) they lawfully purchased and were back grounded to recieve, even though they may even be police officer or a licensed person, legally allowed to carry a concealed firearm.
If CA blocks the sale of Colt’s model 1911 .45 cal semi-auto, they will be blocking the most sold pistol in the entire United States. The 1911 design is time tested long before WWI. Further, it was extensively tested and approved by every branch of the military and its been carried into war no less than 6 times over the last 94 years! It’s a favorite weapon of CA law enforcement and civilian shooters too. How could the State of CA think they could get away with such a travesty? No weapon in history has had more testing! Do they really think the people are that stupid and timid that they could do this to them? Apparently so.
According to Cal Guns – In 2014 A federal court found the 10 day waiting period did violate the US Constitution, however, AG Camilla Harris, a notorious San Francisco gun grabber, filed an appeal with the US Supreme Court and that case is still pending.
Here are the shameful details of Ca attempt to deprive citizens of their Constitutional rights: “In the decision released this morning, Federal Eastern District of California Senior Judge Anthony W. Ishii, appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton, found that “the 10-day waiting periods of Penal Code [sections 26815(a) and 27540(a)] violate the Second Amendment” as applied to members of certain classifications, like Silvester and Combs, and “burdens the Second Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs.”
“This is a great win for Second Amendment civil rights and common sense,” said Jeff Silvester, the named individual plaintiff. “I couldn’t be happier with how this case turned out.”
Under the court order, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) must change its systems to accommodate the unobstructed release of guns to gun buyers who pass a background check and possess a California license to carry a handgun, or who hold a “Certificate of Eligibility” issued by the DOJ and already possess at least one firearm known to the state.
Additionally, Judge Ishii said that the defendant, California Attorney General Kamala Harris, had to “show that the 10-day waiting period either falls outside the scope of Second Amendment protections as historically understood or fits within one of several categories of longstanding regulations that are preemptively lawful.” The State of California failed in that exercise.
Yes, California has indeed failed in that exercise and failed as an honest broker of the US Constitution too – need I bring up all of California’s sanctuary cities to underscore my point?
BTW, Colt is not the only one.
Another re-post—
I was a fully licensed gun dealer (FFL) in California for 22 years. I gave it up in 2012 and went to work for another shop. The administrative overhead just wasn’t worth it anymore. Here is some historical perspective.
The original handgun safety test bruha started when AG Bill Lockyear decided to go after what was referred to as the “Ring of Fire” gun makers in southern California (SB 15, Palanco, 1999). These were in-expensive guns made by Phoenix, Raven, and Lorcin, among others. The premise was that there were “unsafe” handguns being sold to the public that could fall apart, suffer catastrophic failure on firing, or fire when dropped. If this were the case, they would never have gotten past the BATF. The political strategy was to use testing as a way to put these companies out of business. To my knowledge, none of the guns tested failed the drop test.
In February of 2001, Phoenix was told to cease manufacture of their HP 22, a 3-inch barrel 22 caliber semi-auto, because a test gun malfunctioned more than six times during the 600 round firing test. Sorry, but a malfunction (failure to feed, failure to eject, etc.) does not by itself make a gun “unsafe”. That is a quality control issue.
It is my understanding that gun manufacturers are required to submit three samples of each model they want tested for California, to the point of absurdity. For example, the Smith and Wesson model 686 revolver is offered in both 4″ and 6″ barrels. The mechanical lock work in each gun is identical, but California wants six guns to test, plus the testing fees, plus 600 rounds of ammo for each test. Get the picture? It is not up to the state which guns models are submitted for testing, it is up to the manufacturers how many models from their product line they are willing to pay for. And, there is an annual fee to keep each tested model on the certified list.
To date, guns that are currently on the list are “grandfathered” and not subject to new “safety” laws. Current law requires (among other things) that each new semi-auto pistol added to the list must have a “loaded chamber indicator”. It’s a load alright. Each of us is born with two loaded chamber indicators in our head and five more on each hand. All this is covered by Jeff Cooper’s “Four Rules of Gun Safety.” Google it. Read it. Rinse. Repeat.
And the best for last. LEO’s (Law Enforcement Officers) are exempt. They can buy whatever they like. On its face, I have no problem at all with this. However, I do have an issue with 1) equality under the law, and 2) If the premise of this whole program is that there are “unsafe” handguns manufactured, then what?—we don’t care if these “unsafe” handguns are sold to the good people whose very lives depend on them every day? Seriously? Or is this whole thing just a crock to extort money and put the screws to potential gun owners?
P.S. My oldest son is picking me up this a.m., after which we will be headed here—
http://www.aubreyturner.org/gunshows/venue/will-rogers-center/
Re : There is simply no good reason why this process should be repeated a 3rd time, except that it is another tool used to obstruct the sale of firearms in California, albeit under the guise of “safety.”
This is a fraudulent and underhanded method to deprive citizens of their Constitutional rights on several levels, first is a restraint of trade and it also it violates the 2nd amendment, a citizens right to bear arms. But, this is nothing new for these reprehensible democrat legislators.
—
Precisely.
I wouldn’t put it past the state of California to enact any dumb-@$$ed law or regulation. The control freaks are in charge of the whole shebang. I wonder what the toal bill for defending our gun rights would be over the last 20 years. Probably enough to fund a few wars at least…or repair the nations infrastructure.
RHT, I am envious …. Texas gun shows. There’s been so many deals on fine used hand guns that I’ve found either in Texas or Arizona, but I could not legally buy here in CA. it is frustrating. You made a smart move when you went to Texas.