Update on The California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale

In this post I took a look at the California DOJ Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale and tried to determine if the DOJ Roster was a creeping handgun ban. While I did not conclude that the DOJ Roster was the same as an outright ban, I did identify several limitations to my analysis:

And nothing on this chart indicates the number of handguns offered for sale in the United States, but that have not been approved by the DOJ, or the number of guns introduced in any given year that are available for sale outside of California that have not yet been approved, or that have never been submitted for approval.

 The Sacramento Bee published this article on December 30, 2009.  It describes how the new firearm microstamping law has gone into effect, and how the law will  discourage gun makers from introducing new semi-automatic pistols into the California market.  Since microstamping will be a newly required "safety feature", it is required on all new pistols sold in the state, but since the technology is not free of patent encumbrances, the law is deferred.

Some statistics about new handgun approvals in the state are cited in the article that would have been useful in my previous post bout the DOJ Roster:

The Department of Justice's Bureau of Firearms is charged with approving weapons for sale in California each year. From 2002 to 2006, the bureau approved 72 new semi-automatic pistols on average each year.

In 2007, a law took full effect mandating that new center-fire semi-automatic pistols include both a mechanism that prevents firing when the magazine is removed, as well as an indicator showing when a live round is in the gun chamber. Rim-fire semi-automatics must have the magazine disconnect device.

In three years, the Bureau of Firearms has approved only nine new semi-automatic weapons, including only one in 2008.

 I know from talking to pistol shooters that magazine disconnect devices are very unpopular.  Most people consider them a dangerous "feature" that could get you killed if you ever use a handgun in self-defense.  But it is the numbers of new pistols approved that I wish could have included in my previous article that I am interested in most.  An I know that there were more than one model of semi-automatic pistols introduced in the U.S. in 2008.

I wish I could find out how many.

But with so few pistols being approved, then I think that the Roster is indeed going to resemble a handgun ban, but one that will take years to develop.

Fontano Charged with a Misdemeanor

I have previously written on this story. Sherman Fontano foolishly openly carried his unloaded .357 magnum revolver into a school property and was arrested by San Jose police.

As reported today in the San Jose Mercury News, Fontano has been charged with a misdemeanor charge of possessing a firearm in a school zone. He will appear in court again on February 22.

As I wrote in my previous post, Mr. Fontano acted in ignorance of California firearms laws, and got himself in trouble as a result. All gun owners in California must follow our sometimes nonsensical gun laws closely to stay out of trouble.

Guns in National Parks - California

With all of the media coverage of this issue one would think that the bare facts of the legislation would have been published early and often. But as with other issues, the media usually does not include "facts" that might allow one to make their own decisions about the issues.

The law allowing firearms in National Parks was passed as an amendment to H.R. 627 the Credit Card Act of 2009, and may be found in Section 512 of the law. The relevant section of the law is this:

(b) Protecting the Right of Individuals To Bear arms in Units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System- The Secretary of the Interior shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm including an assembled or functional firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System if--

(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm; and

(2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System is located.

How does this affect California visitors to National Parks? While I am not a lawyer, every gun owner should be knowledgeable about the gun laws in the state, which are complex. A very good resource for this is "How to Own a Gun & Stay Out of Jail" by John Machtinger, who is a lawyer. Every gun owner in California should own a copy of this book and read it thoroughly.

My reading of the laws gives me this interpretation:

Gun owners may now possess their firearms in National Parks. If you are traveling in your vehicle all firearms must be unloaded, and handguns must be stored in a locked container. You may have loaded firearms in your campsite, however, if you are a backpacker, carrying your handgun, whether loaded or unloaded, is a violation of the concealed weapon law, unless you have a California CCW license. Open carry of a handgun may or may not be legal depending, I think, on the county. Open carry of a rifle or shotgun may indeed be legal, but since hunting in a National Park is not allowed, perhaps not. I do not know of a good resource for open carry in California, and would welcome a resource.

I think that more interpretation of California law will have to be made, and rules published to make this issue clear. At the current time the only things I will attempt with my firearms are traveling through a National Park (Highway 120 anyone?) and camping in a site reachable by motor vehicle.

In any case, do not try this until the law comes into effect, which in Section 3 is "9 months after the date of enactment of this Act, except as otherwise specifically provided in this Act".

Mixon Shootings: How Many Laws Did He Violate?

I read this article at Have Gun Will Vote John Caile gets to the heart of one issue with the tragic killings of four officers in Oakland, CA this weekend: gun control does not work.

I thought about it and realized that he was right on track because I thought about the laws that were broken to provide Lovelle Mixon with the firearms he used to kill the four officers. I have reason to know about these laws because I became a legal handgun owner myself, and I would not have believed the hoops a law abiding citizen must go through to purchase a firearm, unless it is the care that citizen must take after purchase to use in in a legal manner.

Firearm Purchase

Mixon got his guns and ammunition somewhere, probably purchased on the black market. But he was a convicted felon, so it was illegal for him to possess firearms and ammunition. It was also illegal for the person how sold the firearms to provide them to a felon.

Mixon: illegal possession of firearms: 2 counts, illegal possession of ammunition, 2 counts.
Seller: illegal transfer of firearm and ammunition to a felon: 4 counts.

Firearms Use:

Mixon was stopped in his car by patrol officers. He had a loaded weapon concealed in his car. This is at least a violation of the loaded weapon law, and the concealed weapon law: 2 more felonies.

Finally, police reported that mixon had an assault weapon in the apartment where he was cornered. Possession of an assault weapon is a separate violation. If the apartment was not Mixon's, and the rifle was in a public space like a closet or in the living room, the renter of the apartment coild be charged with possession of the same rifle.

So, here we have it, by my count the laws violated:

Illegal Sale: 2
Possession: 4
Concealed Weapon: 1
Loaded Weapon: 1
Assault Weapon 1

Total: 9 laws broken, none of which had any effect on the outcome.

Looks like all of the gun control is really working well, so why not pile on some more?

AB 962 - Internet Ammunition Sales to be Made Illegal?

Will purchases of ammunition over the Internet become illegal in this state? It certainly seems so if Assembly Bill 962 becomes law.

What this law proposes is, after July 1 2010, to make sales of handgun ammunition regulated. They would have to occur in a face-to-face transaction, and certain information would have to be collected by the vendor, and records maintained by the vendor.

Vendors would also have to obtain a license to sell handgun ammunition.

Information to be collected are

(3) Commencing July 1, 2010, a vendor shall not sell or otherwise
transfer ownership of any handgun ammunition without at the time of
delivery legibly recording the following information on a form that
is in a format to be prescribed by the department:
(A) The date of the sale or other transaction.
(B) The purchaser's or transferee's driver's license or other
identification number and the state in which it was issued.
(C) The brand, type, and amount of ammunition sold or otherwise
transferred.
(D) The purchaser's or transferee's signature.
(E) The name of the salesperson who processed the sale or other
transaction.
(F) The right thumbprint of the purchaser or transferee on the
above form.
(G) The purchaser's or transferee's full residential address and
telephone number.
(H) The purchaser's or transferee's date of birth.

The bill also states that the transaction must be made face-to-face:

SEC. 6. Section 12318 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
12318. (a) Commencing July 1, 2010, the sale or other transfer of
ownership of handgun ammunition may only occur in a face-to-face
transaction with the seller or transferor being provided bona fide
evidence of identity from the purchaser or other transferee.

It seems to me that these requirements would make sales of ammunition over the internet illegal, even though such sales are not specifically mentioned in the bill. It is certain that at a minimum this will cause the price of ammunition to rise even further, and probably not make a dent in crime, since a black market in ammunition will undoubtedly arise.

The authors of this bill are Kevin De Leon (D - 45th District) and Bonnie Lowenthal (D - 54th District).

This bill is scheduled to be read in committee on March 29th, 2009, and it would seem to be one we need to keep an eye on.

What is the Militia of the United States?

Anti-gun advocates always contend that the Militia is the same as the National Guard in support of a collective right interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. This is view is only half-way correct. Title 10, Section 311 of the United States Code defines the militia:

TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES

Subtitle A--General Military Law

PART I--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

CHAPTER 13--THE MILITIA

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are--

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.