1911 Pistol is "Unsafe" for California

I have written before about the California Department of Justice Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale, concluding that this system was not a creeping handgun ban based on the information I could get at the time, which was simply the total number of guns on the list.

My method ignored the types of new guns that were being approved, the types expiring and being removed, and the types newly approved and added.  Just last month many new guns were added, but most are classified as derringers, but only one semi-automatic pistol.  I have yet to find a list of new semi-automatic pistol models that have been introduced in the United States firearms market, but I suspect that it is more than the handful of pistols added to the Roster in recent years.

The most common culprit cited is the California requirement that all new pistols be equipment with a magazine disconnect mechanism, a device that prevents the pistol from discharging when the magazine is absent from the magazine well.  Most pistol manufacturers either refuse to market pistols with these devices, or their designs cannot accommodate a magazine disconnect.

Now we come to a new pistol offered for sale by Remington, the Model 1911 R1, Remington's entry into the ever more popular G.I. .45 pistol market.  This pistol is pretty much a copy of the Colt 1911A1 pistol used by the U.S. military for over 80 years, and it is one of the most popular pistol models in the United States.  But this pistol will never be available in California, because this pistol does not have a magazine disconnect feature, and is therefore "unsafe".

Note that my own Kimber Custom II also lacks a magazine disconnect, and is just as "unsafe" as the new Remington gun, but the Custom II was certified for sale before the magazine disconnect requirement, and so that model is "grandfathered in"  and will remain certified as long as Kimber maintains the listing by paying the yearly fee.

But note the arbitrariness of this law: very similar guns, one "new", one old, but both are very similar to each other, but one is declared "unsafe".  The net effect is that one model of gun is banned from the California market.

The roster is beginning to look more and more like a creeping handgun ban.  I just wish I had more industry data to support it.

Arizona SB 1070 and Hipocracy from the Left

There has been a large outcry of protest against Arizona's newly passed SB 1070.  According to many more knowledgeable about Federal law than myself, the Arizona's law largely mirrors the text of Federal law, making these crimes state crimes that will be enforced by state law enforcement agencies.

But if the new law is racist, as the protesters claim, then why is not the Federal law also racist, and why haven't the protesters rallied against the Federal laws as well?

Perhaps the reason is that Arizona laws are now likely to be enforced by the state of Arizona, rather than ignored by the United States.  To paraphrase Forrest Gump:

"Racist is as racists does, sir!"

Don't Blame Proposition 13

I have maintained for years that people blaming California's broken state government on Proposition 13 were flat wrong.  We don't have a taxation crisis in California, we have a spending crisis.  Our legislature never wants to cut any government program, and Californians evidently have never met a bond measure that they would not approve.

A new article by William Voegeli, Don't Blame Proposition 13,  confirms everything I have maintained about the effect Proposition 13 had on state government: the root of our problems lies elsewhere.  My favorite quote:

Property-tax revenues in the state have increased from $4.9 billion to $47 billion in the 30 years since Proposition 13. Adjust those figures for inflation and population growth, and property-tax revenues in California were 87 percent higher in 2009 than they were in 1979, chiefly because of rising property values.

Motion for Summary Judgement Filed in Palmer v. District of Columbia

A great explanation of the plaintiffs case is contained in the Memorandum in Support filed as part of the motion.

This case is very important for gun rights all over the country, but it is especially so for gun owners in California.  This case seeks to establish that "bear" in the 2nd Amendment applies outside the home as well as inside, forcing D.C. to allow some form of carry, either open or concealed, in nonsensitive areas of the city.

Why is this important to California?

The 2nd Amendment already applies to D.C because of the result of the Heller case. A favorable ruling in Palmer would establish a right to bear arms in 2nd Amendment jurisprudence.  While it is true that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to California at this time, a favorable ruling in McDonald v. Chicago is expected to change that in just a few weeks.

California law places great limits on the ability of people to be armed in public.  Loaded open carry of firearms is illegal in public places of incorporated towns and cities.  Unloaded open carry, thanks to AB 1934, will soon be illegal as well.  Issuance of carry concealed weapon (CCW) permits is at the discretion of law enforcement, and DOJ statistics confirm that low issuance rate in urban counties.  All of which conform that the there is no effective right to "bear" arms in California.

Assuming a favorable ruling in McDonald, a favorable ruling in Palmer will give California residents instant standing in Federal court to sue California due to the unconstitutional restraints imposed by the California laws.  The state will be forced to allow some form of carry, even though that requirement will be extremely distasteful to the state government and to urban police departments, especially in Los Angeles, Santa Clara, and San Francisco counties.

The legal ducks are just about all lined up, with only Palmer expected to take a couple of years to get up through the Federal court system.  But if and when Palmer is decided favorably, then we will be treated to the spectacle of the ultra-liberal state of California "swallowing a frog".

DC Voting Rights Bill Abandoned in the House

The Washington Examiner reported in this story that the House has abandoned legislation that would have given Washington D.C. a voting member in the House of Representatives, and the House leadership blamed the National Rifle Association, whose gun-rights amendment to the bill was unacceptable to anti-gun rights House members.

Leaving aside the questionable Constitutionality of this bill, the rationale of the anti-gun faction is typical of the traditional objections that they raise.  My own favorite anti-gun Senator, Diane Feinstein, had this to say:

 "I believe the District will become much less safe, and the opportunity for criminals, mentally unstable persons and juveniles to purchase weapons will increase dramatically,"

"increase dramatically" as opposed to the situation in Washington D.C. now where criminals have no real trouble finding access to guns, guns that are illegal for them to possess, and that are illegal for others to provide to the criminals?

The same old tired arguments and are increasingly being shown to be untrue by liberalized gun carry laws in other states.  With the passage of "constitutional carry", allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons without permits, in Arizona, there is an opportunity for an experiment.  Will gun violence increase, decrease, or stay the same in Phoenix, a large metropolitan area like Washington D.C.?  I offer this prediction:  gun violence will either decrease or stay at the same level.  Society does not have to fear the law-abiding because these people are not inclined to commit crimes, with or without guns.

Gun Control: An idea based on the assumption that people not inclined to follow laws prohibiting armed robbery, assault, murder, rape, kidnapping, and other violent crimes, will follow the laws regulating the possession and transfer of guns.

Jim Beall Replies - Letter from Cris Forsyth

Here is the reply I received from Cris Forsyth, Chief of Staff for Assemblyman Jim Beall:

Hi Mr. Miller.

I am in conversation with the Assembly Member concerning this legislation.

He said he had concerns with bill, spoke with the NRA lobbyist, and requested more information on the legislation.

I'll let you know soon his disposition to the bill.

Sorry for the delayed response.

Cris
___________________________
CRIS FORSYTH
Chief of Staff

THE HONORABLE JIM BEALL JR.
California State Assembly
State Capitol, Room 5016
Sacramento, CA 95814

916.319.2490 Phone
916.319.2124 Fax
www.assembly.ca.gov/beall
"Progress does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but through constant struggle," Martin Luther King Jr.
"Hey, Hey, Hey, are you ready for the day.  Put on your shield and sword.  Are you ready for the games?" Pink

 I have not yet heard back from Mr. Forsyth concerning his disposition on this bill, but today, April 13th, the Public Safety Committee met and voted on this bill.  The members voted as follows:

- Chair Assemblyman Tom Ammiano - AYE
- Vice-Chair Assemblyman Curt Hagman - NO
- Assemblyman Jim Beall, Jr. - NOT VOTING
- Assemblyman Danny Gilmore - NO
- Assemblyman Jerry Hill - AYE
- Assemblyman Anthony Portantino - AYE
- Assemblymember Nancy Skinner - AYE

 So, the bill has passed, but Mr. Beall did not vote on it for some reason, perhaps he was absent.  In any case, this bill advances one more step in the process of becoming the latest useless crime prevention law.

Gun control Quote Archive - A New Tradition

At the top of my banner, I have had the follow quote attributed to Charlton Heston:

"... There's no such thing as a good gun. There's no such thing as a bad gun. A gun in the hands of a bad man is a very dangerous thing. A gun in the hands of a good person is no danger to anyone except the bad guys. ..." Charlton Heston

I have decided to replace it with a new quote, and save the old ones on this post.  Periodically I will place a new quote on my banner and save the old quote here.