‘Unsafe handguns’ now the target of Dems

April 3, 2013

By Katy Grimes

The many gun control bills being pushed through the Capitol are concerning. But many of them are also rather embarrassing. It has become evident that most of the legislators fixated on gun control have no idea what they are talking about.

Yesterday at an Assembly Public Safety hearing, Berkeley Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner said, “bullets are the very thing making guns deadly.” She has authored AB 48 which would require dealers selling ammunition to be licensed in California, and for federal and local officials to be notified when an someone purchases more than 3,000 bullets, and prohibits the sale of gun kits to convert conventional firearms into semi-automatic weapons.

AB 48 would also ban the manufacture, sale or import of any device that enables a gun to fire more than 10 rounds at one time.

Apparently guns are bad, but bullets are worse.

At the same hearing, Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento, introduced a bill he has authored which would no longer allow ‘unsafe handguns’ to be sold.

Dickinson’s bill, AB 169, would prohibit members of the general public from transferring any handgun that is not on the state’s roster of approved handgun, to anyone other than a family member. The bill would also apply to guns dropped from the approved handgun roster, which usually means the manufacturer no longer makes the gun, and is unwilling to pay to keep the gun on the roster.

AB 169 also removes the “private party transfer” exemption for handguns not on the roster, and prohibits owners of non-rostered handguns from selling them.

This bill would prevents gun owners from selling a legally-owned handgun in California, if the handgun is not listed on the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale unless the buyer is an exempt member of a law enforcement agency.

While “regular” citizens would be banned from purchasing non-Rostered handguns, law enforcement officers would be able to buy, own, and carry handguns the state has not deemed “safe”. No evidence suggests that law enforcement officers are better equipped than law-abiding gun owners to handle firearms that are not on the roster, or have failed safety testing.

AB 169 looks as if it supports the idea to further elevate law enforcement from the communities they serve by giving police officers special privileges. Gun experts argue there is no rational, legitimate basis for doing this.

Current California law allows handguns that are not on the approved roster to be sold or transferred to another individual, either on consignment or as a private party transfer, provided that the sale is completed through a licensed firearms retailer, where the purchaser is subjected to a background check.  “If enacted, AB 169 would leave gun owners who lawfully purchased a handgun that previously appeared on the State’s approved roster with no means to sell or transfer their handgun, if that firearm is no longer listed on the roster,”  the NRA explained.

‘Unsafe handguns’ loophole

According to Dickinson, AB 169 would close the ‘loopholes’ in current law that allows people who legally possess an ‘unsafe handgun’ to sell/transfer the weapon to people who cannot legally purchase the weapon through a licensed dealer.

“AB 169 will keep non-rostered, unsafe handguns out of the hands of people who don’t have a legitimate and lawful reason to own them. By limiting the guns available for sale we can further protect our families and our communities from gun violence,” said Dickinson.

The unsafe handgun roster

The California Department of Justice maintains a roster of handguns that are safe to operate under California law, Dickinson’s website says. “These guns meet all statutory safety standards, and pass safety tests such as the drop test. Handguns not on the roster (i.e. non-rostered handguns), also known as unsafe handguns, are handguns most people cannot buy from a manufacturer through a licensed dealer.”

However, current law has exemptions for a number of specified parties such as law enforcement, curio and relic dealers, gunsmiths, and movie prop houses. The law also exempts private parties who may have acquired an ‘unsafe handgun’ from another exempt party from restrictions on owning and selling unsafe handguns.

Dickinson originally tried to prevent even law enforcement officials from making gun transfers in a similar bill last year, but that didn’t go over very well.

One ‘unsafe handgun’

images

A friend owns a handgun which was deemed ‘unsafe’ by California’s standards. It’s a Sig Sauer .380, a Colt Mustang clone. It’s small, lithe, lightweight and easy to use. However, when she first got it, it was not on the state’s DOJ roster. She couldn’t even legally purchase the ammunition for it in California.

The reason it was not on the DOJ roster is because state officials had not officially “tested” the .380 yet. Once they finally got around to testing it, the gun made it onto the DOJ roster. However, they would not allow the all-black model .380 Sig Sauer onto the roster because the all-black color made it look more menacing.

This is the rationale behind California’s ‘unsafe handgun’ theory.

Back to the bill…

“AB 169 will keep non-rostered, unsafe handguns out of the hands of people who don’t have a legitimate and lawful reason to own them,” said Dickinson. “By limiting the guns available for sale we can further protect our families and our communities from gun violence.”

“AB 169 also closes another loophole that allows anyone to purchase an unsafe handgun if that handgun was modified to be a single shot weapon before the buyer took delivery from a licensed dealer. This single shot modification is easily undone, and this loophole provides an easy way for anyone to circumvent the law,” Dickinson explained at the hearing.

Call AND e-mail members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee today and remind them that these bills will NOT deter violent criminals intent on committing crimes and will unconstitutionally restrict the ability of law-abiding Californians to purchase, transfer and use firearms and ammunition on an unprecedented scale.  Let them know that passage of these bill will result in additional unnecessary expenses for the state, continue to drive legitimate business owners out of California and force the taxpayers to pick up the tab for costly litigation against the state!

14 comments

Write a comment
  1. Bubba
    Bubba 3 April, 2013, 09:42

    Just goes to show how out of touch these IDOITS in Sacramento are!

    Might as well put a sign on your door saying to intruders and thiefs “Hey come on in; the Peoples Republic of California has said I can’t have a gun because it might be “unsafe”!

    Now this is the same people who in 1990 told us we couldn’t have “Assualt” weapons; ammo magazines that held more than 10 rounds etc.

    The same Nanny legislators that told us we could not keep a loaded gun in our own homes because “Poor little Johnny” who is high on Prozac or Ridlin and has been released from jail because of “overcrowding” might get our gun. Or some poor innocent child in the home might get it and shoot another child.

    These IDIOT Ner do Wells also tell us that we cannot shoot an intruder breaking into our home because they don’t believe in the Castle Docturn. Or will issue CCW permits to ordinary citzens but are themselfs able to carry and are surrounded by armed security guards.

    Wake up people of California, go to the ballot box and boot these bums out of office. Why? Because it apperant that these Morons have once again shown how out of touch with reality they are.

    Reply this comment
  2. stolson
    stolson 3 April, 2013, 10:10

    How to get them out of office? Votes can be counted to their favor.
    Voter fraud is part of CA. The takers are growing and these politicians keep their social$$ programs going. It will take real pressure by gun owners and companies in that arena to make them stop this pandering to the U.N.’s agenda to disarm Americans.
    This is an international push to change Americans’ lifestyle. The Sustainability for Towns and Cities is another (apts vs homes); money from wealthier suburbs channeled to the poorer areas, bikes over cars, reduction in private ownership, etc. I think registration really will mean confiscation. Notice how the corrupt politicians have hired security with guns to protect themselves, but you can’t protect yourself. They do not want you to discuss this.

    Reply this comment
  3. AB32 Fighter
    AB32 Fighter 3 April, 2013, 12:29

    Just wait till they take aim at regular bolt action rifles with telescopic sights, because they are “sniper rifles”. Once they start twisting stuff and getting away with it, they just keep on going until all guns except maybe muzzle loaders are banned.

    Reply this comment
  4. SkippingDog
    SkippingDog 3 April, 2013, 14:08

    “She couldn’t even legally purchase the ammunition for it in California.”

    Have to call BS on that one, Katy. There’s no restriction on .380 ammunition in California. It seems you got a little carried away with your rant.

    Reply this comment
  5. Dyspeptic
    Dyspeptic 3 April, 2013, 15:50

    Alert the media, Skippy finally got something right! There are no particular restrictions on .380 auto ammunition in Crazyfornia yet. But don’t worry, Skippy’s Progressive Fascist friends are probably working on one.

    Both Skinner and Dickinson are cookie cutter progressive reactionaries who will use any conceivable gimmick legislation to infringe our 2nd Amendment civil rights. They are part of a powerful and obnoxious group of legislators along with Kevin DeLeon, Leland Yee, Darryl Steinberg and Loni Hancock who are throwing everything they can think of at the 2nd Amendment to see what will stick. The world would be a better place if they were all run over by a bus full of Bozo The Clown impersonators.

    It is completely bogus to claim that handguns not on the roster are inherently unsafe. Dickinson is exploiting public and media ignorance by claiming this, like the lowlife demagogue that he is. Many handguns are excluded from the roster simply because the manufacturer or importer doesn’t want to pay for state testing. Each and every variation of the same handgun must be tested separately, even if the changes are only cosmetic or are the result of additional safety features. This can be too expensive for small manufacturers and importers so they don’t bother. Even among major domestic manufacturers many variations of Roster listed handguns are not submitted for testing due to time and money constraints.

    The real purpose of Crazyfornia’s Roster of Approved Handguns is to limit the number and variety of handguns available to lawful gun owners and reduce consumer choice while driving up prices. Just more Fascist monkey business brought to you by your friendly local jackbooted Demoncrats.

    The end game here is to make gun ownership so onerous, expensive and fraught with legal peril that most residents will give up and be disarmed, LIKE IN CHICAGO AND WASHINGTON D.C. Skippy and friends really do want a completely disarmed and helpless population of drone tax payers who will put up with any amount of tyranny with a shrug of the shoulders. Even in this deranged and degenerate state that isn’t going to work.

    Reply this comment
  6. CalWatchdog
    CalWatchdog Author 3 April, 2013, 16:25

    Sorry Skippy – I also checked it out, because I too have a .380 and could not get the ammo at a shooting range. But that was more than 18 months ago. I have since used the gun in CA and was able to purchase ammo at a local shooting range as recently as January.

    My “rant” is not based on anecdotal evidence.

    Katy

    Reply this comment
  7. SkippingDog
    SkippingDog 3 April, 2013, 18:00

    Nearly all ammunition is in short supply right now because the gun nuts have started hoarding it to prepare for the new civil war they are hoping for when we have some sensible nationwide firearms restrictions enacted. Of course the NRA and the NSSF have done everything in their power to increase and maintain those fears, since the firearms industry they support is making record sales and profits over the bodies of the Shady Hook school children and all of the other gun violence victims in our country.

    I have been a gun owner for more than 40 years, and have used firearms professionally for over 35 years now. While our state laws do restrict some of the firearms I might purchase if such laws were not in effect, it is really nothing more than a minor inconvenience that is worth the trade-off in increased safety and fewer accidents from unsafe weapons. There are plenty of safe and well designed firearms on the approved list, any of which will serve the purpose of both personal protection and sport, so I’m not at all convinced the proposed legislation is a significant imposition on anyone other than pawn shops.

    Reply this comment
  8. Mike Bingham
    Mike Bingham 3 April, 2013, 21:27

    Skippy ,you are an idiot. Why don’t I pick out all of your clothes and food for you since it is all the same and just a relatively small inconvenience. If I wanted the government to pick out every thing for me I would live in china or North Korea

    Reply this comment
  9. SkippingDog
    SkippingDog 4 April, 2013, 15:54

    Recognizing that firearms like RG, Raven Arms, Jennings, and a lot of others are generally nothing more than pot metal crap that’s almost equally dangerous at both ends has nothing to do with having my food and clothing selected for me. Firearms manufacturers already received an exemption from lawsuits for making unsafe products, so the only way to keep that junk off the market if for states to identify and prohibit it for sale.

    If you manage to get the lawsuit exemption removed so firearms manufacturers and dealers can be responsible for the safety of their products like every other manufacturer of consumer items is, then you might have a point that the market and courts are the best way to determine what products should be sold.

    Reply this comment
  10. nraendowment
    nraendowment 5 April, 2013, 03:24

    Skippingdog, firearms manufacturers are not exempt from product liability and you know it. They are protected from the B.S. lawsuits claiming they are somehow responsible for misuse of their product (it’s like claiming Ford is responsible for a criminal using one of their cars in a bank robbery).

    Reply this comment
  11. SkippingDog
    SkippingDog 5 April, 2013, 20:12

    You are incorrect, nraendowment, just as your namesake is so often. Here’s a little story about the exemption. Look up the statute itself if you need further evidence.

    http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/bush-signed-2005-law-protecting-gun-m

    Reply this comment
  12. SkippingDog
    SkippingDog 5 April, 2013, 20:21

    Product misuse is certainly a defense in product liability lawsuits, but only gun manufacturers have received a complete exemption for liability for the foreseeable misuse of their products. That means the industry is based, at least in part, on profits made from the sale of their products when the industry knows they will be used for an unlawful purpose. The only way to protect society from that kind of pernicious influence is to specifically test and regulate the products approved for sale.

    Reply this comment
  13. Insider
    Insider 29 April, 2013, 17:22

    How about the 600 guns that were tested, passed and put on the list but at some point were removed from the list because the manufacturer chose to quit marketing the gun in CA? Are they suddenly unsafe because the DOJ doesn’t get a $200/year listing payment? How about the high quality Colts, S&W’s and Rugers that were made before SB-15 was passed? They are equal to the quality and safety of their successors that are currently on the list.

    SB-15 was a capricious attempt to demonize a segment of guns that the Dems knew they couldn’t ban outright. Much to their chagrin, Ravens are on the list today.

    AB-169 smells the same way, prevent future sales under the guise of safety, while giving LEO’s and Hollywood (who trains those guys to be the equal of LEO’s) the pass. It isn’t about safety, it’s about banning guns by attrition.

    Reply this comment
  14. Bossman
    Bossman 2 May, 2013, 08:11

    Words to live by: It is better to remain silent and be THOUGHT a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
    Skippy, if you had bothered to read the article that you yourself referred to, you maybe could still have at least a little credibility. The only shielding Bush gave manufacturers was just what nraendowment said it was. It ONLY protects gun manufacturers from lawsuits brought against them for the illegal use of their products. The SAME protection auto manufacturers have from being sued if someone gets drunk and kills someone with the car. NOT, if the car has a manufacturing flaw which causes someone to lose control and kill someone or if the car bursts into flames and kills someone. If a gun blows up in your hand and it is the fault of the manufacturer, sue away. If some crack head is robbing a liquor store to buy his next fix and kills the owner, the owner’s family can not sue the manufacturer. They can not sue the seller of the gun unless they can prove the seller KNEW the gun was going to be used for the crime.
    “Think before you speak, Google before you write and Snopes before you quote.”

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply



Related Articles

CalWatchdog Morning Read – August 22

Legislators’ new campaign slush funds Casino hires dad to lobby his daughter? Two OC GOP legislative candidates running from Trump

Enviro CA: Green for thee, but not for me

California has gone green: mandatory recycling, plastic bags bans, hybrid and electric cars, wind and solar energy, and the state

Activists taint redistricting?

The state auditor’s office, which is handling the selection process for the Citizens Redistricting Commission, has been sending emails to