Kalifornia banning Glocks......... whats next?

D

Dr. D

Moderator
CALIFORNIA: When the legislature reconvenes on August 16, the
state Assembly will be voting on SB 15 (Polanco), a measure that
would ban the retail sale of a wide range of new and used
handguns. Firearms that either are not tested, fail the tests or
-- as in the case of Glocks and certain other handguns -- lack a
specific feature, will be deemed "unsafe handguns" by SB 15. SB
15 is one of the greatest threats California gun owners have ever
faced, and it is vital that all NRA members call their
Assemblyman before they return to Sacramento and ask him to vote
"NO" on SB 15. For a complete listing of capitol phone numbers,
please contact the NRA-ILA's Grassroots Division.
 
You are a member of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, right? If not, here the link (they also qualify as a CMP affiliated club):

http://www.crpa.org/

Their monthly magazine/flyer, named "The Firing Line," covers all California specific legislation.



------------------
I offer neither pay nor quarters nor provisions; I offer hunger, thirst, forced marches, battles and death. Let him who loves his country in his heart, and not his lips only, follow me.
-Giuseppe Garabaldi
 
For all of us not living in California we need to remember that their laws have a way of reaching across the nation once passed there. It's our fight too.

------------------
Gunslinger

We live in a time in which attitudes and deeds once respected as courageous and honorable are now scorned as being antiquated and subversive.
 
Next Marshal Dillon's SAA and M-92 will be banned. 'Nary a safety on those, 'cept between your ears...

------------------
Will you, too, be one who stands in the gap?

[This message has been edited by Long Path (edited July 27, 1999).]
 
Typical; people that would be excluded from SB 15 provisions:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>the Department of Justice, any police department, any sheriff's official, any marshal's office, the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, the California Highway Patrol, any district attorney's office, and the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties. Nor shall anything in this section prohibit the possession of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person by sworn members of these agencies, whether the sworn member is on or off duty, or an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and who is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a concealable firearm upon his or her retirement.[/quote]

Emphasis mine.


------------------
ubi ignes est?
 
district attorneys!? A bunch of lawyers with NO gun training can carry concealed off-duty, but no regular folks? Any LEO/civi distinction like this is ridiculous and smacks of a monarchial state, but now lawyer-DA's are royalty, too?
 
District attorneys means the investigators who work for the District Attorney. They are full-time peace officers per the California Penal Code. District attorney's and deputy DA's who carry concealed must get a CCW permit.


------------------
Bruce Stanton
CDR, USN-Ret.
Sgt., Kings Co. Sheriff - Ret.
 
Dr. D,

Is SB15 listed anywhere on the net so that we can read it?

It also saddens me that with one stroke of a pen, so many law abiding people will become outlaws. It's not the America that I love!

Thanks.
 
Geneb,

I don't understand, do you think those people listed should be kept from having Glocks anymore than you should be?

Do you not see that by including retired persons, they leave a huge gaping whole for everyone else to slip through when the law is challenged?

Maybe I read your post wrong and you were meaning to point out a good thing.

Everyone,

DA's (the actual DA and his assistants, not the investigators) are LEOs. In most states, the power structure makes them very important in the chain of LE command inside of the county. In many places, the Sheriff can really have his hands tied by a power hungry and assertive DA. OTOH, a good DA can empower local LE and back them up.

You REALLY want the DA on the pro-gun side if you ever are involved in a shooting, btw, it is the DA's office that will decide whether or not you should be charged with a crime.

Californians,

the way that paragraph reads, with its many "Any"'s.. one gets the impression that an LEO from a Nevada PD or SO would legally be able to carry concealed according to the provisions being set forth. I imagine that there is other CA statutes that prohibit sucha thing. Does anyone have a definitive answer on Off-duty LE CCW in CA ??

[This message has been edited by Rob (edited July 28, 1999).]
 
Glock has three independent and automatic safeties. As the trigger is pulled they suquentially disengage, and the pistol fires and the trigger returns to it's forward position, the safeties re-engage. The combination of the trigger safety, firing pin safety, and the drop safety make the Glock safe, but not as some would like to have it with a thumb safety.
 
Rob,

Perhaps I bolded too much or the wrong portion. I was not aware that the DA referred to investigators assigned to the DA’s office. I was going taking it exactly as it was written (somewhat the way courts do). I was specifically wondering why the DA’s office should be set apart from the rest of the populace. I understand their place in the food chain, but don’t necessarily think of them as LEO’s, but more officers of the court.

I have the same concerns for retired LEO. In my mind, the general population should be allowed to posses the same light arms that the LEO and military carry. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear. I don’t think that there should be such a restriction for anyone. If there is, however, I don’t think that the restriction should be placed on the general population and not applied to the LEO as well. I don’t like two classes of citizen gun owners. I feel the same way about hi-cap mags.

I see what you’re saying about the giant hole on a challenge, but my thoughts are to prevent bad laws from being enacted rather than looking for ways to get around them – assuming that someone has the time, resources and wherewithal to do so.

I think we’re both on the same page. Let me know if I’m way off base.

------------------
ubi ignes est?
 
No, we definitely are.

Most people don;t understand that the DA's office is definitely LE (Executive branch) and not Judicial.

I agree with the double standards, but civilian/citizen/CCW/non-LE gun owners need to remember that local LE is on our side. Where do you guys think Bubba the local sheriff's deputy is going to stand on a bad day (with his hi-caps, his Glock, his "LE Only" ammo and his LE-Only Post Ban Colt) If/when the gov't decides to send the military in?
 
Glocks?

My local (large) gun store has put yellow tags on all the guns that would be banned by SB15.

I'll make a concervative estimate that 3/4 of ALL the handguns sold had yellow tags.
We're talking hundreds of makes/models.
If you take the time to eveluate each handgun against SB15 (as they did), you will find that there will be hardly any models left to choose from. It effectively bans most of them.
And what really gets my goat is how incredibly sneaky they are to try to do this. Banning guns based on very specific safety features and combinations because that wont be contested in court as us-constitutional.
The know it. They could give a rat's ass about our safety.
Take SB15 to your local store and have them test it out. You will be terrified at how broad spectrum it is. I'm serious.

------------------
Same Shot, Different day
 
I read this as banning ANY pistol that does not have a manually operated safety. This would also include guns with decocking levers only, such as Sigs,S&Ws,Rugers,etc.

This is potentially horrible...I have vivid memories of the video I saw of a jewelry shop owner who pulled out his S&W with the safety still on. You could see him pulling the trigger in vain but only the bad guy's gun was firing.
 
One hears a lot about Claifornia, and legislation that is either proposed or enacted there. Once upon a time, I lived there, from late 1967 to early 1970, and it struck me that there were a number of gun owners/shooters and so forth there.

Aren't there enough of them to effect elections, if in no other way than to provide "object lessons", or it it merely a case of people not bothering.

Anyone have any ideas??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top