interesting example
I came across an interesting example of "There is NO difference between the Democrats and Republicans".
Original post:
Please copy and paste your story. The link was broken by the auto-censor.
Did you know a handgun could expire? If not, you are probably not from California.
Effective January 1, 2001, no handgun may be manufactured within California, imported into California for sale, lent, given, kept for sale, or offered/exposed for sale unless that handgun model has passed firing, safety, and drop tests and is certified for sale in California by the Department of Justice. Private party transfers, curio/relic handguns, certain single-action revolvers, and pawn/consignment returns are exempt from this requirement.
Before a new handgun can be sold in California, it must first be certified. Certification in California requires multiple handguns to be submitted for "testing" - a process that ultimately results in the firearm being dropped and later destroyed. Worse yet, every model, caliber, color etc. has to have multiple units submitted making the process extremely costly to the manufacturer. Then, after the manufacturer has made the decision to bite the proverbial bullet and eats the cost to receive certification, the clock starts ticking. According to the logic of California's lawmakers, a model that was tested and the approved needs to be recertified after a period of time, run through the exact same series of tests to prove it still does what the design did when the testers drop tested them the previous time.
It is a frustrating and expensive process causing several manufacturers to forego the California market altogether while others increase the cost of California Compliant models. There is a point to reporting on the certification other than demonstrating, yet again, the dangers of failing to get involved in the political process and supporting the national organizations dedicated to preserving your gun rights. California recently released its latest list of handguns that are no longer certified. You can also click here for an interactive widget to determine the certification of the 908 models currently approved in California. Ignorance is not a defense, and whether you live in or out of the state, you do not want to incur an expensive legal battle over a simple sale or purchase. Be smart and be wary.
Link to the 50 page list of de-certified firearms
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/oag.ca.gov/files/pdfs/firearms/removed.pdf
A fun little app to see if you could legally sell you firearm in California.
http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/
Just something to consider with the mid terms coming up.
Original post:
Please copy and paste your story. The link was broken by the auto-censor.
Did you know a handgun could expire? If not, you are probably not from California.
Effective January 1, 2001, no handgun may be manufactured within California, imported into California for sale, lent, given, kept for sale, or offered/exposed for sale unless that handgun model has passed firing, safety, and drop tests and is certified for sale in California by the Department of Justice. Private party transfers, curio/relic handguns, certain single-action revolvers, and pawn/consignment returns are exempt from this requirement.
Before a new handgun can be sold in California, it must first be certified. Certification in California requires multiple handguns to be submitted for "testing" - a process that ultimately results in the firearm being dropped and later destroyed. Worse yet, every model, caliber, color etc. has to have multiple units submitted making the process extremely costly to the manufacturer. Then, after the manufacturer has made the decision to bite the proverbial bullet and eats the cost to receive certification, the clock starts ticking. According to the logic of California's lawmakers, a model that was tested and the approved needs to be recertified after a period of time, run through the exact same series of tests to prove it still does what the design did when the testers drop tested them the previous time.
It is a frustrating and expensive process causing several manufacturers to forego the California market altogether while others increase the cost of California Compliant models. There is a point to reporting on the certification other than demonstrating, yet again, the dangers of failing to get involved in the political process and supporting the national organizations dedicated to preserving your gun rights. California recently released its latest list of handguns that are no longer certified. You can also click here for an interactive widget to determine the certification of the 908 models currently approved in California. Ignorance is not a defense, and whether you live in or out of the state, you do not want to incur an expensive legal battle over a simple sale or purchase. Be smart and be wary.
Link to the 50 page list of de-certified firearms
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/oag.ca.gov/files/pdfs/firearms/removed.pdf
A fun little app to see if you could legally sell you firearm in California.
http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/
Just something to consider with the mid terms coming up.
0
-
It's usually about money.......follow the money trail. Does the state of Kalifornia actually perform the tests or do they farm the job out ? I suspect that it is farmed out and some well connected individual has a lucrative contract. 0 -
Yep just another tool to raise the cost of gun ownership.In fact common sense and sound legislation with 9th grade level of vocabulary has been dead for 75 years in any legislation from any politicization of law makers.
The organized use the disorganized and they know it !
serf0 -
And more from the Peoples Democratic Republic of California.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - California will become the first state that allows family members to ask a judge to remove firearms from a relative who appears to pose a threat, under legislation Gov. Jerry Brown said Tuesday he had signed.
The bill was proposed by several Democrats and responds to a deadly rampage in May near the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Supporters had said such a measure could have prevented the attacks, winning out over critics who said it would erode gun rights.
It continues California's efforts to lead the nation in preventing firearm injury and death, said Amanda Wilcox, an advocate for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, whose daughter was a victim of gun violence.
The greatest effect might be in preventing suicides or intervening where there is a history of domestic violence, she said.
"It's hard to know how much it will be used or how much it will prevent," Wilcox said. "It only takes avoiding one loss for this to be worth it."
Lawmakers approved the bill by Democratic Assembly members Nancy Skinner of Berkeley and Das Williams of Santa Barbara amid pleas that they act after the May 23 attack in which six people were fatally stabbed or shot and 13 others wounded in the community of Isla Vista.
Under the California bill, whoever seeks the restraining order would have to sign an affidavit under oath. If they lie, they could be charged with a misdemeanor.
A court hearing would be held within 14 days after the restraining order is granted to give the gun owner a chance to argue there is no danger.
Republican lawmakers and some Democrats voted against the measure, known as AB1014.
In Rodger's case, there is no evidence his parents or anyone treating him knew he had weapons. That prompted Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, to introduce a related bill that would require law enforcement agencies to develop policies that encourage officers to search the state's database of gun purchases as part of routine welfare checks. That bill, SB505, also was signed by the governor.
The National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups opposed the restraining order legislation.
"Our concern is not so much what they intended to do; our concern is with the method they put in place to address people with mental or emotional issues," said Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California. "We think this just misses the mark and may create a situation where law-abiding gun owners are put in jeopardy."
NO difference? It may be in degrees, but there is a definite difference.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
3 comments