Covert Mission
New member
PLEASE READ!!!!!!!!!!!
THIS BILL WOULD legally ban in CA, as being UNSAFE, many kinds of handguns, including Glocks, Kahrs, and others used by LEO agenencies (they would have a waiver!). PLEASE... all Californians call their legislators, and everyone here who knows a CA resident, alert them.
UPDATE:
The information I posted came directly from the front page of the CA NRA Members Council website... it's an analysis of the bill by Sen. Ray Haynes. I did not doublecheck it against the latest version of the bill on the CA LegInfo site... didn't have the time. The revised SB-23, for example, was tinkered with almost up to the time it was signed, so it's sometimes hard to keep track of this, especially when the modifications are deep in the boilerplate.
People can look up the latest version of the bill, amended July 13, here. There are some changes regarding frame size etc, BUT THE BILL IS STILL TERRIBLE!:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html
See http://www.calnra.org/ for information on contacting your legislators, or call the Capitol in Sacramento. Even call from out of state, and tell them you're on vacation (hope they don't ask for an address)
SB 15 (Polanco)
Vote requirement: 21
ANALYSIS OF THE BILL BY STATE SENATOR RAY HAYNES
This is Senator Polanco’s annual bill to ban “Saturday night specials.” It would make it a misdemeanor to sell, loan, manufacture, or import
“unsafe handguns,” which are defined by physical characteristics, without reference to their historical safety records.
A revolver would be defined as an “unsafe handgun” if any of the following conditions apply:
1. It has an overall frame length of less than four and one-half inches measured on a line parallel to the barrel. [STRICKEN from new version ]
2. It has a barrel length less than three inches.
3. It does not have a safety device that, either automatically in the case of a double-action firing mechanism, or by manual operation in the
case of a single-action
firing mechanism, causes the hammer to retract to a point where the firing pin does not rest upon the cartridge.
4. It does not meet a firing requirement (performance test).
5. It does not pass a “drop test.”
A pistol would be defined as an “unsafe handgun” if any of the following conditions apply:
1. It does not have a positive manually operated safety device.
2. It has a combined length and height less than 10 inches. [ STRICKEN from new version ]
3. It does not meet a firing requirement (performance test).
4. It does not pass a “drop test.”
The bill would require that every person who manufactures firearms in California and every person who imports firearms for sale to certify
under penalty of perjury that every model that he manufactures or imports is not an “unsafe handgun.”
The bill would also require the Department of Justice to compile and publish a roster listing all of the pistols, revolvers, and other firearms
capable of being concealed upon the person that are not “unsafe handguns.”
The bill would increase taxes by charging every firearms manufacturer and importer an annual fee to cover the cost of preparing, publishing,
and maintaining the roster of guns that are not “unsafe handguns.”
Comments
This bill is the same as last year’s SB 1500 by Senator Polanco, which was vetoed by Governor Wilson. The bill was functionally identical to
SB 500 by Senator Polanco, which the Governor also vetoed, saying:
“Not only does [this bill] fail to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, it will deprive law-abiding, legitimate gun users of the needed
protection of handguns — the same handguns used by thousands of peace officers as regular service and back-up guns.”
The immediate impact of this bill would be felt by owners of the millions of guns that are no longer manufactured. Manufacturers are not
going to submit guns that they no longer sell for the required firing test and drop test. Existing manufacturers would certainly prefer to
encourage consumers to purchase their new guns that have passed these arbitrary tests. Of course, many gun manufacturers have gone out of
existence (and in many cases, even their countries have gone out of existence). The result is that millions of hand guns will be banned as
“unsafe handguns” simply because they have never been tested! This violates principles of equal protection and it will surely lead to the
same kind of legal challenges that have made the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Ban a very expensive waste of time.
This bill calls these common guns “unsafe handguns” in order justify banning them, regardless of their actual safety records. What does the
length of a frame have to do with safety? This is an attempt to redefine common guns as unsafe (except when they are used by police) for the
public relations value of that designation. This is similar to the public relations campaign against so-called “assault weapons.”
This law would be a disaster, not only for honest gun owners, but also for the taxpayers who would pay the costs associated with enforcing it
and defending it against the inevitable court challenges and appeals. The bill would also damage public safety by diverting law enforcement
resources away from the pursuit of real criminals.
This bill would potentially make criminals out of millions of honest Californians. Lending an “unsafe handgun” to a roommate or family
member would be a crime. Owners of these weapons, including collectors, would not receive any warning that their guns had been banned as
“unsafe.”
The limitation on barrel length would criminalize the sale of common snub-nosed revolvers, including the Smith and Wesson Chief’s Special
and Colt’s Detective and Agent models (which are used by many law enforcement agencies, with excellent safety records). By banning all
pistols that do not have “positive, manually operated safety devises,” this bill would outlaw many full-size, high-quality guns such as
Glocks, Kahrs, and Sigmas (by Smith & Wesson). This provision alone could make criminals out of tens of thousands of law-abiding
Californians.
The drop test issue is particularly ridiculous. SB 15 requires that the firearm be dropped from approximately 3 feet, while cocked and with
the safety off, onto a solid slab of concrete. If the gun fires even once out of several drops, then it is deemed unsafe. If a firearm did fall
from this height, onto a slab of concrete, while cocked and with the safety off, it is the user of the gun that is unsafe and not the firearm.
Dropping a cocked firearm with the safety off onto a slab of concrete only replicates unsafe firearm practices, which could better be
addressed through increased awareness and education.
Firearm Elitism: One of the stated purposes of this bill is to outlaw the manufacturing of “cheap” handguns. Unfortunately, the citizens who
are most at risk of violent crime can only afford “cheap” handguns to protect themselves from these criminals. While the wealthy and
middle-class can afford to purchase expensive firearms, and while criminals often steal their weapons, the poor are left defenseless or
forced to spend a relatively exorbitant portion of their limited incomes to defend themselves.
Agency Liability Issue: This bill exempts law enforcement agencies from the requirements of this bill, allowing them to provide officers with
firearms statutorily defined as "unsafe.” This opens up the agency and the city or county to legal liability if there are any future incidents
where the officer claims he or she is injured due to a malfunctioning firearm, or if an officer is killed in the line of duty and the survivors
claim that he or she was inadequately armed to prevent the death. If the firearms are “unsafe,” then they should be “unsafe” for anyone —
regardless of their occupation. But if they are, in fact, perfectly safe for police, why do they suddenly become unsafe when used by anyone
else?
The “unsafe” guns which the proponents of this bill wish to prohibit are most often purchased by low-income people who use them solely for
home protection. Since they are used for self-protection, they are rarely, if ever fired, even at a firing range. Conversely, handguns used by
law enforcement are fired quite frequently at ranges, usually once a month at minimum. Thus, law enforcement officers need handguns which
can withstand the most rigorous testing. Yet, SB 15 curiously allows law enforcement agencies to arm their officers with “unsafe
handguns,” while civilians who will rarely fire their guns cannot purchase them at all.
The bill’s proponents emphasize that these “cheap” and “junk” guns are the guns of choice for criminals, although the actual evidence from
law enforcement agencies clearly disproves that allegation.
If these “unsafe handguns” were actually unsafe in the real world, the manufacturers, distributors and sellers would be put out of business by
a flood of strict liability lawsuits. Furthermore, free market competition would quickly drive them out of the market. There simply aren’t
enough people who want to own truly unsafe products to keep these manufacturers in business all over the world for decades at a time. But
the fact that so many of these guns (including Glocks, Berettas, Colts, Rugers, etc.) have been sold all over the world for decades indicates
that they are not any more unsafe than the guns Senator Polanco would allow us to keep.
This bill is strongly opposed by the California Rifle and Pistol Association, the National Rifle Association, the California Shooting Sports
Association, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, the Peace Officer Research Association of California; the Outdoor Sportsmen's
Coalition; Safari Club International, the California Sportsman's Lobby, and many others.
Phantom support: The bill analysis contains a long list of cities that have supposedly endorsed this bill. This list contains many inaccuracies
and misrepresentations. For example, Lake Elsinore is listed in the support column. The city council has taken no official position, although
the Mayor Pro Tem sent a letter in opposition to the bill. Riverside and Temecula have not taken a position on the bill, although they are
listed in support.
[This message has been edited by Covert Mission (edited August 11, 1999).]
THIS BILL WOULD legally ban in CA, as being UNSAFE, many kinds of handguns, including Glocks, Kahrs, and others used by LEO agenencies (they would have a waiver!). PLEASE... all Californians call their legislators, and everyone here who knows a CA resident, alert them.
UPDATE:
The information I posted came directly from the front page of the CA NRA Members Council website... it's an analysis of the bill by Sen. Ray Haynes. I did not doublecheck it against the latest version of the bill on the CA LegInfo site... didn't have the time. The revised SB-23, for example, was tinkered with almost up to the time it was signed, so it's sometimes hard to keep track of this, especially when the modifications are deep in the boilerplate.
People can look up the latest version of the bill, amended July 13, here. There are some changes regarding frame size etc, BUT THE BILL IS STILL TERRIBLE!:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html
See http://www.calnra.org/ for information on contacting your legislators, or call the Capitol in Sacramento. Even call from out of state, and tell them you're on vacation (hope they don't ask for an address)
SB 15 (Polanco)
Vote requirement: 21
ANALYSIS OF THE BILL BY STATE SENATOR RAY HAYNES
This is Senator Polanco’s annual bill to ban “Saturday night specials.” It would make it a misdemeanor to sell, loan, manufacture, or import
“unsafe handguns,” which are defined by physical characteristics, without reference to their historical safety records.
A revolver would be defined as an “unsafe handgun” if any of the following conditions apply:
1. It has an overall frame length of less than four and one-half inches measured on a line parallel to the barrel. [STRICKEN from new version ]
2. It has a barrel length less than three inches.
3. It does not have a safety device that, either automatically in the case of a double-action firing mechanism, or by manual operation in the
case of a single-action
firing mechanism, causes the hammer to retract to a point where the firing pin does not rest upon the cartridge.
4. It does not meet a firing requirement (performance test).
5. It does not pass a “drop test.”
A pistol would be defined as an “unsafe handgun” if any of the following conditions apply:
1. It does not have a positive manually operated safety device.
2. It has a combined length and height less than 10 inches. [ STRICKEN from new version ]
3. It does not meet a firing requirement (performance test).
4. It does not pass a “drop test.”
The bill would require that every person who manufactures firearms in California and every person who imports firearms for sale to certify
under penalty of perjury that every model that he manufactures or imports is not an “unsafe handgun.”
The bill would also require the Department of Justice to compile and publish a roster listing all of the pistols, revolvers, and other firearms
capable of being concealed upon the person that are not “unsafe handguns.”
The bill would increase taxes by charging every firearms manufacturer and importer an annual fee to cover the cost of preparing, publishing,
and maintaining the roster of guns that are not “unsafe handguns.”
Comments
This bill is the same as last year’s SB 1500 by Senator Polanco, which was vetoed by Governor Wilson. The bill was functionally identical to
SB 500 by Senator Polanco, which the Governor also vetoed, saying:
“Not only does [this bill] fail to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, it will deprive law-abiding, legitimate gun users of the needed
protection of handguns — the same handguns used by thousands of peace officers as regular service and back-up guns.”
The immediate impact of this bill would be felt by owners of the millions of guns that are no longer manufactured. Manufacturers are not
going to submit guns that they no longer sell for the required firing test and drop test. Existing manufacturers would certainly prefer to
encourage consumers to purchase their new guns that have passed these arbitrary tests. Of course, many gun manufacturers have gone out of
existence (and in many cases, even their countries have gone out of existence). The result is that millions of hand guns will be banned as
“unsafe handguns” simply because they have never been tested! This violates principles of equal protection and it will surely lead to the
same kind of legal challenges that have made the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Ban a very expensive waste of time.
This bill calls these common guns “unsafe handguns” in order justify banning them, regardless of their actual safety records. What does the
length of a frame have to do with safety? This is an attempt to redefine common guns as unsafe (except when they are used by police) for the
public relations value of that designation. This is similar to the public relations campaign against so-called “assault weapons.”
This law would be a disaster, not only for honest gun owners, but also for the taxpayers who would pay the costs associated with enforcing it
and defending it against the inevitable court challenges and appeals. The bill would also damage public safety by diverting law enforcement
resources away from the pursuit of real criminals.
This bill would potentially make criminals out of millions of honest Californians. Lending an “unsafe handgun” to a roommate or family
member would be a crime. Owners of these weapons, including collectors, would not receive any warning that their guns had been banned as
“unsafe.”
The limitation on barrel length would criminalize the sale of common snub-nosed revolvers, including the Smith and Wesson Chief’s Special
and Colt’s Detective and Agent models (which are used by many law enforcement agencies, with excellent safety records). By banning all
pistols that do not have “positive, manually operated safety devises,” this bill would outlaw many full-size, high-quality guns such as
Glocks, Kahrs, and Sigmas (by Smith & Wesson). This provision alone could make criminals out of tens of thousands of law-abiding
Californians.
The drop test issue is particularly ridiculous. SB 15 requires that the firearm be dropped from approximately 3 feet, while cocked and with
the safety off, onto a solid slab of concrete. If the gun fires even once out of several drops, then it is deemed unsafe. If a firearm did fall
from this height, onto a slab of concrete, while cocked and with the safety off, it is the user of the gun that is unsafe and not the firearm.
Dropping a cocked firearm with the safety off onto a slab of concrete only replicates unsafe firearm practices, which could better be
addressed through increased awareness and education.
Firearm Elitism: One of the stated purposes of this bill is to outlaw the manufacturing of “cheap” handguns. Unfortunately, the citizens who
are most at risk of violent crime can only afford “cheap” handguns to protect themselves from these criminals. While the wealthy and
middle-class can afford to purchase expensive firearms, and while criminals often steal their weapons, the poor are left defenseless or
forced to spend a relatively exorbitant portion of their limited incomes to defend themselves.
Agency Liability Issue: This bill exempts law enforcement agencies from the requirements of this bill, allowing them to provide officers with
firearms statutorily defined as "unsafe.” This opens up the agency and the city or county to legal liability if there are any future incidents
where the officer claims he or she is injured due to a malfunctioning firearm, or if an officer is killed in the line of duty and the survivors
claim that he or she was inadequately armed to prevent the death. If the firearms are “unsafe,” then they should be “unsafe” for anyone —
regardless of their occupation. But if they are, in fact, perfectly safe for police, why do they suddenly become unsafe when used by anyone
else?
The “unsafe” guns which the proponents of this bill wish to prohibit are most often purchased by low-income people who use them solely for
home protection. Since they are used for self-protection, they are rarely, if ever fired, even at a firing range. Conversely, handguns used by
law enforcement are fired quite frequently at ranges, usually once a month at minimum. Thus, law enforcement officers need handguns which
can withstand the most rigorous testing. Yet, SB 15 curiously allows law enforcement agencies to arm their officers with “unsafe
handguns,” while civilians who will rarely fire their guns cannot purchase them at all.
The bill’s proponents emphasize that these “cheap” and “junk” guns are the guns of choice for criminals, although the actual evidence from
law enforcement agencies clearly disproves that allegation.
If these “unsafe handguns” were actually unsafe in the real world, the manufacturers, distributors and sellers would be put out of business by
a flood of strict liability lawsuits. Furthermore, free market competition would quickly drive them out of the market. There simply aren’t
enough people who want to own truly unsafe products to keep these manufacturers in business all over the world for decades at a time. But
the fact that so many of these guns (including Glocks, Berettas, Colts, Rugers, etc.) have been sold all over the world for decades indicates
that they are not any more unsafe than the guns Senator Polanco would allow us to keep.
This bill is strongly opposed by the California Rifle and Pistol Association, the National Rifle Association, the California Shooting Sports
Association, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, the Peace Officer Research Association of California; the Outdoor Sportsmen's
Coalition; Safari Club International, the California Sportsman's Lobby, and many others.
Phantom support: The bill analysis contains a long list of cities that have supposedly endorsed this bill. This list contains many inaccuracies
and misrepresentations. For example, Lake Elsinore is listed in the support column. The city council has taken no official position, although
the Mayor Pro Tem sent a letter in opposition to the bill. Riverside and Temecula have not taken a position on the bill, although they are
listed in support.
[This message has been edited by Covert Mission (edited August 11, 1999).]