The ink’s barely dry, and there’s already a challenge to California’s practice of maintaining a list of “approved handguns.”
Defendant’s handgun roster program violates Plaintiffs’ rights to equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, in that Defendant allows some people access to handguns barred to plaintiffs, and otherwise make arbitrary, capricious, irrational, and otherwise unjustifiable distinctions among the handguns that Defendant deigns to allow Plaintiffs in their exercise of fundamental Second Amendment rights. Defendant is thereby propagating customs, policies, and practices that violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, facially and as applied against the individual plaintiffs in this action, damaging plaintiffs in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to permanent injunctive relief against such customs, policies, and practices.
Pena v. Cid [pdf], 9th Circuit, p. 10
The complaint has been filed by Alan Gura, the Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns. Among their contentions are that the list excludes guns modified only for left-handed shooters, and that some guns are not on the list because they have a different color scheme than guns that are approved.
The California roster has always been a problem. For example, a gun’s certification is only good for a year. It’s possible for a gun to be perfectly legal, then have it drop off the list the following year, therefore rendering it illegal. More to the point (and the brief brings this up), the very criteria for the list are arbitrary and sometimes irrational.
Gura, if you’ll recall, was the attorney for Dick Heller in last year’s Supreme Court case. He also represented the SAF in their amicus curiae in Nordyke. This bears watching, and it could very well be a significant win.
Part of the suit contests the idea that weapons may be banned based on cosmetic differences (“Barring Sale of a Handgun Because It Is Not in An Approved Color,” p. 8). Considering that bans on Assault Weapons are largely based on such distinctions, the suit could end up affecting the constitutionality of state-level bans, such as the one California currently has.
Another interesting subject comes up regarding citizens with disabilities:
Plantiff Vargas was born without an arm below the right elbow.
The Glock 21 SF-STD is listed on the California Handgun Roster.
The Glock 21 SF-STD with ambidextrous magazine release is better suitable for left-handed shooters such as Mr. Vargas, as opposed to the approved version of the Glock 21 SF-STD.
Glock’s efforts to add the SF21 with ambidextrous magazine release to the California Roster list have failed.
Interestingly enough, the S&W Model 19 that rides on my hip at the moment is illegal in California, as are all my S&W revolvers. Some, like the Model 10 are theoretically legal, but only in the recent 10-14. That’s right: only the 10-14. Previous iterations of this model, of which there are millions, are illegal in California. Likewise, other models are only legal in certain, specific barrel lengths.
Almost none of the classic Smith & Wesson revolver models are approved for California. The Model 27, for example, is off-limits. You can get the newer 627, provided it is a -5 iteration, and if you’re willing to settle for a 4″ or 5″ barrel. You want another barrel length, and you’re out of luck.