XCR Forum banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
449 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Alan Gura with the Second Amendment Foundation with support from the CalGuns Foundation have filed suit in DC seeking relief from the DC "approved hand gun" list.

The suit has serious legal implications (as part of the ongoing incorporation of 2A push) not just for DC but also for any AWB based upon cosmetic features as well as any state (such as CA) which requires an "approved list" of firearms.

I love the fashion police line..... >:D

Link here

http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=287


NEWS RELEASE
Second Amendment Foundation
12500 NE Tenth Place • Bellevue, WA 98005
(425) 454-7012 • FAX (425) 451-3959 • www.saf.org
SAF CHALLENGES D.C. HANDGUN BAN SCHEME
For Immediate Release: 3/9/2009

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and three Washington, D.C. residents today filed a lawsuit challenging a regulation by District of Columbia city government that arbitrarily bans handguns based on a roster of “acceptable” handguns approved by the State of California.

The District is using this list despite a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court last summer that protects handguns that ordinary people traditionally use for self-defense. This scheme could eventually bar the ownership of any new handguns.

Attorney Alan Gura, representing the plaintiffs in this case, noted that District bureaucrats “told Tracy Ambeau Hanson her gun was the wrong color.” Americans are not limited to a government list of approved books, or approved religions, he said. A handgun protected by the Second Amendment doesn’t need to appear on any government-approved list either.

“The Springfield XD-45 is approved for sale in Washington,” Gura noted, “so long as it is black, green, or brown, but her bi-tone version is supposedly ‘unsafe’.”

Added SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “The Supreme Court’s decision is crystal clear: Handguns that are used by people for self-defense and other lawful purposes cannot be banned, whether the city likes it or not. The city needs to accept the Second Amendment reality and stop this nonsense.”

Hanson, one of the individual plaintiffs in the case, wondered, “Do we really need a gun-fashion police? I just want to be able to exercise my Second Amendment rights without interference from the District government.”

Joining Hanson are Gillian and Paul St. Lawrence. Gillian St. Lawrence’s handgun would once have been allowed, until its listing expired, leaving her to observe, “I didn’t realize that my constitutional rights had an expiration date.”

Her husband sought to own the same type of handgun that the Supreme Court had ordered District officials to allow Dick Heller to possess. However, that particular model is no longer manufactured, and its maker is no longer available to process the handgun’s certification through the bureaucracy.

“The Supreme Court’s decision should really be the last word on whether I can own this model handgun,” said Mr. St. Lawrence.

“The so-called ‘safe’ gun list is just another gun-grabbing gimmick,” said Gura. “This is the same old, tried and failed D.C. handgun ban by another name. The city can’t get around the Second Amendment by declaring most normal guns ‘unsafe,’ and gradually shrinking the number of so-called ‘safe’ guns to zero.”

Valuable assistance is being provided by the CalGuns Foundation.

“CalGuns Foundation was saddened to see the California Handgun Roster adopted in D.C.,” CalGuns Chairman Gene Hoffman added. “Our state has a reputation as being a leader on many fronts. Unfortunately, this has included violating the rights of law abiding gun owners. After nearly a decade of experience with the California Handgun Roster, the CalGuns Foundation is uniquely able to assist in this case.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,296 Posts
The best defense, is a bloody good offense.

tk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,533 Posts
I got this in my e-mail at work (yeah, I promote SAF) yesterday.

One thing I'd like to point out:
The nra is NOT involved with this one.
Yet.

I imagine it'll be like the Katrina mess. SAF steps up to the plate, and AFTER the SAF starts the ball rolling, angry nra members want to know why the nra is doing NOTHING.

So they'll "join" SAF in the fight. Later. When they're forced to.

After all, this is the exact court ruling that the nra attempted to prevent from being heard in the first place.

Send your dough to SAF. They're a pro-active organization. More than that, unlike the nra, they're a pro-gun rights organization.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,067 Posts
So then what is the NRA's goal? What does the NRA support that the SAF doesn't?
:dontknow:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,533 Posts
The NRA does a whole lot for keeping hunting lands open.

They also do a bunch on education of kids (the eddie eagle program and such). They're good on getting instructors trained, at least on paper...... an NRA instructors certification card means about nothing to me though.

Politically though, the NRA is second-string to SAF.
And they're pretty much second-string to GOA too.
Due to the very small budget, the nra is about on par with JPFO as far as what they do - JPFO is much more adamant about it though.

SAF is pretty much a political organization, and that's it.

If you're wanting to keep hunting areas open (and that's a good goal in and of itself) then send the nra some dough every once in a while. If you want to keep your rights, send SAF the dues every year, and then some on top of it.

The nra 'beg-athon' letters I get? Straight to the round bin. Until they start acting (politically) like a pro-gun organization, they can kiss my butt. And wayne la-PU can use tongue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
204 Posts
I'm starting to lean the same way on the NRA. About every other month I get a letter to 'renew' my membership; if I didn't pay attention, I'd end up 'renewing' at least 3 or 4 times a year. Between that and the monthly "beg-athon" letters, they must be paying a buttload in postage for the millions of members. Even the 'free' accidental insurance annoys me.

If they would take my yearly money and actually apply it to something gun-related rather than slick flyers, scare-mail, subsidizing insurance plans, etc. I might stick with them. But when my current enrollment runs out, I'm done.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
113 Posts
NRA really means Negotiate Rights Away. When the going gets tough, the NRA will compromise just enough to leave the problem in place and then ask for more money to continue fighting the problem.

I haven't given them a dime since they went behind everyone's back to "compromise" on the mental health disqualifications for gun purchase background checks following the Virginia Tech murders, while claiming to represent the interests of all gun owners without our consent.

You're much better off supporting the state-based grass roots organizations, like VCDL.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top