Well, I hate to see D.C. abandon a stupid, indefensible restriction that would have made them look that much more foolish in Court; but I guess a good thing is a good thing.
Hi Bart. The decision by DC was made after Alan had filed a motion for summary judgement in Hanson v DC
. He had em dead to rights.. Ms Hanson tried to apply to register a Springfield Armory XD-45 Tactical 5" Bi-Tone stainless steel/black
handgun and was refused because it was not on the approved list adopted by California. However the Springfield Armory XD-45 Tactical 5" black
handgun was on the approved list adopted by California. The only difference between the 2 models is the color.
The problem is the California list, which require the gun mfr to apply ANNUALLY
to put a gun on the approved list. The application must be accompanied by a $200 fee, also payable annually. The gun mfgr had not attempted to place the bi tone model on the list and did not pay an application fee for it, so it was not on Californias list. So essentially, the difference between a gun approved by DC (and California) and a gun which is obviously bad and evil incarnate, comes down to the color scheme adopted.
Another of Alan's Plaintiffs tried to apply to register a Para USA
(Para Ordnance) P1345SR / Stainless Steel .45 ACP 4.25" handgun and was denied, because, although it had previously been on the California list, the mfr did not send in the $200 fee to remain on the California list.
The final Plaintif (sit down, you are going to love this one) tried to register a
High Standard 9-shot revolver in .22 with a 9.5" Buntline-style barrel, and was refused because it was not on the list. Well, the High Standard 9-shot revolver in .22 with a 9.5" Buntline-style barrel is exactly the same make of handgun that SCOTUS told DC that Heller could have in DC v Heller...
DC did not even bother to respond to Alan's motion and decided to capitulate.