Tyme - let me add that a manufacturer
can get a testing waiver from CA if they produce the same gun in different colors, such as blue/black blue/tan, blue/green, satin-nickel/black, etc. But to do so, the guns must be certified to be
exactly alike except for color. Change the sights, add a lasergrip, use wood instead of zytel grips and you're screwed. Stupid, but it is what it is. But the gun in question, I think, has a stainless slide, making it a different critter per CA rules.
Quote:
|
How much more arbitrary can you get than making things illegal based on color?
|
I don't recall which justice said it, but he said essentially
The law is not logic. It is an accumulation of ideas over time. Which is one way of saying that arguing that color makes no logical difference will not persuade a court.
Does anyone else see the irony - that just after the election of the first African-American president, an African-American resident of the nation's capital attempts to follow the law, only to be told she cannot possess her handgun because her
gun is the
wrong color?!
I'd love to see the District's appeal of a summary judgement. It would require George Orwell to make it sound like something good.
Has anyone looked at the "revised" D.C. Statutes? Links would be helpful. I tried the D.C. website but they are not posted yet. Since the St. Lawrence family couldn't register her Para-Ord, it raises the question is whether D.C. allows re-registration of a gun no longer on California's list.
It would not surprise me if D.C.'s intent is to make it expensive for gun owners by prohibiting re-registration of guns that have fallen off the California list. Imagine buying a brand new model in 2009 and finding in 2012 or 1014 that it cannot be re-registered and you'll have to sell it.