The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 7, 2013, 02:39 PM   #1
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,094
Glock Files Amicus in California Roster Case

Quote:
BELLEVUE, WA - Attorneys for Glock, Inc. have filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the Second Amendment Foundation's case in California, Pena v. Lindley, a lawsuit challenging the state handgun roster requirements that include microstamping and magazine disconnects.
I don't see this here yet:

http://www.mdshooters.com/attachment...2&d=1383779829

Unfortunately, I believe this link may require a MD shooters reg. Can anybody host it here?

Menawhile, some highlights:

Quote:
Many earlier models of GLOCK pistols are grandfathered and remain legal for
sale to civilians in California. The models that GLOCK has introduced since 2008,
however, are not legal to sell to civilians in California because they do not incorporate a
magazine disconnect mechanism and novel microstamping technology, even though the
earlier models that remain legal for sale also lack these features.

GLOCK submits this brief to explain why the varied and growing requirements of
the California gun roster program are inconsistent with the essential qualities of GLOCK
pistols that have made them so popular. GLOCK also seeks to present information to this
Court regarding why its pistols do not incorporate a magazine disconnect mechanism and
microstamping technology and why denying California citizens the ability to purchase
these commonly used handguns violates their Second Amendment right to keep and bear
arms.
Quote:
II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear those types of
weapons that are in “common use” by “law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 625, 627 (2008) (internal citation and
quotation marks omitted). While the Supreme Court itself has squarely held that
handguns as a class satisfy this common use test, id. at 629, this brief will discuss the
characteristics of GLOCK pistols, which are among the most popular and highly regarded
pistols in common use, but do not incorporate some of the features currently required by
California. Despite, or perhaps because of, the absence of features such as a magazine
disconnect mechanism and microstamping technology, GLOCK pistols are widely used
for lawful purposes throughout the country, are safe and reliable, and hence fall squarely
within the core category of “arms” protected by the Second Amendment. To forbid the
sale of such protected arms to Californians thus infringes upon their rights under the
Second Amendment.
Quote:
III. ARGUMENT
The Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s
right to keep and bear arms of the type that are in “common use” by “law-abiding citizens
for lawful purposes,” such as handguns. Heller, 554 U.S. at 625, 627, 629 (2008)
(internal citation and quotation marks omitted). The only type of arms that the Supreme
Court has suggested may be banned for sale to civilians are those that are both
“dangerous and unusual.” Id. at 627.

GLOCK pistols are among the most popular semi-automatic pistols in the world,
widely recognized for their superior safety, reliability durability, and ease of use. The
GLOCK “Safe Action”® pistol is manufactured with only 34 parts, significantly less than
its competitors. This smaller number of component parts increases reliability, and
ultimately safety, by reducing the potential for technical problems.

GLOCK pistols do not incorporate a magazine disconnect mechanism, which is
designed to render a pistol incapable of firing when the magazine is not inserted. GLOCK
does not intend to incorporate a magazine disconnect mechanism into its pistols because
of its significant disadvantages. GLOCK pistols can be fired if the magazine is lost or
damaged, and a round in the chamber can be fired if necessary while the user is in the
process of changing magazines. A pistol with a magazine disconnect mechanism would
not be capable of firing under those circumstances. For those reasons and others, the
overwhelming majority of law enforcement agencies require pistols that do not have a
magazine disconnect mechanism. In addition to GLOCK pistols, the majority of semiautomatic
pistols sold today do not include a magazine disconnect mechanism because of
its significant disadvantages. Accordingly, the pistols that are in “common use” by “law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” Heller, 554 U.S. at 625, 627, generally do not
include a magazine disconnect mechanism.

GLOCK pistols also do not incorporate microstamping technology, which is
intended to imprint bullets and/or cartridge cases with information on the pistol that fired
them, such as the make, model and serial number. Microstamping is both novel and
essentially theoretical because no pistols that are commercially available in the United
States currently incorporate it. Accordingly, the pistols that are in “common use” by
“law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” do not feature microstamping technology.
A good read . . . It gets right to the heart of 'common use'. One excellent point made is that since consumers can continue to buy the functionally identical third generation, on–roster handguns, the regulation doesn't even accomplish the dubious objective of denying citizens a firearm that lacks either a magazine disconnect or micro-stamping capability. It only denies the consumer access to the improved features such as dual recoil spring and swappable back straps. That's it.

Where the law really jumps the shark is with the magazine disconnect (which almost no common weapon has) and the micro stamping, which is NON-EXISTENT in any production firearm. Put another way, the roster only permits new firearms that are not in common use (with mag disconnect), or new firearms that actually don't exist at all (with micro-stamping capability).

If a legislature wished to craft a slow rolling gun ban, then banning guns lacking non-existent features is about as obvious a way to do it as I can imagine.

Last edited by maestro pistolero; November 7, 2013 at 02:49 PM.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old November 7, 2013, 02:58 PM   #2
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,657
I can't find a copy of the brief online. There are articles mentioning or quoting it, but they all seem to be sourcing the same story.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 7, 2013, 04:26 PM   #3
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,323
Are we forgetting that the docket is listed in the Current 2A Cases thread (item #8 in the list)?

Docket: Pena v. Lindley (was Cid).

Amicus Brief: Doc #66.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old November 7, 2013, 04:26 PM   #4
Librarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 151
http://www.archive.org/download/gov....91444.66.0.pdf

From the docket.
__________________
See the CALGUNS FOUNDATION Wiki for discussion of California firearms law.

The FAQ page is here.
Librarian is offline  
Old November 7, 2013, 04:29 PM   #5
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,094
You guys are good.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old November 7, 2013, 04:46 PM   #6
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,848
Who else but GLock would include what seems to be ad copy language in a legal brief?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 7, 2013, 04:55 PM   #7
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,323
Ad copy or not, you simply can't argue those facts.

(and no, I don't own and have no plans to own a Glock)
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old November 8, 2013, 12:14 AM   #8
Librarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 151
Quote:
You guys are good.
And surprisingly synchronous.
__________________
See the CALGUNS FOUNDATION Wiki for discussion of California firearms law.

The FAQ page is here.
Librarian is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08191 seconds with 9 queries