Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page

NOTE! This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or any other living person besides the one who posted them. Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion Policy, but there's a bad apple in every bunch, and we have no control over bigots and other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com

The Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:

CA: Judge OK's Calif. Unsafe Handgun Act
Submitted by: Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/

There are 3 comments on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments

"California's Unsafe Handguns Act, which bans new semiautomatic handguns that do not stamp identifying information on the cartridge when a bullet is fired, is constitutional, a federal judge ruled."

"The Unsafe Handguns Act prohibits the manufacture or sale of any gun that does not meet certain safety requirements. The California Department of Justice keeps a roster of tested revolvers or semiautomatic pistols that have been deemed not to be unsafe."

"The purpose of the law is to reduce crime by reducing the sale of cheap handguns, ensuring that handguns fire when they are supposed to and do not fire when dropped.'" ...

Comment by: Uncommon1 (3/3/2015)

Criminals, ever cognizant of the firearm laws, will be sure to use only those guns that have been approved by the California legislature in order to avoid getting in trouble when they commit crimes.

Comment by: jac (3/3/2015)

I for one am sick of these liberal judges that impose their prejudices instead of ruling in accordance with the constitution.

Comment by: Millwright66 (3/3/2015)

One of the worst hand gun laws was that prohibiting "Saturday nite specials". The (unintended?) consequence was criminals soon had reliable weapons. Seems like cA is way "behind the curve" on this one !

The "upside" of this decision - if true/factual - is it conflicts with federal law/standards on multiple levels. The obvious case is to contend how "micro-stamping" - an unproven/untried technology - renders a firearm already meeting industry and federal standards for safety and performance is rendered "unsafe" by lacking an unproven modification.