Unfortunately, Calfornia handgun roster of guns that Calforinia residents can purchase has shrunk substantially because of this law.
IVAN PENA V. STEPHEN LINDLEY
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/08/03/15-15449.pdfThe panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgmentin favor of California in an action challenging three provisions of California’s Unsafe Handgun Act.
California requires that new models of handguns meet certain criteria, and be listed on a handgun roster, before they may be offered for sale in the state. Two provisions require
that a handgun have a chamber load indicator and a magazine detachment mechanism, both of which are designed to limit accidental firearm discharges. The third provision, adopted
to aid law enforcement, requires new handguns to stamp microscopically the handgun’s make, model, and serial number onto each fired shell casing. Plaintiffs asserted that
these three provisions have narrowed their ability to buy firearms in California, in violation of the Second Amendment, and that the handgun roster scheme imposes
irrational exceptions, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The panel held that it did not need to reach the question of whether the challenged provisions fell within the scope of
the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms because, even assuming coverage, the provisions passed constitutional muster. Applying intermediate scrutiny, the panel held that
the Act only regulates commercial sales, not possession, and does so in a way that does not impose a substantial burden on purchasers. The panel held that the requirements for a
chamber load indicator and a magazine detachment mechanism reasonably fit with California’s interest in public safety. The panel further held that California had met its burden of showing that the microstamping requirement was reasonably tailored to address the substantial problem of untraceable bullets at crime scenes and the value of a
reasonable means of identification. The panel rejected plaintiffs’ claim that they have a constitutional right to purchase a particular handgun and their claim that the
provisions violate the Equal Protection Clause
Last Edit by Humphrey
