JohnRich 4 #1 March 10, 2009 News:D.C. rejects woman’s handgun over color A D.C. woman claims she was banned from registering her .45-caliber handgun in the District because the weapon was “the wrong color.” Tracey Ambeau Hanson was one of three city residents who filed a lawsuit against the District on Monday that challenges a city handgun regulation prohibiting handguns not on a list of handguns approved by the state of California. Hanson’s Springfield XD-45 was on the government’s approved roster of guns, but hers was black and silver. The law only permits that Springfield model if it’s one of the approved colors: black, green or brown. "Her bi-tone version is supposedly 'unsafe.’ ” Hanson said she just wants be able to own a handgun without interference from the D.C. government. "Do we really need a gun-fashion police?” she asked.Source: http://www.dcexaminer.com/local/DC-rejects-womans-handgun-over-color-40983407.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #2 March 10, 2009 Why do I get the feeling that "color" is only part of the story? Is it because the metallurgy of the parts in question is different? Yeah, they are.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #3 March 10, 2009 In CA the stainless steel slide does not have a loaded chamber indicator required by CA law. Likely it's the same with D.C.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #4 March 10, 2009 QuoteIn CA the stainless steel slide does not have a loaded chamber indicator required by CA law. Likely it's the same with D.C. The DC law is based on the California list. The article and JR are being deceptive by focusing on the "color" of the part in question.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #5 March 10, 2009 correction: the stainless slide DOES have a loaded chamber indicator however Springfield failed to submit the bi-tone model before the new laws with more strict requirements on loaded chamber indicators took effect. I really want that slide bad....I wonder if I can convert mine.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #6 March 10, 2009 QuoteWhy do I get the feeling that "color" is only part of the story? Is it because the metallurgy of the parts in question is different? Yeah, they are. Quoteif there is a safety issue wuth the metal used i can see why it was not allowed, but if there is no safety issue whats the difference? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #7 March 10, 2009 QuoteQuoteWhy do I get the feeling that "color" is only part of the story? Is it because the metallurgy of the parts in question is different? Yeah, they are. Quoteif there is a safety issue wuth the metal used i can see why it was not allowed, but if there is no safety issue whats the difference? And . . . from the California list perspective . . . how would they possibly know if the gun manufacturer didn't submit it for testing?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #8 March 10, 2009 Here are the new requirements as of Jan 1, 08. There's expected language regarding what comprises a loaded chamber indicator - readily visible with graphics or text or both, etc - but there's also a requirement that it be designed in such a way to plainly indicate "to a reasonably forseeable adult user of the pistol" the chamber is loaded "without requiring the user to refer to a user's manual or any other resource other than the pistol itself. I bolded the part that essentailly banned the sale of all new handgun models in CA.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #9 March 10, 2009 Quote The DC law is based on the California list. The article and JR are being deceptive by focusing on the "color" of the part in question. No, DC law and the California List are both being way too picky on what constitutes a "different" gun. We already had this discussion Here."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #10 March 10, 2009 QuoteQuoteIn CA the stainless steel slide does not have a loaded chamber indicator required by CA law. Likely it's the same with D.C. The DC law is based on the California list. The article and JR are being deceptive by focusing on the "color" of the part in question. The Cali list is a crock of crap - a gun that is safe one year doesn't suddenly become unsafe because the manufacturer didn't pay the $200 / model danegeld. DC is going to get their ass handed to them again, if they're not careful.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #11 March 10, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteIn CA the stainless steel slide does not have a loaded chamber indicator required by CA law. Likely it's the same with D.C. The DC law is based on the California list. The article and JR are being deceptive by focusing on the "color" of the part in question. The Cali list is a crock of crap - a gun that is safe one year doesn't suddenly become unsafe because the manufacturer didn't pay the $200 / model danegeld. DC is going to get their ass handed to them again, if they're not careful. Quotewe can only hope they do, each victory is one step closer to keeping our freedoms and rights. We give up to much and get to little in return from the gov and it is good to have a victory once in a while. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #12 March 10, 2009 QuoteThe Cali list is a crock of crap - a gun that is safe one year doesn't suddenly become unsafe because the manufacturer didn't pay the $200 / model danegeld. Hmmm, isn't that a bit like saying that once an automobile has been inspected and sold, it's always going to be safe year after year of manufacturing even if they change the metallurgy of the parts? What other product would that be an acceptable policy for?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #13 March 10, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe Cali list is a crock of crap - a gun that is safe one year doesn't suddenly become unsafe because the manufacturer didn't pay the $200 / model danegeld. Hmmm, isn't that a bit like saying that once an automobile has been inspected and sold, it's always going to be safe year after year of manufacturing even if they change the metallurgy of the parts? What other product would that be an acceptable policy for? No, it's more like requiring complete crash testing of each different option combination/trim level/color on each car. And requiring the manufacturer to pay for all of it. Yes, the stainless steel is different, as is the effects of a plating or coating the steel. But they aren't different enough to really matter. They have been making these guns this way for years. If you look at the rules for getting on the approved list, it's pretty obvious that it is just an attempt to prevent manufacturers from placing the product on the market."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #14 March 11, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe Cali list is a crock of crap - a gun that is safe one year doesn't suddenly become unsafe because the manufacturer didn't pay the $200 / model danegeld. Hmmm, isn't that a bit like saying that once an automobile has been inspected and sold, it's always going to be safe year after year of manufacturing even if they change the metallurgy of the parts? What other product would that be an acceptable policy for? You obviously don't know how Cali does their testing. Cali testing involves a drop test and a firing test - that's it. (oh, and the $200 per year per individual model danegeld to stay on the list). They aren't doing metallurgical testing. Seeing as how Cali has Hi Point (and in the past, Bryco) on their approved list, any argument hinging on metallurgy is full of shit. This is a pistol legal for sale in ANY other state. DC's adoption of Cali's gun list is going to be seen by the judges as an attempt to further restrict gunowners, wait and see.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #15 March 11, 2009 QuoteAnd requiring the manufacturer to pay for all of it. You're not suggesting that the tax payer foot the bill for product safety testing? Quote Yes, the stainless steel is different, as is the effects of a plating or coating the steel. We're not simply talking about platings and paint (as the article and JR would have you believe). I can absolutely guarantee you that if you made one car out of one metal and made another one with the exact same design but using a different metal they would crash test differently.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #16 March 11, 2009 QuoteYou obviously don't know how Cali does their testing. Cali testing involves a drop test and a firing test - that's it. (oh, and the $200 per year per individual model danegeld to stay on the list). They aren't doing metallurgical testing. Different alloys will deform differently when impacted. Are you saying they don't?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #17 March 11, 2009 QuoteQuoteYou obviously don't know how Cali does their testing. Cali testing involves a drop test and a firing test - that's it. (oh, and the $200 per year per individual model danegeld to stay on the list). They aren't doing metallurgical testing. Different alloys will deform differently when impacted. Are you saying they don't? No, I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about and your argument is bullshit.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #18 March 11, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou obviously don't know how Cali does their testing. Cali testing involves a drop test and a firing test - that's it. (oh, and the $200 per year per individual model danegeld to stay on the list). They aren't doing metallurgical testing. Different alloys will deform differently when impacted. Are you saying they don't? No, I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about and your argument is bullshit. Well that's nice. Tell me exactly what part of it is wrong. Different metals deform differently when impacted. The two weapons have parts made of two metals. One weapon was tested and the other was not. The weapon that was tested was found to be satisfactory. The other weapon made of a different material, however, was not tested at all. How in the world can California possibly know if it passes the test if it hasn't been submitted to testing? Go ahead, tell me where I'm wrong.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #19 March 11, 2009 Quoteto a reasonably forseeable adult user of the pistol" the chamber is loaded "without requiring the user to refer to a user's manual or any other resource other than the pistol itself. Step 1: Assume all weapons are loaded until locked clear, visually and physically checked. Step 2: See step one (and perform a press check). Its not rocket science. Fire is hot, Ford makes crappy cars and all weapons are assumed loaded.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gene03 0 #20 March 11, 2009 Now I'm completely confused. Should I shoot my car or drive my gun?“The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him. Stanislaw Jerzy Lec quotes (Polish writer, poet and satirist 1906-1966) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #21 March 11, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou obviously don't know how Cali does their testing. Cali testing involves a drop test and a firing test - that's it. (oh, and the $200 per year per individual model danegeld to stay on the list). They aren't doing metallurgical testing. Different alloys will deform differently when impacted. Are you saying they don't? No, I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about and your argument is bullshit. If Boeing tested an airliner using one alloy for the wings, and then marketed one with a different alloy instead and didn't submit it for testing, would that be OK? If GE got approval for a nuclear power plant with one alloy for the pressure vessel, and then changed the alloy for a different one without testing, would that be OK?If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #22 March 11, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou obviously don't know how Cali does their testing. Cali testing involves a drop test and a firing test - that's it. (oh, and the $200 per year per individual model danegeld to stay on the list). They aren't doing metallurgical testing. Different alloys will deform differently when impacted. Are you saying they don't? No, I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about and your argument is bullshit. Well that's nice. Tell me exactly what part of it is wrong. Different metals deform differently when impacted. The two weapons have parts made of two metals. One weapon was tested and the other was not. The weapon that was tested was found to be satisfactory. The other weapon made of a different material, however, was not tested at all. How in the world can California possibly know if it passes the test if it hasn't been submitted to testing? Go ahead, tell me where I'm wrong. Because the color of a polymer frame has NOTHING to do with either a drop test or a firing test. Because the slide material has virtually nothing to do with a drop test (that would be the internal workings, which are made of the same metal whether the slide is stainless or carbon steel). Because the slide material has only slightly more to do in a firing test, and that only if there is a catastrophic failure of the BARREL. Because once a particular model is approved, it stays approved only so long as the manufacturer keeps paying the $200/model/year danegeld. The fact that Cali has, in the past, approved pot-metal guns like Jennings or Bryco for purchase. Cali's registration is nothing more than a scheme to restrict sales and suck money out of the manufacturer's pocket for the 'privilege' of selling in Cali. Any other questions?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #23 March 11, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteIn CA the stainless steel slide does not have a loaded chamber indicator required by CA law. Likely it's the same with D.C. The DC law is based on the California list. The article and JR are being deceptive by focusing on the "color" of the part in question. The Cali list is a crock of crap - a gun that is safe one year doesn't suddenly become unsafe because the manufacturer didn't pay the $200 / model danegeld. . Thalidomide was safe one year, and then it wasn't. Mercury used to be safe (could even buy it in toy stores), then it wasn't. Hormone replacement therapy was safe until it wasn't. Testing costs money, $200 seems cheap to me.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #24 March 11, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIn CA the stainless steel slide does not have a loaded chamber indicator required by CA law. Likely it's the same with D.C. The DC law is based on the California list. The article and JR are being deceptive by focusing on the "color" of the part in question. The Cali list is a crock of crap - a gun that is safe one year doesn't suddenly become unsafe because the manufacturer didn't pay the $200 / model danegeld. . Thalidomide was safe one year, and then it wasn't. Mercury used to be safe (could even buy it in toy stores), then it wasn't. Hormone replacement therapy was safe until it wasn't. Testing costs money, $200 seems cheap to me. It's a ONE-TIME test. Once it's on the list, it's on the list so long as Cali gets it's palm greased every year. Instead of bullshit arguments, try doing some research.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #25 March 11, 2009 QuoteIt's a ONE-TIME test. Once it's on the list, it's on the list so long as Cali gets it's palm greased every year. Instead of bullshit arguments, try doing some research. So, you're saying the model in question WAS on the list previously? Wanna prove that?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
