Then, reader, just follow Jim March's
attachment to see just how PREPOSTEROUS this whole matter is for
Smith AND the poor beleaguered gun:
"...first, he must sell his Colt Commander, magazines, and 22 .45 ACP cartridges which PPD officers confiscated to a licensed gun dealer and second, he must agree to a mutual release of all claims [namely, agree to not sue]."
Once again, be SURE to read the absolutely insane requirements on the
sale of firearms related by Jim March. We are sure they were organized by a looooong ,
tedious meeting behind the looking glass, down a the Mad Hatter's party
To which Smith essentially replies:
"No deal--her client's proposal is rejected."
Regarding the Smith firearm forfeiture/destruction case, the assist city atty for the City of Pittsburg, CA sent me a settlement proposal. Her client is the Pittsburg Police Department. The PPD's settlement offer to my client has two conditions: first, he must sell his Colt Commander, magazines, and 22 .45 ACP cartridges which PPD officers confiscated to a licensed gun dealer and second, he must agree to a mutual release of all claims [namely, agree to not sue].
I conveyed this to Smith. Based on his instructions to me, today I sent the PPD's atty a letter telling her, essentially, "No deal--her client's proposal is rejected."
I also discussed this with Jim March. JM shared with me an interesting "wrinkle": complications arising from CA's increasingly insane prior restraint laws agaisnt the 2AM. JM's message to me follows. Read it. I decline to explain it cuz you are smart enough to figure it out.
Note how excellent handguns are on CA's "junk gun" list and how and why they get there and stay there--guns that cops paid top dollar for and still carry with 100% confidence and pride today!!! Just proves how assinine some political whores can be and that the size of their rectums is boundless.
Other stuff is going on in that case. I have been too busy with other things to forward it to Cornet Joyce. Could not resist, however, forwarding this.
[JM's message follows.]
OK, the link to the main current Cal-DOJ database of "safe and legal for FFL
sale" guns is at:
This page is what you get when you specify "all Colt handguns" and "sort by
t&_UserReference=D7806E6B100BD9973D6EFFB4 (if that URL is too long, don't
sweat it, use the first one and pick "Colt" for manufacturer)
In there is:
04012XS Combat Commander / Stainless Steel (brushed) 4.25" barrel .45ACP
OK, fine. But if your guy's gun is an aluminum slide variant, he can't buy
a replacement from an FFL. If his gun has a different FINISH it's
irreplaceable. If it's a series 70 instead of 80, he can't buy it from an
FFL. And if it was produced before they used the "04012XS" product code,
ditto, it's "junk" even if it's identical to current.
WHICH MEANS THAT IN ANY OF THOSE CASES, HE CAN'T GET FULL VALUE OUT OF IT
BECAUSE THE FFL HAS TO MOVE IT OUT OF STATE - HE MUST WHOLESALE IT RATHER
THAN SELL IT RETAIL, AND HE HAS TO PAY SHIPPING COSTS.
I would strongly recommend that you cite this garbage as being a reason your
client, due to the unintended(?) consequences of current state law, cannot
get anything like fair value out of the piece *unless* he somehow managed to
locate a private buyer to do an FFL transfer with - and the terms of the
prosecution's "settlement offer" preclude that.
Your client will be lucky to get 50 cents on the dollar. VERY lucky.
Setting aside this case for the moment:
The rest of what's currently "not junk" from Colt is a freakshow.
Surprisingly, the Police Positive .38Spl (4" barrel) is on the list - the
story there is an importer found a shitload in Europe somewhere and managed
to pay the test fee. This was a very rare circumstance, virtually all other
quality handguns from that era are "junk" .
The Python doesn't appear to be listed at all, but that's a screwup - the
model I3060CS is the Python, but so far only the stainless 6" barrel is
listed. All blue and nickel Pythons are "junk", as are all barrel lengths
other than 6". I knew the little "357 Dick Special" (actually called the
"Magnum Carry" if I'm not mistaken) wasn't on the list because it's not a
current Colt product and hence Colt has no financial incentive to list it.
Now, you wanna REALLY get pissed? Go back to any of the tables of "good
guns" and in the last column, you'll find an expiration date. That's right.
Each manufacturer has to pay a yearly "ransom" to retain registration.
Which means, if you're S&W and the model 686-6 gets replaced with the -7,
you have strong dis-incentive to maintain the "ransom" on the -6, so it goes
from being "blessed" one year to somehow magically "unsafe junk" the next,
eliminating dealer sales of the -6 model when it "expires" and forcing gun
dealers to upgrade their inventory to -7s in order to be able to sell new
686s. And ditto all the way down the product line, across all
Peter, this is probably a better, stronger sort of case for you to get
involved in (on behalf of a dealer!) than CCW? (We might be able to fund it
through the NSSF, too.)
Because what this is really all about is all-out war against the dealers.
If it wasn't for the post-9/11 buying frenzy, most would be dead today.
It's quite possible this is a more "urgent issue" than CCW, but it's not
something I have either the standing or the legal training to deal with :(.
Subject: Re: UPDATE SMITH FIREARM CASE
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 01:24:58 -0700
To clarify a small part of my message:
>> WHICH MEANS THAT IN ANY OF THOSE CASES, HE CAN'T GET FULL VALUE OUT
OF IT BECAUSE THE FFL HAS TO MOVE IT OUT OF STATE - HE MUST WHOLESALE IT
RATHER THAN SELL IT RETAIL, AND HE HAS TO PAY SHIPPING COSTS. <<
My bad: the first "he" refers to Mr. Smith, while the "he" after the
the FFL. Whoops. It's the FFL that must wholesale the gun and pay
out-of-state. This in turn affects what he can pay Peter's client.
Another detail: only "manufacturers" and "importers" are *allowed* to
a gun for testing and listing as "non-junk". As particular gun models
up for "expiration", the "ransom" to keep them there is fairly small,
if I recall right but nobody else but the manufacturer or importer is
allowed to pay it. If just that one detail was changed, the NSSF
Shooting Sports Foundation, basically a gun industry lobbying group)
pay the fees...or submit popular "classic guns" such as the Colt
Special for initial testing, for that matter.
There's no "safety excuse" possible for either the "expiration date and
yearly ransom" or the limited number of possible testers. Absolutely
The only "result" is bankrupt dealers and distributors. Which is why I
think Peter's "style" is well suited for such a case, with at least one
dealer (or the NSSF, or a class action?) as the client, based on second
amendment violations, due process, equal protection, deliberate
interstate trade for political ends, etc.
I am uncertain as to whether or not private non-FFL citizens would have
standing on the issue, because except for rare circumstances such as
proposed Smith settlement by Pittsburg, the cash value of our
guns is actually higher - we are the only possible legal source for
things in private-party transactions handled *through* an FFL. (Then
our cost to purchase such things is higher, and as dealers go belly-up
retail prices at the remaining dealers will rise due to lack of
so maybe some regular Joes *can* be added as plaintiffs? But if so,
least one dealer in too.)
And here is a picture of the meeting of Pittsburg, California officials to decide just what offer to make Smith since he is innocent of anything but we can't have his handgun running around loose in the neighborhood:
To return to our home page, click: