Tucked away in one of the District of Columbia's new gun regulations is the following provision:
"Except as provided in subsections (c), (d), or (e) of this section, beginning January 1,
2009, a pistol that is not on the California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale, also known as the California Roster of Handguns Determined Not to be Unsafe, pursuant to California Penal
Code Section 12131 as of January 1, 2009, may not be manufactured, sold, given, loaned,
exposed for sale, transferred, or imported into the District of Columbia."
This means for a resident in Washington, D.C., to buy a handgun, it has to be approved by the California Department of Justice. And D.C. council members like to whine about taxation without representation? What about the loss of a right based on the whim of an unelected state bureaucrat almost 3,000 miles away?
And if you think California's roster of "safe" handguns is based on safety features, you're wrong. The state of California long ago began to disguise gun bans as gun safety.
For example, they say newly manufactured non-microstamped handguns will be considered "unsafe" on January 1, 2010. With the California legislature's declaration that a handgun is safe or unsafe based on cosmetic features they like or don't, they've opened a giant back door to gun bans. And not only Californians but also residents of D.C. are victims of these infringements of their Second Amendment rights.
I've pointed out just a few of the problems in D.C.'s new gun laws. Residents of the District deserve better. They deserve a city council that seeks to secure their rights, not restrict them. But in the absence of good politicians making good law, gun owners across the country will have to once again team up to ensure that the courts enforce the Constitution.
More... 
