> POLICE FACE LIABILITY FOR CARRYING HANDGUNS DEEMED "UNSAFE" UNDER NEW GUN<BR>> LAW<BR>><BR>> Replacing Police Firearms Could Cost Millions<BR>><BR>> Police Departments throughout the state are struggling to address their<BR>> increased liability for firearm accidents inadvertently created by SB 15 -<BR>> 1999 (Polanco, D-Los Angeles). SB 15 declares every handgun "unsafe"<BR>unless<BR>> it passes a series of state mandated performance tests. Because the bill<BR>> only allows manufacturers to submit guns for testing, and because only<BR>> current production handgun models have been submitted by those<BR>> manufacturers, all previous production models carried by police<BR>departments<BR>> across the state are branded "unsafe" by the law, regardless of their<BR>> quality and safety features.<BR>><BR>> Although law enforcement agencies are exempt from restrictions on buying<BR>> the guns under the new law, the is no provision immunizing them from the<BR>> increased liability resulting from carrying an untested "unsafe" handgun.<BR>> In response to a Public Records Act request done at the behest of the<BR>> CRPA and NRA, police departments across the state identified the guns they<BR>> have approved for on and off duty carry. Most of these firearms have not<BR>> been tested, and many would not pass even if they were. For example, the<BR>> unique guns carried by the California Highway Patrol are currently<BR>untested<BR>> and thus "unsafe" under the provisions of the new law.<BR>><BR>> Several attorneys representing city and county governments have already<BR>> advised their police departments against allowing the guns to be carried<BR>by<BR>> their officers, and have contacted the Attorney General about the<BR>increased<BR>> liability problem. At least one Department, Fresno's Sheriff, has already<BR>> revised its policy so officers can't carry untested guns. Although the<BR>> Attorney General's office has denied that police departments face<BR>increased<BR>> exposure, their position is based on the assumption that all police guns<BR>> would pass the required tests. The Attorney General has not addressed the<BR>> issue of police liability for carrying guns, either on or off duty, that<BR>the<BR>> department has approved but that would not pass the tests, or whether not<BR>> testing police guns might itself be negligence.<BR>><BR>> Police practices are also starting to be reviewed by risk assessment<BR>> departments and municipal insurance companies. Law enforcement agencies<BR>may<BR>> have to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to buy new current production<BR>> guns to replace the ones they have now in order to avoid costly lawsuits<BR>> resulting from the use of "unsafe" handguns by their own personnel. This<BR>> will necessitate their current guns either being destroyed or sold out of<BR>> state.<BR>><BR>> Jim Erdman, Executive Director of the CRPA, stated: "This is exactly the<BR>> same situation as if the state, by law, had declared everything except<BR>this<BR>> year's models of automobiles to be unsafe and made illegal for used car<BR>> dealers to sell them . . . and it is every bit as unsound in logic and<BR>> fairness to millions of Californians who either own last year's model<BR>> already or would like to shop at a dealership to buy one."<BR>><BR>> Many law enforcement agencies, on advice of legal counsel, are also<BR>> prohibiting civilian holders of permits to carry concealed weapons from<BR>> carrying non-current production, untested handgun models. "Since most<BR>carry<BR>> high quality guns they have owned for a long time, the new law will force<BR>> them to buy another gun that is in current production just to be in<BR>> compliance with the unintended consequences of SB15," says Erdman. "The<BR>real<BR>> effect of SB15 will be the sale of more guns, not less. And with respect<BR>to<BR>> models not currently in production, many will no doubt be sold illegally<BR>on<BR>> the streets and other places instead of through a licensed firearm dealer.<BR>> Dealer sales include registration, a criminal and mental history<BR>background<BR>> check, and a buyer's ten day waiting period. Non-dealer sales do not. This<BR>> is what happens when bills are rushed through the legislative process<BR>> without adequate consideration being given to the details of their<BR>> drafting and implementation.<BR>><BR>> The liability concerns follow a California Legislative Counsel's Office<BR>> (which acts as the legal counsel to the State Legislature) opinion issued<BR>> just last week (#21239) interpreting SB 15 and condemning a California<BR>> Department of Justice (DOJ) policy allowing dealers to conduct consignment<BR>> sales of untested handguns. As a result, gun dealers who, relying on the<BR>DOJ<BR>> policy, facilitated private party "consignment" sales of handguns since<BR>the<BR>> first of the year face possible prosecution. The registered handgun sales<BR>> are subject to invalidation, and the registered guns may be confiscated.<BR>And<BR>> most gun dealers, who relied on private party consignment sales for the<BR>> majority of their profits, face insolvency.<BR>_________________________<BR>_________________________<P>This Cracks Me Up-Sad but True-----Chainsaw
