LA City Council Votes Unanimously to Repeal Ban on ‘Ultracompact’ Handguns

The Los Angeles City council voted unanimously on Tuesday to roll back a sixteen-year ban on the sale of “ultracompact” handguns.

The decision comes after the National Rifle Association and the California Rifle & Pistol Association threatened legal action. Attorneys for the NRA and CRPA argued that the city ordinance is “preempted” by state law, which allows the sale of any handgun listed on the California DOJ’s “Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale.”

“By banning the sale of certain handguns labeled ‘ultracompact’ under the ordinance, the City prohibited the sale or transfer of certain handguns that are listed on DOJ’s roster—handguns that have been tested and are specifically approved for sale in California,” the NRA said in a statement. “Because the ordinance conflicted with state law in this respect, the ordinance is ‘preempted’ by the state law and invalid.”

The ordinance was championed in 2001 by City Atty. Mike Feuer, who claimed at the time that “these concealable, compact weapons are the weapons of choice for criminals.” The ban prohibited the sale of handguns measuring less than 6.75” long or 4.5” high, including the vast majority of the most popular concealed carry firearms like the Smith & Wesson M&P Shield.

City officials said this week they did not know exactly how many kinds of handguns would become legal for sale in LA once the ban was reversed, according to a report from the LA Times. CRPA attorney Chuck Michel said “a few” of the guns that were previously banned would now be available within city limits.

A search on the Roster reveals that several Smith & Wesson Shield models made the cut, along with the Springfield XD Sub-Compact and the Ruger LC380. All of these guns are listed on the Roster but had previously been illegal to sell in LA due to their size.

Michel said in a written statement his clients will consider further legal action if they discover other cities that have passed laws in conflict with state law.

“We will continue to monitor local municipal codes throughout California and pursue the clean-up of these kinds of ineffective laws — which typically are never enforced once the initial press conferences are over.”

This isn’t the first time the NRA has convinced Los Angeles to amend an ordinance that conflicts with state law. In 2015 the city passed a ban on magazines with capacities greater than 10 rounds. When the state passed a similar law, the city agreed to sunset their magazine restrictions on July 1, 2017.

But since Judge Roger T. Benitez temporarily blocked the state’s magazine ban, standard capacity magazines are currently allowed to be possessed within LA city limits.

About the author: Jordan Michaels has been reviewing firearm-related products for over two years and enjoying them for much longer. With family in Canada, he’s seen first hand how quickly the right to self-defense can be stripped from law-abiding citizens. He escaped that statist paradise at a young age, married a sixth-generation Texan, and currently lives in Waco.

{ 11 comments… add one }
  • Johann September 1, 2017, 11:59 pm

    there was a law that said you could own Marshmallows.

    for 150 years everybody owned Marshmallows and enjoyed them very much. huge Marshmallows shot out of a cannon, rapid-fire Marshmallows as fast as you could turn the crank, Marshmallows for the pocket, purse, holster and saddlebag.

    I would guess even crew-served Marshmallows but nobody talks about those.

    nobody questioned the right to own Marshmallows. it was the law of the land. to say that somebody couldn’t own a certain Marshmallow was beyond absurd, it was ridiculous.

    until some politician said you can’t own a sawed-off Marshmallow.

    then like a plague of locusts, the anti-Marshmallow laws descended upon us.

    you can’t own a cheap Marshmallow.

    you can own a revolving Marshmallow, but not a semiautomatic Marshmallow.

    you can’t own a Marshmallow that is too short, or a collapsible Marshmallow.

    you can’t own too many Marshmallows at one time.

    you can only buy one Marshmallow per month; and then, you have to wait 5 days to buy it.

    one crazy town (see above) even banned Mini-Marshmallows.

    what happened to the law that says, quite simply, you can own Marshmallows?

    it’s still on the books, but nobody pays any attention to it; they say these newer laws, that came afterward, make more sense.

  • OFBG September 1, 2017, 7:21 pm

    While one might hope that this decision would have come about because LA City Atty. Mike Feuer finally came to understand that “these concealable, compact weapons [that he considers to be] the weapons of choice for criminals” are also the weapons of choice for self-defense by law-abiding citizens, that’s clearly not the case.
    The video is priceless in that it clearly illustrates the paranoia and ignorance of anti-gun activists, including the media. Yes, an 1890’s-vintage H&R break-open revolver may qualify dimensionally as “ultra-compact,” but how many criminals might consider one as his “weapon of choice?”

  • William M Durham September 1, 2017, 3:25 pm

    Maybe the entire Nation see the on live TV claims of total dominance and control and police and citizen fear of them made by the gangs of this gang run and controlled city helped. When the average normal citizen cannot carry a gun to protect them and their families from rampaging gangs somethings is badly wrong. LA would make a geat target for a large Nuke from N. Korea, no big loss to the US and a real gain for all.

  • mcFoo September 1, 2017, 2:21 pm

    All of this BS state / city law / doj roster nonsense is “preempted” by the 2nd amendment. Period. It pains me that US States are allowed to act as their own independent dictatorship with their own set of Constitution infringing laws when it suits their agenda. But, they still want to suck the teat of the fed gov for money as part of the United States. This is only because We the People allow this to happen. We elected these state / city idiots who do nothing more than punch a clock for a tax-payer-provided paycheck, and try to pass laws that suit their own retarded view of things. Maybe California residents will wise up and stop electing useless bone heads to office after they smoke a few more legal fatties and gain some much needed deeper personal caring for our Constitutionally given rights.

    • Johann September 1, 2017, 10:45 pm

      if any state can make their own gun laws, what was the 2nd Amendment for? giggles?

      all states must observe the 2nd Amendment, just like they do the 1st for free speech, the 4th for unlawful search & seizure, the 5th against self-incrimination, etc etc

      BUT THEY DON’T! why not????????

  • Russ H. September 1, 2017, 10:53 am

    LOL. Wait for the new \”UltraSub-Compact\” list to come out. It\’s all a game to them.

  • gary September 1, 2017, 10:18 am

    If we cry “racist”, maybe we can nullify the rest of the B.S.laws. That’s what the politicians fear most, to be painted a racist. The safe gun list in CA keeps the affordable guns out of reach of the poor class, which is comprised of mainly minorities. The CCW permits are also too costly for all but the well-off folks. So they have the “lower class” disarmed and when protests get out of control, they tell the police force to stand down and let the rabble wipe themselves out. Wether that’s 100% true or just somewhat, if that’s how we spin it, we would get much quicker results and get our nation back to normal.

  • joefoam September 1, 2017, 8:59 am

    Politicians will do anything for a vote even if it’s illegal and they know it. As noted above who makes the determination what is “ultra”, I have not seen that reference in the constitution.

    • Johann September 1, 2017, 10:55 pm

      the constitution (2nd Amendment) does not specify what size of guns we are allowed or not allowed to possess. or what color, capacity, shape, length, height, weight, material, manufacturer, caliber, type of ammunition, type of action, nothing! it says we have the right to bear ARMS period. yet all of the above have been a criteria for the restriction of ownership! RIDICULOUS, unconstitutional and illegal!

  • Griffendad September 1, 2017, 7:43 am

    So LA new they were wrong but did it anyway. Just waited for a challenge and then backed off. Asses.

  • Derek W Tiller September 1, 2017, 5:28 am

    “ULTRA” compact handguns! Is there a new category of pistols I don’t know about? Do they have anything to do with “HIGH” capacity magazines and “ASSAULT” weapons? Or is it just “SENSATIONALIZED” news reporting and “IGNORANT” law makers making these things up?

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend