San Francisco Municipal Police Code 618: Prohibited Ammunition

[Suvorov]

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...nt-5348612.php

Not to derail this thread into another saga of Kalifornia Legislative Idiocracy but according to the San Francisco Police Department's web page: These are the specifically named no no bullets. The law does also allow a provision for banning bullets specifically sold to LE and Military agencies so you could get popped for a Winchester Ranger, although the SFPD has not placed them on the list. Also of note is the specific naming of Federal Law Enforcement Ammunition.

Seems that Speer Gold Dot ammo would be the safe bet.

[DocGKR]

Interesting that a load that has not been manufactured for over 2 decades is specifically named. In addition, the entire SF Police Code Section 618 is so poorly written as to defy all logic, common sense, and basic science.

[j.d.allen]

I would be willing to bet that there are plenty of people in the SF county DAs office that would try to interpret the "ballistically identical" crap to mean any JHP...

[Jeep]

I would be willing to bet that there are plenty of people in the SF county DAs office that would try to interpret the "ballistically identical" crap to mean any JHP...

I would bet you are right. The entire provision is written as vaguely as possible, and the probable reason for that (other than simple ignorance about the subject they were regulating) is they weren't quite sure what they wanted to ban at the time and they thus want to keep it open for future broad interpretation. After all, the provision says that the fact that the police haven't added a particular load to the list isn't a defense--you are responsible for knowing what "ballistically identical means."

If this provision attempted to regulate a constitutional right the courts cared about--such as free speech (or at least they used to care about free speech, though that concern has noticeably diminished of late in California land) it would be deemed to be "unconstitutionally vague." But since courts in California don't usually agree with the second amendment, I think there is a good chance that you could be convicted for having any hollow points at all. Be careful if you live there.

[Savage Hands]

Best source I have right now: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Talon#Response
"In 1993 Winchester removed the ammunition from public sale,[12] but at no time was Black Talon ammunition uniformly prohibited by US law. Winchester's Ranger SXT line of ammunition is of the same basic design."

From there, they eventually renamed them and labeled them under the radar.

More:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollo...on_controversy

Winchester's "Black Talon" product name was eventually used against them. After a high profile shooting at 101 California Street, San Francisco in 1993, media response against Winchester was swift. "This bullet kills you better", says one report; "its six razorlike claws unfold on impact, expanding to nearly three times the bullet's diameter".[11][12] A concern was raised by the American College of Emergency Physicians that the sharp edges of the jacket could penetrate surgical gloves, increasing the risk of blood-borne infections being transmitted to medical personnel treating the gunshot wound. While plausible, there are no recorded cases of such an infection occurring in relation to the Black Talon bullets.[13]

Winchester responded to the media criticism of the Black Talon line by removing it from the commercial market and only selling it to law enforcement distributors. Winchester has since discontinued the sale of the Black Talon entirely, although Winchester does manufacture very similar ammunition, the Ranger T-Series and the Supreme Elite Bonded PDX1.[14][15]

This is my last post on this topic since it's derailing the intended topic.

Another
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/23/us...ion.htmlOption
http://www.thegunzone.com/black-talon.html

[Handgun Planet]

Read up on what happened with the incident I posted above and the original AWB, things have changed after 20 years but the original intention still stands, just like removing the black lubalox coating on Black Talons and renaming them Ranger SXT.

I know that for a stint Winchester only sold the SXT to LE, but @Jared asked specifically about the original GD, which has been available in 20-round boxes directly to civilians and gun shops for a large portion of its life in the marketplace.

My point is that if a manufacturer elects to go LE-only these days, the same logic is no longer valid; that was not to say that immediately after the 1993 shooting there wasn't a market reaction.

[Totem Polar]

I would bet you are right. The entire provision is written as vaguely as possible, and the probable reason for that (other than simple ignorance about the subject they were regulating) is they weren't quite sure what they wanted to ban at the time and they thus want to keep it open for future broad interpretation. After all, the provision says that the fact that the police haven't added a particular load to the list isn't a defense--you are responsible for knowing what "ballistically identical means."

So far as vague goes, does anyone else see these two bulleted statements as contradicting each other?

Attachment 2695

[Handgun Planet]

So far as vague goes, does anyone else see these two bulleted statements as contradicting each other?

Attachment 2695

Yet another example of people writing gun legislation who know absolutely nothing about guns (or maybe an example of someone who did know about guns and wanted to throw civilians a loophole)...

They would almost have to interpret the top bullet statement as impacting ONLY SXT or possibly T-Series, but even T-Series doesn't have the same ballistic characteristics.

The second one sounds like it could be interpreted as a loophole to everything except Ranger 127 +P+, Federal 9BPLE, and others sold to LE but not marketed to the civilian market. But you would think that Gold Dot, Hydra-Shok, HST, etc. would be alright according to that proposal.

[Totem Polar]

Right. Of course, there are plenty of loads that perform like, say, the 9BPLE load that one could read this as *exempting* 9BPLE under sentence two. Just grist for the mill, though; I doubt if there is anyone on this board jumping to proclaim this as anything other than crap legislation. [/shrug]

[j.d.allen]

Yet another example of people writing gun legislation who know absolutely nothing about guns (or maybe an example of someone who did know about guns and wanted to throw civilians a loophole)...

They would almost have to interpret the top bullet statement as impacting ONLY SXT or possibly T-Series, but even T-Series doesn't have the same ballistic characteristics.

The second one sounds like it could be interpreted as a loophole to everything except Ranger 127 +P+, Federal 9BPLE, and others sold to LE but not marketed to the civilian market. But you would think that Gold Dot, Hydra-Shok, HST, etc. would be alright according to that proposal.

Actually if you look at the list SFPD has on their website, it lists three specific types of ammunition as being banned:
Black Talon, Federal premium tactical law enforcement, and hornady TAP. Or anything with the same ballistic characteristics. Now what does that term mean? Whatever the DA and the jury judge it to mean. Which COULD be any bullet of expansive or JHP design. Does it mean that? I don't know. And I think it's intentionally vague. But I looked at a box of HST I have and it says "Federal Premium Tactical Law Enforcement" so HST is actually specifically banned