Peña v. Cid (Handgun Roster) **CERT DENIED 6-15-2020**

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by kemasa

This.

If it was really about safety, LE would NOT be exempt, not for their duty gun, not for their personal guns.

Also, once tested, the firearm should forever remain on the list, but instead if the annual payment is not made, the law abiding citizens can no longer buy it.

The color, grips or engraving should not matter either, but it does.

It is not a "safe handguns roster," it is a Roster of guns that are "Not Unsafe." The color, grips and engraving do not matter. By statute. The LEO are exempt from the Roster because, the Legislature believed, officers receive extensive training with the safe handling of firearms, and theoretically know when their guns are loaded. And between you, me and the lamppost, I am perfectly happy that the State has handguns tested to assure that they will not fire if dropped and that they will not blow up with factory ammo (usually). The rest, not so much. My Kahr has no manual safety, no LCI and no mag disconnect. But it is DAO. In my view, the additional safety features subsequently required by the roster are not to make the guns more safe, they are rather a recognition that there are lots of idiots out there who are unsafe in the use of their firearms. In other words, they are not product safety requirements, they are anti-Darwin laws.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by TruOil

It is not a "safe handguns roster," it is a Roster of guns that are "Not Unsafe." The color, grips and engraving do not matter. By statute. The LEO are exempt from the Roster because, the Legislature believed, officers receive extensive training with the safe handling of firearms, and theoretically know when their guns are loaded. And between you, me and the lamppost, I am perfectly happy that the State has handguns tested to assure that they will not fire if dropped and that they will not blow up with factory ammo (usually). The rest, not so much. My Kahr has no manual safety, no LCI and no mag disconnect. But it is DAO. In my view, the additional safety features subsequently required by the roster are not to make the guns more safe, they are rather a recognition that there are lots of idiots out there who are unsafe in the use of their firearms. In other words, they are not product safety requirements, they are anti-Darwin laws.

Yet the FSC test basically tells you NOT to rely on mechanical safety mechanisms when it comes to firearms.

[EM2]

Originally Posted by TruOil

It is not a "safe handguns roster," it is a Roster of guns that are "Not Unsafe." The color, grips and engraving do not matter. By statute. The LEO are exempt from the Roster because, the Legislature believed, officers receive extensive training with the safe handling of firearms, and theoretically know when their guns are loaded. And between you, me and the lamppost, I am perfectly happy that the State has handguns tested to assure that they will not fire if dropped and that they will not blow up with factory ammo (usually). The rest, not so much. My Kahr has no manual safety, no LCI and no mag disconnect. But it is DAO. In my view, the additional safety features subsequently required by the roster are not to make the guns more safe, they are rather a recognition that there are lots of idiots out there who are unsafe in the use of their firearms. In other words, they are not product safety requirements, they are anti-Darwin laws.

were it that the gov should regulate keyboards and remove all of the ‘F’ keys so as to save us all from obscene forum posts.

The gov should not be in the business of saving us from ourselves.

[kemasa]

Originally Posted by TruOil

It is not a "safe handguns roster," it is a Roster of guns that are "Not Unsafe." The color, grips and engraving do not matter. By statute. The LEO are exempt from the Roster because, the Legislature believed, officers receive extensive training with the safe handling of firearms, and theoretically know when their guns are loaded. And between you, me and the lamppost, I am perfectly happy that the State has handguns tested to assure that they will not fire if dropped and that they will not blow up with factory ammo (usually). The rest, not so much. My Kahr has no manual safety, no LCI and no mag disconnect. But it is DAO. In my view, the additional safety features subsequently required by the roster are not to make the guns more safe, they are rather a recognition that there are lots of idiots out there who are unsafe in the use of their firearms. In other words, they are not product safety requirements, they are anti-Darwin laws.

Any manufacturer who produced an unsafe firearm would be sued out of existence, so the state doing what they are is pointless, plus as said, what they are doing shows otherwise.

Please explain how a police officer can deal with a firearm that would fail the drop test.

The features required are stupid as well and there have been officers who have had an unloaded firearm fire.

The bottom line it is about trying to ban guns PERIOD. There is NO reason to drop off a firearm if the manufacturer doesn't pay the next year as the firearm has not changed, it is only about money. There is no reason to charge more for each color version.

Don't fall for the false claims.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by kemasa

Any manufacturer who produced an unsafe firearm would be sued out of existence, so the state doing what they are is pointless, plus as said, what they are doing shows otherwise.

Please explain how a police officer can deal with a firearm that would fail the drop test.

The features required are stupid as well and there have been officers who have had an unloaded firearm fire.

The bottom line it is about trying to ban guns PERIOD. There is NO reason to drop off a firearm if the manufacturer doesn't pay the next year as the firearm has not changed, it is only about money. There is no reason to charge more for each color version.

Don't fall for the false claims.

The law as originally enacted was an effort to ban "Saturday Nite Specials," guns that did blow up, jam, and fire when dropped. There are guns to this day that have failed the drop test (Sig and one other). So I don't know what you mean when you ask how an officer can deal with a firearm that isn't drop safe. Officers are allowed to buy anything, even firearms that are not approved for duty use. You have to ask the Legislature why they exempted them, but as we have seen with other laws (e.g. CCW laws), it is usually political, i.e., to avoid opposition by departments and the police union(s), etc. so that the law will get passed. It doesn't have to make sense when we are talking politics.

[CaliforniaLiberal]

Originally Posted by TruOil

The law as originally enacted was an effort to ban "Saturday Nite Specials," guns that did blow up, jam, and fire when dropped. There are guns to this day that have failed the drop test (Sig and one other). So I don't know what you mean when you ask how an officer can deal with a firearm that isn't drop safe. Officers are allowed to buy anything, even firearms that are not approved for duty use. You have to ask the Legislature why they exempted them, but as we have seen with other laws (e.g. CCW laws), it is usually political, i.e., to avoid opposition by departments and the police union(s), etc. so that the law will get passed. It doesn't have to make sense when we are talking politics.

As I recall, the phrase "Saturday Night Special" was a term of Anti-Gun propaganda and all of the so-called "Saturday Night Specials" passed all the new drop and other safety tests when they were first implemented without issues. SNS was an Anti-Gun myth, like "Assault Weapons" or "Military Style" firearms.

One of the purposes of the Handgun Roster law was to attempt to eliminate economically priced handguns from the firearms market, thereby depriving the lowest income Californians of access to self defense arms.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaLiberal

One of the purposes of the Handgun Roster law was to attempt to eliminate economically priced handguns from the firearms market, thereby depriving the lowest income Californians of access to self defense arms.

Like poll taxes, the roster was designed to keep poor minorities from exercising a constitutional right.

[kemasa]

Originally Posted by TruOil

The law as originally enacted was an effort to ban "Saturday Nite Specials," guns that did blow up, jam, and fire when dropped. There are guns to this day that have failed the drop test (Sig and one other). So I don't know what you mean when you ask how an officer can deal with a firearm that isn't drop safe. Officers are allowed to buy anything, even firearms that are not approved for duty use. You have to ask the Legislature why they exempted them, but as we have seen with other laws (e.g. CCW laws), it is usually political, i.e., to avoid opposition by departments and the police union(s), etc. so that the law will get passed. It doesn't have to make sense when we are talking politics.

As others have said, the guns this scheme intended to ban passed the tests. Please name some guns which blow up and fire when dropped.

Some might have failed due to a defect, but then it is fixed.

Look at what I was replying to, do you really think that it is a good idea for officers to have firearms which have not been tested by CA to be safe? That seems like a lawsuit, but then again it is hard to sue the state. The concept of the police being allowed to have unsafe firearms is absurd.

I know why they exempted them, it was to get the law passed, but it shows that it is not about safety.

[Andeh]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

Like poll taxes, the roster was designed to keep poor minorities from exercising a constitutional right.

The roster is a POS, but I don't think that this is correct - anyone can purchase a Gen3 Glock for the same price as anywhere else in the USA. There isn't really a price component for anything that is CA-approved.

Unless you're eluding to something else?

[CandG]

Originally Posted by Andeh

The roster is a POS, but I don't think that this is correct - anyone can purchase a Gen3 Glock for the same price as anywhere else in the USA. There isn't really a price component for anything that is CA-approved.

Unless you're eluding to something else?

Ya that's not really what I meant. The roster was designed to eliminate the sub-$150 "budget" pistols, like the Jennings .25's and such. But since they couldn't eliminate cheap (affordable, for poor minorities) pistols directly, they used the "safety" pretense to mask their intentions.

The gun grabbers don't like anyone having guns, but they ESPECIALLY don't like low income minorities having guns. Same reason they regularly hold gun buybacks in low income areas. They know damn well nobody with means are turning in any guns, they're only hoping low income people who need the cash will get rid of theirs.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Andeh]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

Ya that's not really what I meant. The roster was designed to eliminate the sub-$150 "budget" pistols, like the Jennings .25's and such. But since they couldn't eliminate cheap (affordable, for poor minorities) pistols directly, they used the "safety" pretense to mask their intentions.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Gotcha, that makes sense and I understand what you meant now. I'm fairly new to both gun ownership and the US, so thanks!

[CaliforniaLiberal]

Originally Posted by Andeh

The roster is a POS, but I don't think that this is correct - anyone can purchase a Gen3 Glock for the same price as anywhere else in the USA. There isn't really a price component for anything that is CA-approved.

Unless you're eluding to something else?

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

Ya that's not really what I meant. The roster was designed to eliminate the sub-$150 "budget" pistols, like the Jennings .25's and such. But since they couldn't eliminate cheap (affordable, for poor minorities) pistols directly, they used the "safety" pretense to mask their intentions.

The gun grabbers don't like anyone having guns, but they ESPECIALLY don't like low income minorities having guns. Same reason they regularly hold gun buybacks in low income areas. They know damn well nobody with means are turning in any guns, they're only hoping low income people who need the cash will get rid of theirs.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Andeh

Gotcha, that makes sense and I understand what you meant now. I'm fairly new to both gun ownership and the US, so thanks!

I agree, the intent was to make it more difficult for low income citizens to defend themselves with firearms. I don't think the CA Legislature got the results they were hoping for when the Handgun Roster was new.

Now, with all of the additional requirements added to the Roster the available number of guns are dwindling away as older guns are no longer made or are made with trivial changes and newer guns are unable to meet the impossible "microstamping" requirement.

I would speculate that the average cost of a firearm in California has risen over the lifetime of the Roster making them less affordable to those on a tight budget.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaLiberal

I would speculate that the average cost of a firearm in California has risen over the lifetime of the Roster making them less affordable to those on a tight budget.

I am sure that the average cost has risen, but there are still guns around $200, and some very good guns that have significantly dropped in price. It is not that hard to find guns made by major companies for $300 +/- (on sale) like the Shield, some models of Kahr, Tauruses and the like.

[kemasa]

I don't know that the cost of firearms has gone up (unless you attempt to purchase a firearm not on the roster), but the choices have been greatly reduced. As time goes on, the choices goes down.

[HarryS]

"The plan is working..."

[FlyingShooter]

Originally Posted by kemasa

As others have said, the guns this scheme intended to ban passed the tests. Please name some guns which blow up and fire when dropped.

Some might have failed due to a defect, but then it is fixed.

Look at what I was replying to, do you really think that it is a good idea for officers to have firearms which have not been tested by CA to be safe? That seems like a lawsuit, but then again it is hard to sue the state. The concept of the police being allowed to have unsafe firearms is absurd.

I know why they exempted them, it was to get the law passed, but it shows that it is not about safety.

It also goes to show it’s not about safery when said officers can buy off-roster, and then turn around and ppt sell them to us regular citizens if they don’t like it or want to upgrade. For a real hefty profit too. The roster is a complete joke, and is nothing more than a ban for the regular folk.

[JackRydden224]

I think we can all agree that the roster and all other gun laws in CA are a complete joke and the it's really mean to ban firearms then it is for safety.

The way we see it even if we win at the 9th all DOJ needs to do is appeal it to SCOTUS and we'll lose by default because SCOTUS won't hear it. At this point I don't see a way for us to win.

Originally Posted by FlyingShooter

It also goes to show it’s not about safery when said officers can buy off-roster, and then turn around and ppt sell them to us regular citizens if they don’t like it or want to upgrade. For a real hefty profit too. The roster is a complete joke, and is nothing more than a ban for the regular folk.

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by JackRydden224

The way we see it even if we win at the 9th all DOJ needs to do is appeal it to SCOTUS and we'll lose by default because SCOTUS won't hear it. At this point I don't see a way for us to win.

No, if we win in the 9th then the 9th will reverse through en banc proceedings, and THEN SCOTUS will decline to hear. If we win in the 9th for real then SCOTUS might actually hear the case. Tough to say.

The end result is the same, except that the decision will only directly affect the states within the 9th Circuit.

[JackRydden224]

Thanks for clarifying the procedures.

You are right the results will be the same, we are not getting rid of the roster.

Originally Posted by kcbrown

No, if we win in the 9th then the 9th will reverse through en banc proceedings, and THEN SCOTUS will decline to hear. If we win in the 9th for real then SCOTUS might actually hear the case. Tough to say.

The end result is the same, except that the decision will only directly affect the states within the 9th Circuit.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

Like poll taxes, the roster was designed to keep the poor and/or minorities from exercising a constitutional right.

Fixed it for ya.

Residence requirement for registering guns means the homeless are SOL....

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by kcbrown

No, if we win in the 9th then the 9th will reverse through en banc proceedings, and THEN SCOTUS will decline to hear. If we win in the 9th for real then SCOTUS might actually hear the case. Tough to say.

The end result is the same, except that the decision will only directly affect the states within the 9th Circuit.

True, unless and until Trump/Pence can replace Kennedy (and ideally 1 or more of the hardcore antis) with another Scalia clone.

[AKSOG]

I saw 3/16 and thought something was happening today. Happy 1 year anniversary. Only 2 more weeks to go

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by Paladin

True, unless and until Trump/Pence can replace Kennedy (and ideally 1 or more of the hardcore antis) with another Scalia clone.

Right. A real composition change is a necessity if we are to see SCOTUS stand behind the right. As it is, it has abandoned the 2nd Amendment.

[FilmGuy]

Originally Posted by thorium

Oral arguments happening today
Looks like the oral argument video is up

This video is from 2017

[thorium]

Originally Posted by FilmGuy

This video is from 2017

Deleted. I’m clearly an idiot living one year in the past.

So one year since oral argument and waiting for our decision.

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by lawj11

What is encouraging to me is that the "commonly use" test, which came about from the Heller vs DC case, applies here. The rest of the US permits new firearms WITHOUT microstamping. Such guns are "commonly used", so how can they be banned? (or was it the Miller case, can't keep em straight anymore.)

The common use test is heavily flawed. Machine guns are not common because they are banned. If there was no ban on machine guns, would every AR15 owner have an M16 instead? Just because a law has been around for a long time, doesn’t make that law Constitutional. Slavery has been around for centuries. Does that make owning another person ok?

[GunsInMyEyes]

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.- Thomas Jefferson

[champu]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

The common use test is heavily flawed. Machine guns are not common because they are banned. If there was no ban on machine guns, would every AR15 owner have an M16 instead? Just because a law has been around for a long time, doesn’t make that law Constitutional. Slavery has been around for centuries. Does that make owning another person ok?

The common use test would be fine if judges at lower levels weren't tripping over themselves to curb gun rights by assuming the inverse of every SCOTUS statement used to support the second amendment was necessarily true (a logical fallacy.) "Common use" is supposed to be sufficient to overturn a ban, not necessary.

The "longstanding test", which was spun out of the language of Heller, is what is heavily flawed. To treat longevity of a law as either necessary or sufficient to either overturn or uphold a prohibition is absurd. This isn't a driveway that clips the corner of your neighbor's property, these are rights.

[Uncivil Engineer]

Originally Posted by champu

The common use test would be fine if judges at lower levels weren't tripping over themselves to curb gun rights by assuming the inverse of every SCOTUS statement used to support the second amendment was necessarily true (a logical fallacy.) "Common use" is supposed to be sufficient to overturn a ban, not necessary.

The "longstanding test", which was spun out of the language of Heller, is what is heavily flawed. To treat longevity of a law as either necessary or sufficient to either overturn or uphold a prohibition is absurd. This isn't a driveway that clips the corner of your neighbor's property, these are rights.

Scotus is fond of these common use, prior example tests. Really they are an avoidance of creating a real test. The common use with guns is one. So what about new guns that might be safer, for owners or even possible victims of violence? We can't know because a new gun won't be in common use. Similar to their qualified immunity for police officers. You can hold a police officer responsible only if their is an perfect example of a prior case, so no new cases, to accountability.

It is the ultimate dodge to keep the status quo. While I prefer legislatures to do their job and write good laws that don't require these judicial tests. I would prefer an objective tests. If scotus can't find a good test then make them extremely lacking forcing the legislatures hand. Can't decide what should be legal? Make it all legal and force them to try again.

[Purple K]

Justice delayed is justice denied.

[Joejitsu]

Are we still waiting on the 9th? When are they going to give a decision?

[CandG]

Originally Posted by Joejitsu

When are they going to give a decision?

Two weeks.

[BBot12]

Any update on the 9th circuit court?

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by BBot12

Any update on the 9th circuit court?

See post #2355 above.

[mshill]

Originally Posted by BBot12

Any update on the 9th circuit court?

Check back in a year, give or take six months.

[AdamVIP]

Any chance that they may decide right after the SCOTUS goes on break? Is there a history of that sort of thing out of the 9th? Seems that will maximize the time for SCOTUS to pick it up? I mean after all this time I'm sure they can sit on it forever but if they actually intend to make a ruling it would be right after break right?

[mit31]

Considering SCOTUS has rejected hearing every single gun challenge so far, I doubt that the 9th thinks about them much at all. As a matter of fact, one would argue the opposite; that they would do it SOONER, in case Kennedy retires.

Originally Posted by AdamVIP

Any chance that they may decide right after the SCOTUS goes on break? Is there a history of that sort of thing out of the 9th? Seems that will maximize the time for SCOTUS to pick it up? I mean after all this time I'm sure they can sit on it forever but if they actually intend to make a ruling it would be right after break right?

[jj8325]

I wonder how likely the SCOTUS is to hear this now that Kennedy is retiring....

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by jj8325

I wonder how likely the SCOTUS is to hear this now that Kennedy is retiring....

Let's not jump the gun. First there has to be a decision by the Ninth Circuit, and second, Trump has to be able to replace one of the justices. With Flake blocking hearings on nominees and the democrats out for blood, do not expect a replacement prior to the midterms, and probably not for some time after.

[jj8325]

Originally Posted by TruOil

Let's not jump the gun. First there has to be a decision by the Ninth Circuit, and second, Trump has to be able to replace one of the justices. With Flake blocking hearings on nominees and the democrats out for blood, do not expect a replacement prior to the midterms, and probably not for some time after.

True. But it seems like the 9th has a history of upholding these type of cases, and I'm hopeful that IF a pro 2A replacement for Kennedy gets in before the midterms, then the SCOTUS will be more inclined to hear these type of cases. Perhaps too optimistic, and time will tell, I suppose.