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

[wildhawker]

Originally Posted by fizux

Note this is down from 1,273 about 75 days ago.

Tracking projections, though it's certainly possible the rate of loss could increase w DOJ's affidavit enforcement: http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/roster/.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by advocatusdiaboli

I just used his quote of you. I found "The Roster is a tool to collect a tax. Thats it! " pretty clear and definitive sentences. If you make a broad assertion like that and then retract and back-pedal later in your prose but then blame us because each of your declarative sentences cannot stand on it's own, perhaps you might consider a course in effective communications? If you had modified "is" with some adverbs like "mainly", "mostly", or "largely" , for example, and left off the "that's it" meaning that is the only reason, then maybe you would have expressed your opinion more clearly As it is, the words you used leave us little doubt as to the meaning you expressing in writing.

The roster was "originally" designed to outlaw "very cheap guns" and simply only required a "drop test" There was also a personal agenda to put certain local companies who made these inexpensive guns, out of business.

At the time of implementation, i don't think anyone would have dreamed that the roster would have turned into what it is today. (which is what some of you are hung up on) I still do believe it's intent was two fold. Get cheap guns off the market and collect a tax at the same time for revenue.

As the DOJ upped the ante on requirements for roster acceptance, the roster turned more into a control issue. When you look at the roster today, its all about control. I don't believe that was the "original" and 'only reason for the roster.

NOW, its all about control. If you eliminate all the guns from the roster, there will be no generation of revenue. They don't allow enough guns to get that revenue. My statement was based on the "original idea and intent".

[cjc16]

so if the original intent was about protecting the general public from guns that could detonate in your hand, why did they exempt law enforcement? Maybe the Cal Legislature just hates cops? It has always been about gun control.

[fizux]

Originally Posted by wildhawker

Tracking projections, though it's certainly possible the rate of loss could increase w DOJ's affidavit enforcement: http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/roster/.

Librarian's number was based upon the current number on DOJ's website; mine was based upon the Court's 12/18/2013 order.

Unfortunately, reality is tracking the CGN projection's yellow dashed line.

In the interest of public safety, your 5A right against self-incrimination has been "reasonably regulated" to only apply in cases of suspected traffic infractions. Beyond infractions, the public safety interest outweighs your civil rights, so waterboarding interrogations shall commence on 1/1/2015 for misdemeanor and higher level offenses. After all, felonies are "so dangerous" and we want to protect our kids. Why would you want to hurt little kids just to honor some anachronistic piece of paper?

[RobertMW]

Originally Posted by cjc16

so if the original intent was about protecting the general public from guns that could detonate in your hand, why did they exempt law enforcement? Maybe the Cal Legislature just hates cops? It has always been about gun control.

I know we are on the same side, I'm just using your comment to make my own.


If the original intent of the roster was to protect the general public, all it would have said was...

"In order to protect the general public from an accidental discharge in a public place, any firearm model that is to be carried in public for the purpose of self defence must have passed a state drop test."

^ THAT is something that could be said is for public safety. If you have a CCL or you were OC your carry gun can't go off if it is accidentally bumped out of your holster. The idea of "common sense" is obviously a difficult concept to grasp for grabbers.

All the roster does is keep new designs out, while letting the old ones fall away.

[CHS]

Originally Posted by 9M62

Someone just needs to go and try to buy the exact gun that Heller won his case with.

"Oh, I can't? Well, Heller says I can."

Uhhh, perhaps you should actually READ the Pena case. The Dick Heller revolver is central to it

[CZ man in LA]

Originally Posted by taperxz

At the time of implementation, i don't think anyone would have dreamed that the roster would have turned into what it is today.

The same can be said about CA's policies against open carry.

The Mulford Act was hastily passed by then the GOP majority in California and signed by then Gov. Reagan because of the fear of Black Panthers (those who aren't of "good moral character" in the eyes of politicians at the time) open carried guns into the State Capitol.

In essence, the modern day gun control movement in CA was started by the GOP in CA at the time because they didn't like the idea of blacks and minorities packing guns.

They didn't imagine that it would lead to what we have today.

[REH]

Originally Posted by wildhawker

Tracking projections, though it's certainly possible the rate of loss could increase w DOJ's affidavit enforcement: http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/roster/.

With the downward trend of available handguns, will this help the case against the state?

[radioburning]

Thank god banning the sale of guns "in common use" isn't unconstitutional...

[/SARCASM]

[orangeusa]

I understand the point about the original intent.

BUT, the addition of microstamping, which I believe is physically impossible, basically limits us to no new guns.
We are stuck with existing quantity and grandfathered guns, unless you want to pay $$$ which rules out all but high end guns.
Hell, I wanted to transfer a DA revolver and realized that the cost was more than the gun is worth, not to mention conversion to SA is a bear for this gun.

Sad and amazing.

BTW - The wiki for Pena vs Cid is pretty far out of date.
.

[e90bmw]

Originally Posted by orangeusa

I understand the point about the original intent.

BUT, the addition of microstamping, which I believe is physically impossible, basically limits us to no new guns.
We are stuck with existing quantity and grandfathered guns, unless you want to pay $$$ which rules out all but high end guns.
Hell, I wanted to transfer a DA revolver and realized that the cost was more than the gun is worth, not to mention conversion to SA is a bear for this gun.

Sad and amazing.
.

An to add to that....
Get them before they drop off the roster.
Get your SSE before they ban that too.

Did they ever think that the knee jerk reaction to all these laws puts more guns in people's hands?
If they hadn't enacted the micro-stamping and tried to retroactively ban large cap magazines *AND* forced registration of long guns;
I would not have bought two lowers last year and two pistols.

[orangeusa]

I saw.that Gura, etc. filed a motion adding microstamping to the suit, has that been ruled on? I have trouble understanding legaleze...

.

[CaliforniaLiberal]

Originally Posted by orangeusa

I saw.that Gura, etc. filed a motion adding microstamping to the suit, has that been ruled on? I have trouble understanding legaleze...

.

This is just new, pertinent information provided to the court that weighs in on our side of the argument, hopefully improving our case. Once it is accepted by the court it does not get a separate ruling, it's just added to the stack of arguments and information that the court considers.

[chris]

Originally Posted by CZ man in LA

The same can be said about CA's policies against open carry.

The Mulford Act was hastily passed by then the GOP majority in California and signed by then Gov. Reagan because of the fear of Black Panthers (those who aren't of "good moral character" in the eyes of politicians at the time) open carried guns into the State Capitol.

and we can thank those idiots for setting the bar for good moral character so high many can't get a CCW in some counties. thankfully that will change.

In essence, the modern day gun control movement in CA was started by the GOP in CA at the time because they didn't like the idea of blacks and minorities packing guns.

gun control is historically rooted in racism as it was then as it is today. and the media willingly does not report it at all.

They didn't imagine that it would lead to what we have today.

and carried on by the DemoKratic party in ways that no one ever imagined.

[JoshuaS]

Originally Posted by CZ man in LA

The same can be said about CA's policies against open carry.

The Mulford Act was hastily passed by then the GOP majority in California and signed by then Gov. Reagan because of the fear of Black Panthers (those who aren't of "good moral character" in the eyes of politicians at the time) open carried guns into the State Capitol.

In essence, the modern day gun control movement in CA was started by the GOP in CA at the time because they didn't like the idea of blacks and minorities packing guns.

They didn't imagine that it would lead to what we have today.

Nonsense. The gun control movement in California started with AB80 ( 1854) under Gov. Bigler, a Democrat!

Oddly repealed during the tenure of the only governor neither a Democrat nor a Republican!

Ok, Mulford act....proposed before the Panthers were on the capitol. The Panthers were there specifically to protest it. Anyways, passed a Democratically controlled Assembly...higher percent of Dems voted for it. Not a GOP majority, but a Dem majority.


But none of that is relevant. Because the parties are not at all the same as back then. We cannot care what Democrats used to stand for, but what they do stand for. And same with the GOP. By and large, even under Deukmejian, the GOP has opposed gun control (Deukmejian might have signed Roberti Roos, but in the legislature Republicans opposed it)

I have my disagreements with the modern GOP, not least of which would be immigration policy. But besides the inaccuracies and this criticism, I do agree that "racism" had a role. AB80 was part of a goal of exterminating all Indians. AB263 particularly targeted immigrants, legal ones, and the good moral clause was to be used against certain groups of course, wink wink. And AB1591 was in part out of fear of blacks.


But I don't think racism is the motivator today, at least not on a conscious level.

[Maestro Pistolero]

But I don't think racism is the motivator today, at least not on a conscious levell.

I'll grant that it is unconscious to a a varying degree. But it is absolutely about not trusting those who are responsible for the bulk of violent crime, for WHATEVER socio-economic reasons, to excersize the right to self defense.

I've said it before and I'm saying it now, the liberal power structure will NEVER willingly trust the average, impoverished African American with the right to autonomous self-defense. Today, in the United states, wittingly or unwittingly, gun control is still racism embodied. The fact that white folks are the also victims of these policies is but a tolerated consequence.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero

I've said it before and I'm saying it now, the liberal power structure will NEVER willingly trust the average, impoverished African American with the right to autonomous self-defense.

Interesting way to put it. I would put more weight on "average" and "impoverished" than the race, but the concept remains: there are those that cannot be trusted to make their own decisions.

We even see it with the way First Lady is pushing for better eating habits - a very commendable cause, but the implementation assumes that people need to be told and forced to act.

The final irony is that the liberal power structure (like the phrase) is doing everything to deflect this mistrust and accuse the conservatives of doing it.

[RP1911]

If I can remember that far back, if it wasn't for Quackenbush (R), Roberti-Roos could have died in public safety committee.

[JoshuaS]

Originally Posted by RP1911

If I can remember that far back, if it wasn't for Quackenbush (R), Roberti-Roos could have died in public safety committee.

Well it only narrowly passed. Quackenbush (GOP) and Arles (Dem), both NRA A-Rated members initially opposed it and flipped.

He was THE GOP traitor. He and Filante were the only GOP to vote yes. The rest opposed, despite the governor's support.



In anycase, even that recently is misleading. The GOP is far more pro-gun now.

Remember, one legislator, Davis, GOP, from Valencia, spoke out strongly against it...he was the former police chief of Los Angeles. Times have changed dramatically. Until the late 1990's there was still a strong conservative presence in Los Angeles County...

Yes, there are exceptions. And don't vote merely based on the letter after the name. But by and large, one party opposes gun control, the other supports it.

[RP1911]

Originally Posted by JoshuaS

Well it only narrowly passed. Quackenbush (GOP) and Arles (Dem), both NRA A-Rated members initially opposed it and flipped.

He was THE GOP traitor. He and Filante were the only GOP to vote yes. The rest opposed, despite the governor's support.



In anycase, even that recently is misleading. The GOP is far more pro-gun now.

Remember, one legislator, Davis, GOP, from Valencia, spoke out strongly against it...he was the former police chief of Los Angeles. Times have changed dramatically. Until the late 1990's there was still a strong conservative presence in Los Angeles County...

Yes, there are exceptions. And don't vote merely based on the letter after the name. But by and large, one party opposes gun control, the other supports it.

Yup. And Condit (D) voted against it in public safety committee. It passed 5-3. Could have been 4-4 or 3-5.

[<blocked>]

Are we expecting a ruling soon?

[wireless]

By June 1st is the guess.

[madoka]

Is there any chance Pena could eliminate the roster before AB1964 takes away SSE?

[jcwatchdog]

Originally Posted by madoka

Is there any chance Pena could eliminate the roster before AB1964 takes away SSE?

It would be nice, but expect challenges. Don't expect Kamala to let her crown jewel fall so easily.

[advocatusdiaboli]

Originally Posted by <blocked>

Are we expecting a ruling soon?

The word is the judge is going on extended leave in June so it is likely she'll rule by then. Of course no matter which side wins, there will be an appeal and with a substitute judge, there will likely be a delay.

In the interim, I expect the new law to pass, be signed, and be in effect while this crawls through the courts. Even if we ultimately win, I'd expect it to be years before the Roster is dismantled. So if you want a piton not on the Roster that you can get via SSE, Do it this year.

With all the exemptions to the Roster for many different classes of people, it is pretty clear the Roster is not about firearms or firearm safety. An "unsafe" pistol not on the Roster can be purchased, possessed, and used by several different classes of people, many of who may have little or no safety training at all. S it's clear that the Roster is about controlling the access of the population in general to firearms and not safety. And that is an infringing ban. Let's hope the courts see it that way too.

[dantodd]

Originally Posted by advocatusdiaboli

The word is the judge is going on extended leave in June so it is likely she'll rule by then. Of course no matter which side wins, there will be an appeal and with a substitute judge, there will likely be a delay.

If your assumption is correct that we will get a ruling before the judge takes her leave then the replacement judge will have no bearing. This will be out of district until and unless it is remanded. In that case the decision will be directed and the new judge will have a set period to respond so it will still not effect the timeline.

[fizux]

Originally Posted by advocatusdiaboli

The word is the judge is going on extended leave in June so it is likely she'll rule by then.

Source? I hope that isn't an urban legend spawned by this sarcastic remark.

[advocatusdiaboli]

Originally Posted by fizux

Source? I hope that isn't an urban legend spawned by this sarcastic remark.

Someone who claims to have inside knowledge stated this and I took it a face value as it seemed to be genuine.

[advocatusdiaboli]

Originally Posted by dantodd

If your assumption is correct that we will get a ruling before the judge takes her leave then the replacement judge will have no bearing. This will be out of district until and unless it is remanded. In that case the decision will be directed and the new judge will have a set period to respond so it will still not effect the timeline.

Thanks for schooling me on that. I assumed that to ensure due process, the judge on leave would have to be replaced just as if she had recused herself. Good news.

[fizux]

Originally Posted by advocatusdiaboli

Someone who claims to have inside knowledge stated this and I took it a face value as it seemed to be genuine.

OK, just make *sure* that the inside knowledge isn't from my joking about not having someone with inside knowledge about the June sabbatical that I fabricated as part of the joke.

[He-Hate-Me]

Any news on the Pena front? It's been nearly a month since the last post on this thread so I'm just curious.

[advocatusdiaboli]

Originally Posted by He-Hate-Me

Any news on the Pena front? It's been nearly a month since the last post on this thread so I'm just curious.

Take your estimate and those of everyone on this board including people like Gene H. who have some credibility but no control, take the longest one and then assume it's in dog-years and multiply by 7. Then you are "in the ballpark" on the pace of glacial wheels of justice in The People's Republic of Kalifornia—if it even goes our way which it likely won't. So then it's on to The SCOTUS for another interminable wait.

Or just assume, as many do, "not in my lifetime" and you'll have it about right. And people wonder why we are leaving in droves for free states in the West as we can.

There is something terribly wrong with a system in which the legislature can pass laws, even when unjust, that take decades to unwind in the courts. The separation and balance of powers is no such thing.

[jcwatchdog]

Originally Posted by advocatusdiaboli

Take your estimate and those of everyone on this board including people like Gene H. who have some credibility but no control, take the longest one and then assume it's in dog-years and multiply by 7. Then you are "in the ballpark" on the pace of glacial wheels of justice in The People's Republic of Kalifornia—if it even goes our way which it likely won't. So then it's on to The SCOTUS for another interminable wait.

Or just assume, as many do, "not in my lifetime" and you'll have it about right. And people wonder why we are leaving in droves for free states in the West as we can.

There is something terribly wrong with a system in which the legislature can pass laws, even when unjust, that take decades to unwind in the courts. The separation and balance of powers is no such thing.

I was wondering about that myself. What if they passed a law saying people could own slaves again. Would it take this long to be done away with?

[ALSystems]

Originally Posted by jcwatchdog

I was wondering about that myself. What if they passed a law saying people could own slaves again. Would it take this long to be done away with?

A new slave permitting law would probably cause an immediate judicial action because it affects a protected citizen class.

However in California, gunowners are openly discriminated group rather than protected. No wonder California Courts take decades (if ever) to fix unjust gun laws.

[wireless]

Originally Posted by He-Hate-Me

Any news on the Pena front? It's been nearly a month since the last post on this thread so I'm just curious.

Sometime this year. Hopefully around June.

[LoneYote]

Originally Posted by ALSystems

A new slave permitting law would probably cause an immediate judicial action because it affects a protected citizen class.

Wouldn't that depend on whom the slaves were? Gun owners are not a protected class....

[wireless]

Originally Posted by advocatusdiaboli

The word is the judge is going on extended leave in June so it is likely she'll rule by then. Of course no matter which side wins, there will be an appeal and with a substitute judge, there will likely be a delay.

In the interim, I expect the new law to pass, be signed, and be in effect while this crawls through the courts. Even if we ultimately win, I'd expect it to be years before the Roster is dismantled. So if you want a piton not on the Roster that you can get via SSE, Do it this year.

With all the exemptions to the Roster for many different classes of people, it is pretty clear the Roster is not about firearms or firearm safety. An "unsafe" pistol not on the Roster can be purchased, possessed, and used by several different classes of people, many of who may have little or no safety training at all. S it's clear that the Roster is about controlling the access of the population in general to firearms and not safety. And that is an infringing ban. Let's hope the courts see it that way too.

I really don't think the roster will take years to fall. The battle for LTC's might take a bit of time, but even a liberal judge can see the roster for what it is. After Heller ruling specifically about handguns, I think this will take less time than you think.

[M. D. Van Norman]

It has already taken far longer than expected, and the likelihood of victory now appears extremely dim.

[madoka]

Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman

It has already taken far longer than expected, and the likelihood of victory now appears extremely dim.

With the impending disappearance of SSE, the only thing that lets me sleep at night is the thought that Pena will eliminate the roster.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman

It has already taken far longer than expected, and the likelihood of victory now appears extremely dim.

Why would it appear dim? We just had the judge request additional briefings on microstamping. If the judge is going to follow your "doom and gloom" predictions, why not just issue a ruling against us immediately?