[hoffmang]

The CA Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss in Peña v Cid.

They argue that Heller is limited to possession in the home and that there is no Second Amendment right to buy a firearm. If there is, then the Roster fits in Scalia's dicta comment about "conditions on the commercial sale." Finally, even though similar people are treated differently, they really aren't. DOJ assumes the 2A is incorporated but drops a footnote to the Nordyke en banc process.

Not much surprising here and certainly no compelling argument against. You should expect us to file a Motion for Summary Judgment in the case soon.

-Gene

[nhanson]

"But the UHA has nothing to do with the possession of a handgun for self-defense in the home" as quoted from the filing........but, isn't purchase of a handgun for defense in the home involving a handgun? So, why is the UHA not related to Heller?

Maybe these are rhetorical questions yet, the statement seems to be an unfounded assertion on behalf of the state.

[7x57]

Originally Posted by nhanson

the statement seems to be an unfounded assertion on behalf of the state.

What do you do when you've got everything in the pot and draw a pair of deuces?

7x57

[6172crew]

So they still drag feet to a battle they have lost, why does JB allow the same lawyers to argue this stuff?

I know the bof and law maker folks would hate to loose the roster but no One in there right mind could argue that the roster keeps everyone safe by testing each model every year.

Oh well.

[N6ATF]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

Not much surprising here and certainly no compelling argument against. You should expect us to file a Motion for Summary Judgment in the case soon.

So, they scored an own goal? Or would you be filing for SJ at this stage anyway?

[7x57]

Originally Posted by 6172crew

So they still drag feet to a battle they have lost, why does JB allow the same lawyers to argue this stuff?

Never forget, they're only fighting to your last penny, not theirs. Frankly, what is the downside to fighting to the bitter end?

There is a fable about a thief about to be hanged who got a year's reprieve by promising the king that he would teach his favorite horse to sing. Every day, he was down at the stable, singing is heart out to the horse. When someone asked him why he bothered, he said something like this: "I'm still alive, for a year. A year is a long time--I might die anyway. The king might die. And who knows? Perhaps the horse will learn to sing."

If you have unlimited access to other people's pockets, there is really no downside to whatever it costs to prolong your enjoyment of infringing on other's rights for that extra year. Perhaps you'll be out of office before the final reckoning anyway. Or perhaps Scalia and Thomas will eat too much fatty food. And who knows--perhaps Justice Kennedy will "learn to sing."

When money does not actually have real value to you, your economic calculations make no sense to those who have to work for a living.

7x57

[ilbob]

Originally Posted by 6172crew

So they still drag feet to a battle they have lost, why does JB allow the same lawyers to argue this stuff?

I know the bof and law maker folks would hate to loose the roster but no One in there right mind could argue that the roster keeps everyone safe by testing each model every year.

Oh well.

I think the CA AG is either constitutionally or statutorily required to defend CA law when challenged in federal court. No matter who does the paperwork it is a loser. No reason to change horses in midstream in the hopes of getting a win. Its not as if he can agree with the plaintiff.

You would think no one could argue with a straight face that a ten day waiting period to purchase an additional firearm somehow reduces the risk that someone who already owns a firearm might misuse it.

We are not talking about rational belief systems here.

[Librarian]

Hearing on October 2?

Date: October 2, 2009
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Dept: No. 2, 15th Floor
Judge: Frank C. Damrell, Jr.
Trial Date: None
Action Filed: April 30, 2009

[xxdabroxx]

very interesting. So are they saying we can own them, just not outside our homes? They never cease to amaze.

[ivanimal]

So they say that no one can buy the gun I want, do they think we are daft? There are 3 on GB right now. Even if I wanted the newest version of the same gun i couldn't have it. Its unsafe here but available safely everywhere else. The fact is I want that one, it used to be safe now because of extortion the unpaid fees it is somehow unsafe.

They never address the fact that other than Glock adding guns with Rough texture that were already listed, no semi auto handgun has been added to the list in over a year. We are slowly being deprived of our right to bear arms in the name of safety. The funny thing is we are all about safety, we like safety. When it makes sense of course.

But I am talking to people here that already know that. Right Alison?

[trashman]

Originally Posted by 7x57

If you have unlimited access to other people's pockets, there is really no downside to whatever it costs to prolong your enjoyment of infringing on other's rights for that extra year. Perhaps you'll be out of office before the final reckoning anyway. Or perhaps Scalia and Thomas will eat too much fatty food. And who knows--perhaps Justice Kennedy will "learn to sing."

Succinctly and perfectly put. With some luck, too, the state's bankruptcy will erode some of the funds earmarked for the DOJs litigation on this (and other subjects).

--Neill

[N6ATF]

Originally Posted by ivanimal

So they say that no one can buy the gun I want, do they think we are daft? There are 3 on GB right now. Even if I wanted the newest version of the same gun i couldn't have it. Its unsafe here but available safely everywhere else. The fact is I want that one, it used to be safe now because of extortion the unpaid fees it is somehow unsafe.

They never address the fact that other than Glock adding guns with Rough texture that were already listed, no semi auto handgun has been added to the list in over a year. We are slowly being deprived of our right to bear arms in the name of safety. The funny thing is we are all about safety, we like safety. When it makes sense of course.

But I am talking to people here that already know that. Right Alison?

Fellow criminal safety is all they're concerned about. They can use whatever gun they want, we eventually can't use any.

[bwiese]

I note these seem to be regular DOJ staff attorneys assigned, though that doesn't mean they don't have BoF input.
But for now this is a fairly proforma customary agency response.

I will note that the current BoF Dept. AG is actually the person who drafted the unsafe handgun laws (SB15) under her tenure as a contract aide to Sen. Jack Scott. So we do have interesting conflicts about 'legislative intent' given lack of detachment ("I wrote this plain language, but I mean that..."

[nicki]

So the guns are unsafe for the public, but okay for the police.

BTW, how is the track record for gun accidents with the general public versus so called "professionals"?

How many accidents would the "mag chamber" indicator make a difference on or the mag disconnect?

Seems to me requiring manufacturer's to retool their guns is a way to restrict guns on the market.

Nicki

[MasterYong]

Originally Posted by ilbob

You would think no one could argue with a straight face that a ten day waiting period to purchase an additional firearm somehow reduces the risk that someone who already owns a firearm might misuse it.

We are not talking about rational belief systems here.

I always scoffed at that one myself. I purchased a shotgun recently and the wait period is up on the 8th (would be the 7th, darn you Big 5 and your silly "better safe than sorry" policies!). While I was leaving the store I lamented on the waiting period to my girlfriend who turned to me and said "I know, right? You've got like 20 handguns and rifles at home! Like one 12-gauge is going to mean the difference between and peaceful afternoon and a deadly rampage!"

There are VERY few gun laws that make sense. VERY FEW. The one that makes most sense to me is in the constitution anyways- something about "shall not be infringed" but I can't recall exactly...

[Stubby]

No equal rights protection violation eh!!!

I love it!! So the state tells me that as a disabled citizen I am not discriminated against because I cannot own a handgun that fits me the best to be able to defend myself???

Oh...wait...Im sorry... they just conveniently glossed over that issue!!

[ke6guj]

Originally Posted by ivanimal

So they say that no one can buy the gun I want, do they think we are daft? There are 3 on GB right now. Even if I wanted the newest version of the same gun i couldn't have it. Its unsafe here but available safely everywhere else. The fact is I want that one, it used to be safe now because of extortion the unpaid fees it is somehow unsafe.

Looks like they are trying to frame their arguement as it only relates to CA, not nationwide. And, I like how they presume that "willing seller" is refering to a dealer, not a private party.

6 When the complaint refers to a "willing seller," it presumably refers to someone subject to the Act, such as a licensed firearm dealer, as opposed to someone to whom the Act does not apply, such as a private party (i.e., one who does not hold a dealer's license) seeking to transfer a firearm to another private party. See § 12132(a).

[Maestro Pistolero]

With respect to any rational basis for review, maintaining consumer safety is clearly a legitimate state interest.

Wasn't rational basis specifically rejected by the Heller court as not applicable to the second amendment?

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero

Wasn't rational basis specifically rejected by the Heller court as not applicable to the second amendment?

Yep. Notice how they don't really want to talk about the_quark wanting to buy Heller's gun?

Librarian: I kind of doubt we'll get to that hearing. We'll be filing an MSJ for judgment in our favor shortly and opposition to the motion to dismiss.

-Gene

[the_quark]

I love how they explain what each of the plaintiffs want, and why. Ivan can't buy his gun "because, while the handgun was listed on California's Handgun Roster until December 31, 2005, 'it was discontinued and its listing not renewed.' Mr. Varga wants a "Glock 21-SF with an ambidextrous magazine release" because he doesn't have a right arm. Ms. Croston can't get hers even though (quoting from our original complaint) "Other models of this identical gun - but in different colors - are listed on the handgun roster and are thus available."

Each of them gets at least a paragraph. Then, you get to me. One sentence:

"Thomas wishes to purchase a 'High Standard Buntline style revolver' but cannot because it is not on the roster."

Huh! No summary whatsoever of my argument for why it's ridiculous this isn't purchasable. I wonder why not?

Could it be because it's the exact gun in Heller and thus there's no possible argument I don't have a right to purchase it? Nah...

I also wonder why "Ms. Croston" is the only one who rates an honorific. I guess I can understand being unsure if "Brett Thomas" is a guy, or not ["especially if you've met me," he added to preempt the inevitable jokes], but I'd think "Ivan Peña" is clearly a guy. Maybe they didn't know whether to use "Mister" or "Señor"?

Gonna be very interesting to see what happens on 7/13 in Nordyke...

-Brett

[yellowfin]

I've lost track- is 7/13 when they vote or we find out?

[the_quark]

Originally Posted by yellowfin

I've lost track- is 7/13 when they vote or we find out?

When we find out. Not sure if it's also when they vote, or if that's already happened and they're just keeping us in suspense.

[bwiese]

Quark,

When you get Dick Heller's revolver I wanna shoot it.

Maybe we can hold a fundraiser + BBQ

[Untamed1972]

Originally Posted by bwiese

Quark,

When you get Dick Heller's revolver I wanna shoot it.

Maybe we can hold a fundraiser + BBQ

Heller's handgun needs to be mounted a plaque and put on the wall of some hall of fame somewhere as "the gun the saved america".

Or

"The gun that killed gun control."

[the_quark]

Obviously, it's not Heller's literal gun, but the exact same make and model, down to cosmetic details (the grips are the right color) since that sort of thing is apparently important for whether a gun is safe, or not...

But, anyone who's been dying to shoot a .22 LR 9" 9-shot revolver is welcome to come along whenever I can actually purchase it!

-Brett

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by the_quark

Obviously, it's not Heller's literal gun, but the exact same make and model, down to cosmetic details (the grips are the right color) since that sort of thing is apparently important for whether a gun is safe, or not...

Understood, but I want the dangerous mahogany grips on it.

[cindynles]

Originally Posted by yellowfin

I've lost track- is 7/13 when they vote or we find out?

7/13 is my birthday, so I hope it is good news.

[IGOTDIRT4U]

Originally Posted by bwiese

I will note that the current BoF Dept. AG is actually the person who drafted the unsafe handgun laws (SB15) under her tenure as a contract aide to Sen. Jack Scott. So we do have interesting conflicts about 'legislative intent' given lack of detachment ("I wrote this plain language, but I mean that..."

[HondaMasterTech]

Please, nutshell? Damned pdf files...

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by HondaMasterTech

Please, nutshell? Damned pdf files...

CA replies 'No, you're wrong, all that stuff we're doing is just fine, so please dismiss the case.'

While the Second Amendment protects an individual's possession of a handgun in the home for self-defense, there is no constitutional right to purchase in the marketplace any handgun of one's choosing. The Court should dismiss the first cause of action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
---
Therefore, even assuming a governmental classification and different treatment of a similarly situated class, the Act withstands rational basis review and does not run afoul of equal protection.

Accordingly, the second cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

[HondaMasterTech]

Thanks Librarian, again.

[taloft]

The sheer stupidity of gun laws never cease to amaze me.

The idea that somehow a firearm once deemed safe by the state have now become unsafe merely because the factory forgot to send the annual extortion fee just boggles the mind. I notice they always skirt around that issue.

And I can't believe they think that someone who is too stupid to properly clear a firearm will be saved by a LCI.

Here are some questions I'd love them to answer.

What percentage of all handgun models created are actually on the list?
Do they think that all the handgun models not on the list are actually unsafe?
Is there any statistical evidence that LCI's and Mag disconnects actually render firearms safer?
Is there any evidence that this list has saved even one life?
How is it that firearms not on the list suddenly become safe in the hands of LE?
How is it that these supposed unsafe handguns manage not to be a problem in other states where they are legal?

I'll never get a straight answer. I hope SAF and CGF jam them up good.

[nick]

Originally Posted by ivanimal

So they say that no one can buy the gun I want, do they think we are daft? There are 3 on GB right now. Even if I wanted the newest version of the same gun i couldn't have it. Its unsafe here but available safely everywhere else. The fact is I want that one, it used to be safe now because of extortion the unpaid fees it is somehow unsafe.

They never address the fact that other than Glock adding guns with Rough texture that were already listed, no semi auto handgun has been added to the list in over a year. We are slowly being deprived of our right to bear arms in the name of safety. The funny thing is we are all about safety, we like safety. When it makes sense of course.

But I am talking to people here that already know that. Right Alison?

Safety is way overrated, especially when it ends up ruling your life. At which point do we discover that life in a shrinkwrap bubble isn't worth living?

[chuckles48]

Originally Posted by ilbob

I think the CA AG is either constitutionally or statutorily required to defend CA law when challenged in federal court. No matter who does the paperwork it is a loser. No reason to change horses in midstream in the hopes of getting a win. Its not as if he can agree with the plaintiff.

Obviously not the case, if JB and co. are filing opposition briefs against Prop 8 in Federal court _in his role as CA AG_.

[N6ATF]

The assumption is that they created the roster for safety of the gun owner. The only shrinkwrap bubble they are creating is for their fellow criminals, by making it increasingly near to impossible for ownership of ANY gun by a law-abiding citizen.

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by ilbob

I think the CA AG is either constitutionally or statutorily required to defend CA law when challenged in federal court.
No matter who does the paperwork it is a loser. No reason to change horses in midstream in the hopes of getting a win. Its not as
if he can agree with the plaintiff.

Originally Posted by chuckles48

obviously not the case, if JB and co. are filing opposition briefs against Prop 8 in Federal court in his role as CA AG.

Denying some pairs of human beings equal protection of rights to/benefits of marriage is a fair basis to start with.

[7x57]

Originally Posted by nick

Safety is way overrated, especially when it ends up ruling your life. At which point do we discover that life in a shrinkwrap bubble isn't worth living?

Leave it to Nick to grasp a key point. Part of the loss of the concept of pre-existing Natural Rights is the loss of the concept that there are things worse than dying. Now, most human societies thought that teaching that, and what they are, was perhaps the most important thing you could teach a boy (I say boy mostly because those things most often involved the boy dying so that the mother of his children could live, or something to that effect). I get tired of just telling people that self-defense increases their chances of survival. That's true, but ethically it isn't very profound. It is what any animal will do. The key moral test is when someone is called to do something that decreases his chances of survival, for reasons higher than the existential.

In other words, it would be nice if we were morally sophisticated enough to say "you must have the right of self defense because it isn't worth living the rest of your life with the knowledge that you are a coward."

7x57

[vrand]

Originally Posted by trashman

Succinctly and perfectly put. With some luck, too, the state's bankruptcy will erode some of the funds earmarked for the DOJs litigation on this (and other subjects).

--Neill

[the_quark]

Originally Posted by Librarian

CA replies 'No, you're wrong, all that stuff we're doing is just fine, so please dismiss the case.'

My summary was "This case should be dismissed because...well...Oh, YEAH?"

-Brett

[HondaMasterTech]

What is the likelyhood that it will be dismissed?