2022 08 01 Boland V Bonta - Handgun Roster Lawsuit

[1919_4_ME]

[Librarian]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...858747.1.0.pdf

C.D. Michel – SBN 144258
Joshua Robert Dale – SBN 209942
Alexander A. Frank – SBN 311718
Konstadinos T. Moros – SBN 306610
cmichel@michellawyers.com
MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
180 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 200
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 216-4444
Facsimile: (562) 216-4445
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

LANCE BOLAND, an individual; MARIO SANTELLAN, an individual; RENO MAY, an individual; JEROME SCHAMMEL, an individual; and CALIFORNIA RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED, a California corporation,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ROBERT BONTA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California; and DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
CASE NO.:
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 & 1988


Moving to the CA 2A Litigation forum

[curtisfong]

Remember when FGG said "just buy a different gun, lol colors what?" while mercilessly ridiculing Pena?

Will he eat his words?

Also, guessing this will just get stayed penning Renna. We'll see.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

Remember when FGG said "just buy a different gun, lol colors what?" while mercilessly ridiculing Pena?

Will he eat his words?

Also, guessing this will just get stayed penning Renna. We'll see.

In all fairness; HE WAS RIGHT, THEN. But this is NOW. I doubt he would makes the same comment today. Considering the "THT" BOMBSHELL that just blew up 2A infringements.

WHERE ARE ALL THE GUN OWNING 2A WELFARE RECIPIENTS WHINING ABOUT:

WHAT HAS THE NRA-CRPA DONE FOR ME?

[kuug]

Originally Posted by pacrat

In all fairness; HE WAS RIGHT, THEN. But this is NOW. I doubt he would makes the same comment today. Considering the "THT" BOMBSHELL that just blew up 2A infringements.

WHERE ARE ALL THE GUN OWNING 2A WELFARE RECIPIENTS WHINING ABOUT:

WHAT HAS THE NRA-CRPA DONE FOR ME?

It was no bombshell, Text with historical analysis has been the test since Heller. Bruen affirmed that was Heller’s required analysis. The most Bruen did was declare lower courts dead wrong for using intermediate scrutiny in defiance of Heller


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Aldo The Apache]

Originally Posted by kuug

It was no bombshell, Text with historical analysis has been the test since Heller. Bruen affirmed that was Heller’s required analysis. The most Bruen did was declare lower courts dead wrong for using intermediate scrutiny in defiance of Heller


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

^this. However, since the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision, CA, NY and The H.R. have done nothing BUT shown blatant defiance of BOTH Heller, Bruen & SCOTUS!

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by kuug

It was no bombshell, Text with historical analysis has been the test since Heller. Bruen affirmed that was Heller’s required analysis. The most Bruen did was declare lower courts dead wrong for using intermediate scrutiny in defiance of Heller


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How many cases were GVR's within days of Heller? How many Brand Spanking NEW CASES were filed immediately following Heller? How many States/Cities rushed to pass virtue signaling laws immediately after Heller?

BRUEN was the bombshell that blew lower courts out of the water for ignoring HELLER. Which had become common practice since 2008. It also made every state SHALL ISSUE, And quite possibly ConCarry in the near future.

So from my point of view it was a bombshell. History will tell, and history is already talking. LOUD AND CLEAR.

[moleculo]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

Remember when FGG said "just buy a different gun, lol colors what?" while mercilessly ridiculing Pena?

Will he eat his words?

Also, guessing this will just get stayed penning Renna. We'll see.

Not the same at all. The "I want XYZ color" wasn't a THT argument. Nor was it really the "2 step" argument. It was just plain stupid. I do find humor in the fact that this complaint paid homage to the color argument, though. I wouldn't be surprised if that was just included to take a parting shot at the Gene / Brandon show, lol.

I also like that the dormant commerce clause was included in the complaint. I always thought that might be an angle to attack.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by moleculo

Not the same at all. The "I want XYZ color" wasn't a THT argument. Nor was it really the "2 step" argument. It was just plain stupid. I do find humor in the fact that this complaint paid homage to the color argument, though. I wouldn't be surprised if that was just included to take a parting shot at the Gene / Brandon show, lol.

I also like that the dormant commerce clause was included in the complaint. I always thought that might be an angle to attack.

Is a retailer a plaintiff?

[moleculo]

Originally Posted by taperxz

Is a retailer a plaintiff?

They're not using the commerce clause attack in that manner. Rather, they're showing that the UFA is in violation because it allows for private party sales, but not retail sales.

Plus this:

"Plaintiff Reno May is a resident of SonomaCounty, California, and a lawabiding citizen of the United States. Plaintiff May has purchased Off-Roster pistols in the
secondary market at significant markups and wishesto purchase more Off-Roster models.
Plaintiff May would attempt to buy one in the retail market but for the fact that the
attempt to do so would be futile because it is unlawful for a dealer to sell an Off-Roster
handgun to him because he is not eligible for any of the exemptions. If he could legally
do so, he would attempt to purchase at a retail dealer “Off-Roster” semi-automatic
firearms such as a Gen 5 Glock 19, Sig Sauer P365, Ruger LCP Max, Smith & Wesson
Shield Plus, and Staccato P, and to keep those firearms in his home for self-defense and
use for other lawful purposes such as recreational target shooting. "

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by moleculo

They're not using the commerce clause attack in that manner. Rather, they're showing that the UFA is in violation because it allows for private party sales, but not retail sales.

Plus this:

"Plaintiff Reno May is a resident of SonomaCounty, California, and a lawabiding citizen of the United States. Plaintiff May has purchased Off-Roster pistols in the
secondary market at significant markups and wishesto purchase more Off-Roster models.
Plaintiff May would attempt to buy one in the retail market but for the fact that the
attempt to do so would be futile because it is unlawful for a dealer to sell an Off-Roster
handgun to him because he is not eligible for any of the exemptions. If he could legally
do so, he would attempt to purchase at a retail dealer “Off-Roster” semi-automatic
firearms such as a Gen 5 Glock 19, Sig Sauer P365, Ruger LCP Max, Smith & Wesson
Shield Plus, and Staccato P, and to keep those firearms in his home for self-defense and
use for other lawful purposes such as recreational target shooting. "

Again, where's the retailer? The customer has free market access but the entity that absolutely can't transfer the gun from their inventory is the dealer.

Im not arguing with you. I'm just pointing out how the court could make this an issue.

[Mongo68]

Didn’t scotus say you can’t have uneven enforcement as well? IE LEO carve outs for guns that are “unsafe” for mere peasants?

[moleculo]

Originally Posted by taperxz

Again, where's the retailer? The customer has free market access but the entity that absolutely can't transfer the gun from their inventory is the dealer.

Im not arguing with you. I'm just pointing out how the court could make this an issue.

How does the customer have free market access? IMO, they don't. They can only buy via PPT if someone happens to have what they want / need and also desires to sell it The only truly free market access would be if they had access to both the retail and the PPT market.

[SkyHawk]

Originally Posted by kuug

The most Bruen did was declare lower courts dead wrong for using intermediate scrutiny in defiance of Heller

Well apparently that was "the most" much needed. It was a shot across the bow, and the floodgates are wide open now. Scotus has written it with crayons for even the dumbest or recalcitrant appeals court to read in plain english.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by moleculo

How does the customer have free market access? IMO, they don't. They can only buy via PPT if someone happens to have what they want / need and also desires to sell it The only truly free market access would be if they had access to both the retail and the PPT market.

I'm saying the state will use "free market" as ability to still obtain the firearm. I'm not saying its correct. I'm still pointing out that a plaintiff in the retail business would need to be added. The retailer is the entity that is enforcing the roster to the purchaser.

[SkyHawk]

Originally Posted by taperxz

I'm saying the state will use "free market" as ability to still obtain the firearm. I'm not saying its correct. I'm still pointing out that a plaintiff in the retail business would need to be added. The retailer is the entity that is enforcing the roster to the purchaser.

The law prohibits importation for transfer of even used guns from private parties, and that affects private citizens. If I can't buy a gun on gunbroker and import it for transfer, then I am not allowed to buy in a "free market".

One look at the prices and dearth of off roster guns in Ca will tell anyone all they need to know about the farce of a "free market" argument if DOJ tries to make it. That dog won't hunt.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by SkyHawk

The law prohibits importation for transfer of even used guns from private parties, and that affects private citizens. If I can't buy a gun on gunbroker and import it for transfer, then I am not allowed to buy in a "free market".

One look at the prices and dearth of off roster guns in Ca will tell anyone all they need to know about the farce of a "free market" argument if DOJ tries to make it. That dog won't hunt.

You're missing the point. By not having a retailer they make that argument harder to deal with. A CFD holder can bring in these guns. A person can also purchase the firearm out of state. Its the dealer who can't transfer it to them. If you're going to use the commerce clause, it would be good to have all entities involved to smother the issue. After all, DOJ and the state are the ones who regulate CFD/FFL holders in this state. Its where the enforcement occurs.

[Oxnard_Montalvo]

Originally Posted by taperxz

I'm saying the state will use "free market" as ability to still obtain the firearm. I'm not saying its correct. I'm still pointing out that a plaintiff in the retail business would need to be added. The retailer is the entity that is enforcing the roster to the purchaser.

But that 'free market' is in itself problematic in that to get a 'free market' [aka 49 ish state handgun] into california one has to purchase one from an 'exempt' [typically a leo of some type] owner which raises questions about that whole process.

Since several/many leo's have run into issues regarding this it might be an issue that should be brought up in conjunction with this lawsuit don't ya think, that the 'free market' in california isn't as free as the pro roster people would like everyone [especially the court] to think?

[SkyHawk]

The plaintiffs should include women and elderly IMO, people who would benefit from newer semiauto handguns that are easier to hold and easier to rack. Although once you start adding qualifiers you might open the door to narrow exemptions rather than the 2A-for-everyone that we want.

The dealer could be party or not IMO, I don't think it changes much. The people are the folks who suffer the most damages from this infringement.

[cz74]

Originally Posted by SkyHawk

The plaintiffs should include women and elderly IMO, people who would benefit from newer semiauto handguns that are easier to hold and easier to rack.

The dealer could be party or not IMO, I don't think it changes much. The people are the folks who suffer the most damages from this infringement.

Exactly! Saw a family of three at Sportsman recently, the wife could not rack any of the semi auto pistols especially the Shields, she gave up and they left. There was bunch of colorful snub nose revolvers on display though.

[command_liner]

The color thing is a gift that just keeps giving. AFAIK, it was my very early argument with the CAL DOJ about the SA XD 45 Bitone that got this all started. For review, the state asserted it was ok for SA to sell the XD with different frame colors (different polymers), and the frame is the serialized part, so these are different models, but it is not OK to sell the XD 45 with different color slides. It was OK for me to buy a separate slide from SA, and assemble a bitone gun in CA: that would be "not unsafe". But if I wanted to buy one assembled from the factory it would not be "not unsafe" -- or whatever incoherent noises they were making. Except *perhaps* if I pulled my police ID out of my pocket, it might then be "not unsafe", except I was a volunteer, so it might also have have remained "not not unsafe".

The law is also very clear on this point, using "shall" to instruct the DOJ to consider pistols with the same frames the same per "not unsafe" regulations. The XD 45 Black model and the XD 45 Bitone use the same black frame. Even today the DOJ continues to ignore the plain meaning of the law -- while making incoherent noises.

FGG liked to make light of the absurdity of this argument, but in a way that was friendly to the corrupt deep state that is the Cal DOJ. The whole argument is absurd, and we all know it. The position of the state is indefensible. This will change.


The Dormant Commerce Clause bit is partly a feint and partly an introduction to the real discussion. This is a reflection/reflex/challenge to the 2022 gun control act passed by the congress, which specifically mentions interstate commerce. The real, eventual discussion is the Superseding Second argument, which will be coming in the next round of litigation. The crux of the argument is this: the 2nd was passed after the Commerce Clause, so to the extent that there is any conflict, the 2nd always wins because the 2nd is superseding law. Flipped around, the Commerce Clause can never be used to impinge, infringe or control rights protected by the 2nd.

Since much of the federal gun control scheme is based on Commerce Clause reasoning, this is the real battle.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by cz74

Exactly! Saw a family of three at Sportsman recently, the wife could not rack any of the semi auto pistols especially the Shields, she gave up and they left. There was bunch of colorful snub nose revolvers on display though.

Wife should become a plaintiff because the M&P® Shield® EZ is not on the roster.

[DrewN]

My favorite part of the roster is when Judge i-forget-his-name said with a straight face "Just because it's impossible to comply with the law (because the technology doesn't exist) doesn't mean it can't be enforced".

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by DrewN

My favorite part of the roster is when Judge i-forget-his-name said with a straight face "Just because it's impossible to comply with the law (because the technology doesn't exist) doesn't mean it can't be enforced".

Justice Goodwin Liu in National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. California (2018) 5 Cal.5th 428.

[Oxnard_Montalvo]

Originally Posted by DrewN

My favorite part of the roster is when Judge i-forget-his-name said with a straight face "Just because it's impossible to comply with the law (because the technology doesn't exist) doesn't mean it can't be enforced".

Sorry to be the Debbie Downer but I remain skeptical that the roster will go away in any meaningful time frame and I'll tell you why

1) the anti firearm activists in california government have put too much time and effort to let it go ESPECIALLY when their plan is so close to it's end goal so they are going to act just as rabid about the roster as they are about the Dobbs case.

2) they know that they can keep dragging this lawsuit out in court for a LONG time, perhaps decades which by then the judicial landscape will likely be VERY different [Justice Thomas being replaced at a bare minimum] which could work in their favor

3) Suppose the suit proceeds for years making progress every step of the way [as it should, especially given the Bruen test] and, just before the case gets sent up to the supremes it gets sent back to the beginning or dismissed outright for the most obscure reasons [ala california's prop 6 where a sole judge declared that the will of the voters {who elected Obama btw} is unconstitutional and subsequently retired before he got impeached]

4) say it does get overturned, whats to say that the activists in and out of california government who put so much work into the roster just go with 'we're just NOT going to drop the roster, what are you going to do about it?' It's not like there isn't precedent for this either as there are MANY articles about how some [mostly california, ny, illinois] states continue their unconstitutional practices even after they lose in court

5) and say it DOES go away, as we have seen from the aftermath of the Bruen decision there can and will be 'retribution' and given how 'near and dear' the roster is to them you can bet this retribution will be something big for example by following canada and banning ALL handguns and dragging it out in court for decades...

All I'm saying is lets stay in the real world, it's a great start but there's a LOT that has to happen for us [the average firearm owner/collector] before we spend several years of 30 day waits before we catch up to where we might have been had the roster not impeded us...

[DrewN]

Oh, I 100% believe I'll be dead and in the ground long before the roster goes away. But, at this point just getting rid of the fictional microstamp would be something. And not only is it fictional, no one can provide any numbers on how ****ing useful it would be in the first place. We like to call the gun grabbers stupid, but the microstamp requirement was stupid like a fox, even if they got lucky in court.

[Oxnard_Montalvo]

Originally Posted by DrewN

Oh, I 100% believe I'll be dead and in the ground long before the roster goes away. But, at this point just getting rid of the fictional microstamp would be something. And not only is it fictional, no one can provide any numbers on how ****ing useful it would be in the first place. We like to call the gun grabbers stupid, but the microstamp requirement was stupid like a fox, even if they got lucky in court.

As told so often before microstamping wouldn't be useful in any way. Criminals would quickly go to shooting ranges and grab dozens of casings to drop at crime scenes and cops would eventually figure this out and stop bothering with checking them. But even now that's becoming irrelevant since only the worst of the worst crimes get any significant interest from prosecutors so even if they did catch someone using the technology it's unlikely they'd face any serious time

The workaround for microstamping is similar to what one coke dealer hypothesized regarding the drug sniffing dogs, one would only have to use one of those garden sprayers with a mix of coke and water and spray virtually every person and vehicle going from mexico to the u.s. and soon those dogs would be gone.

[DrewN]

Originally Posted by Oxnard_Montalvo

As told so often before microstamping wouldn't be useful in any way. Criminals would quickly go to shooting ranges and grab dozens of casings to drop at crime scenes and cops would eventually figure this out and stop bothering with checking them. But even now that's becoming irrelevant since only the worst of the worst crimes get any significant interest from prosecutors so even if they did catch someone using the technology it's unlikely they'd face any serious time

The workaround for microstamping is similar to what one coke dealer hypothesized regarding the drug sniffing dogs, one would only have to use one of those garden sprayers with a mix of coke and water and spray virtually every person and vehicle going from mexico to the u.s. and soon those dogs would be gone.

I wrote a (bad. SO bad.) thriller once, where my bad guy would contaminate his crime scenes by spraying animal blood and reversing a shop vac full of barbershop trimmings and fibers, plant material etc. Just basically overloading forensics.

[redhead]

Originally Posted by Oxnard_Montalvo

Sorry to be the Debbie Downer but I remain skeptical that the roster will go away in any meaningful time frame and I'll tell you why

1) the anti firearm activists in california government have put too much time and effort to let it go ESPECIALLY when their plan is so close to it's end goal.

2) they know that they can keep dragging this lawsuit out in court for a LONG time, perhaps decades which by then the judicial landscape may be VERY different [Justice Thomas being replaced at a bare minimum] which would work in their favor

3) Suppose the suit proceeds for years making progress every step of the way [as it should, especially given the Bruen test] and, just before the case gets sent up to the supremes it gets sent back to the beginning or dismissed outright for the most obscure reasons ala california's prop 6 [where the sole judge declared it unconstitutional and subsequently retired before he got impeached]

4) say it gets overturned at some level, whats to say that those who put so much into the roster just go with 'we're just NOT going to drop the roster, what are you going to do about it?' It's not like there isnt residence for this either as there are MANY articles about how some states continue their unconstitutional practices even after the lose in court

5) and say it DOES go away, as we can see from the aftermath of the Bruen decision there can and will be 'retribution' and given how 'near and dear' the roster is to them you can bet this retribution will be something big...

All I'm saying is lets stay in the real world, it's a great start but there's a LOT that has to happen for us [the average firearm owner/collector] before we spend years of 30 day waits before we catch up to where we might have been had the roster not impeded us...

I’ll be moved to Idaho long before the roster goes away and before I can get a carry permit. Driving to Idaho in September to look at properties.

[19K]

Originally Posted by SkyHawk

The plaintiffs should include women and elderly IMO, people who would benefit from newer semiauto handguns that are easier to hold and easier to rack. Although once you start adding qualifiers you might open the door to narrow exemptions rather than the 2A-for-everyone that we want.

This is California, I now identify as an elderly disabled womanbirthing person. I am exempt from the roster.

[robertfchew]

When will this go to a hearing

[Roswell Saucer]

Originally Posted by SkyHawk

The plaintiffs should include women and elderly IMO, people who would benefit from newer semiauto handguns that are easier to hold and easier to rack. Although once you start adding qualifiers you might open the door to narrow exemptions rather than the 2A-for-everyone that we want.

The dealer could be party or not IMO, I don't think it changes much. The people are the folks who suffer the most damages from this infringement.

According to the State of Minnesota, the Second Amendment does not apply to women.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by robertfchew

When will this go to a hearing

Not yet set - see https://michellawyers.com/boland-v-bonta/

[marcusrn]

Originally Posted by Roswell Saucer

According to the State of Minnesota, the Second Amendment does not apply to women.

According to Selective Service laws woman do not have to sign the draft rolls.

[-hanko]

Originally Posted by redhead

I’ll be moved to Idaho long before the roster goes away and before I can get a carry permit. Driving to Idaho in September to look at properties.

You'd be welcome here and you can pm me if you have any questions. We've been here 20+ years.

[Roswell Saucer]

Originally Posted by marcusrn

According to Selective Service laws woman do not have to sign the draft rolls.

Historically only men were subject to conscription. Besides that, the law authorizing the Selective Service only applies to men if I recall correctly.

[redhead]

Originally Posted by -hanko

You'd be welcome here and you can pm me if you have any questions. We've been here 20+ years.

Thanks! I grew up in sw Idaho, went to college in Pocatello. After college, I lived in Boise for a couple of years, then McCall for 8. Moved to CA for work, then married a Californian. I miss Idaho every day.

[LonghornBob]

It’s regrettable. But, I don’t think this lawsuit against California’s handgun roster stands much of a chance based on the majority opinion in Bruen.

The majority in Bruen discussed an historical analogue to the California handgun roster with approval in its decision. Specifically, they discussed the holding by the Tennessee Supreme Court in 1871 and the statute enacted shortly thereafter that banned the carry of all pistols, other than larger, military-style revolvers (e.g., Colt Army Model 1860, etc.), and indicated this passed constitutional muster because it did “not altogether prohibit the public carry of arms.”

All California has to do is argue that Tennessee’s ban on non-military-style pistols is a close enough analgoue to the California handgun roster to win under the Bruen one-step test.

[JiuJitsu]

No disrespect, but how is that an analog? You are talking about one carry law from one state from that era that doesn't even fit an analog to a gov't-approved list the public is only legally able to buy from because it's "safe handgun". They could still buy whatever they wanted in that example.

And secondly, let's remember the unofficial rule here in Calguns - don't help their case by offering ammunition to their arguments. Those idiots do read these forums, as history has shown.

[Loiterer]

If I read the statement from LonghornBob right, it says you can't carry, it doesn't say you can't own.