2022 08 01 Boland V Bonta - Handgun Roster Lawsuit

[JiuJitsu]

Ok, from what I understand from their lawyers is that the judge will rule on the preliminary injunction after the upcoming briefs are submitted. Sounds like from the judges reactions and questions that microstamping is very likely to be shot down, but the other two requirements (mag disconnect and loaded chamber indicator) are still up in the air. The full trial will go after all these, regardless. This is just for the PI.

[abinsinia]

I don't think the judge would give away his whole position while the court is taking testimony.

I would say the judge will grant the whole PI, microstamping, magazine disconnect, and loaded chamber indicator.

[abinsinia]

I think the PI missed something .. The roster also requires all guns submitted must have an external safety.

So even if we get the whole PI all guns would still need the external safety to be included.

[WithinReason]

If the judge issues a preliminary injunction, won't the entire CA DoJ roster law be affected?

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by WithinReason

If the judge issues a preliminary injunction, won't the entire CA DoJ roster law be affected?

Not in this case, because plaintiffs only request microstamping, magazine disconnect, and LCI to be part of the preliminary injunction.

In the Renna case they request the whole roster law would be enjoined.

[abinsinia]

Two new docket entries,

MINUTES OF Evidentiary Hearing On Plaintiffs' Motion for A Preliminary Injunction held before Judge Cormac J. Carney. Witnesses called, sworn, and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. For the reasons stated on the record, counsel shall file a joint stipulation of witness and admitted exhibit list. Counsel shall also file the admitted exhibits by January 27, 2023. Court Reporter: Debbie-Hino Spaan. (twdb) (Entered: 01/25/2023)

CONFIRMATION OF EXHIBIT REVIEW AND AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT EXHIBITS TO COURT filed by Lance Boland, Robert Bonta, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated, Reno May, Mario Santellan, Jerome Schammel. (twdb) (Entered: 01/25/2023)

[abinsinia]

ORDER REGARDING CLOSING BRIEFING FOLLOWING EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Judge Cormac J. Carney. It is hereby ORDERED that the parties file briefs no longer than twenty (20) pages in length by February 24, 2023. It is further ORDERED that the parties submit response briefs no longer than ten (10) pages in length by March 10, 2023. (twdb) (Entered: 01/25/2023)

This docket entry was just filed, looks like it's the scheduling that was posted on Twitter.

[mej16489]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

I think the PI missed something .. The roster also requires all guns submitted must have an external safety.

So even if we get the whole PI all guns would still need the external safety to be included.

What is the penal code item requiring an external safety? Its been a long while since I looked, but I don't think that's in the PC.

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by mej16489

What is the penal code item requiring an external safety? Its been a long while since I looked, but I don't think
that's in the PC.

It is in the original definition of 'unsafe handgun'.

[B]31910 PC /B] As used in this part, “unsafe handgun” means any pistol,
revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, for which any of the following is true:
. . . .

(b) For a pistol:
(1) It does not have a positive manually operated safety device,
as determined by standards relating to imported guns promulgated by
the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

This was even back in old PC 12126 way before renumbering.

Remember pistols like Glocks and S&W M&Ps had 'manual' safety in the
triggers themselves even though no slide/frame-mounted safeties. [And
even if, say, a 1911 had no manual frame mounted safety lever, I think the
standard 1911 grip safety alone would suffice for this.] I think the origin
of this portion was for cheap safety-less little 22LR/25acp/380 pocket pistols.

SB489, for 2006, added a Rostering requirement for either loaded chamber
indicator (LCI) or mag disconnect safety, for pistols. I believe the combo
requirement for LCI *and* mag disco began in 2008.

[mej16489]

Originally Posted by bwiese

It is in the original definition of 'unsafe handgun'.

[B]31910 PC /B] As used in this part, “unsafe handgun” means any pistol,
revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, for which any of the following is true:
. . . .

(b) For a pistol:
(1) It does not have a positive manually operated safety device,
as determined by standards relating to imported guns promulgated by
the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

This was even back in old PC 12126 way before renumbering.

Remember pistols like Glocks and S&W M&Ps had 'manual' safety in the
triggers themselves even though no slide/frame-mounted safeties. [And
even if, say, a 1911 had no manual frame mounted safety lever, I think the
standard 1911 grip safety alone would suffice for this.] I think the origin
of this portion was for cheap safety-less little 22LR/25acp/380 pocket pistols.

SB489, for 2006, added a Rostering requirement for either loaded chamber
indicator (LCI) or mag disconnect safety, for pistols. I believe the combo
requirement for LCI *and* mag disco began in 2008.

Thank you Bill, that had completely slipped my mind...I was too focused on something like Beretta 92 or a the side mounted safety of some M&P pistols. When thinking of it in the more broad scope as you have suggested above, I can't think of a single non-revolver that doesn't have such a thing...

[abinsinia]

TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Defendant Robert Bonta for Court Reporter. (Woods, Sean) (Entered: 01/26/2023)

From the docket. I'm not sure what this is exactly, I don't think this is the transcripts, but it's some kind of order related to it.

[BigMac90660]

Just cause the manufacturer has to include a manual safety, doesn't mean you are required to use it.

You do you.

[Sgt Raven]

Originally Posted by BigMac90660

Just cause the manufacturer has to include a manual safety, doesn't mean you are required to use it.

You do you.

Even if you don't use a manual safety. Part of your draw stroke, should be to disengage the manual safety.

You don't want to be trying to figure out why your pistol won't fire, because the safety was accidentally engaged.



Remember, Murphy will show up at the worse possible time.

[LA123]

Hey all,

I read through a lot of the post. Is anyone interested in answering the following questions. I promise I am not a troll looking to spark a fire. Just a guy that would love to buy a few off roster hand guns. Im hoping for something like a freedom week or something like that.

1) How likely is the CA roster to go away?

2) If its likely when do yall think it might happen?

Thank you,

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by LA123

Hey all,

I read through a lot of the post. Is anyone interested in answering the following questions. I promise I am not a troll looking to spark a fire. Just a guy that would love to buy a few off roster hand guns. Im hoping for something like a freedom week or something like that.

1) How likely is the CA roster to go away?

2) If its likely when do yall think it might happen?

Thank you,

I am assuming that you mean at a fair price close to retail in free states. I suspect that the CA roster will be declared unconstitutional sometime in the first half of this year but it will probably be years before a final determination is made in the appellate courts. I am not seeing a freedom week for off roster handguns primarily because such handguns are generally not in inventory in CA and it should be possible for the state to get a stay before the 10 day waiting period would end.

[WithinReason]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

I am not seeing a freedom week for off roster handguns primarily because such handguns are generally not in inventory in CA and it should be possible for the state to get a stay before the 10 day waiting period would end.

Bummer! I am so hoping for a Freedom Week!

[abinsinia]

STIPULATION for Order Re Plaintiffs' and Defendant's Exhibits Admitted at the Evidentiary Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs Lance Boland, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated, Reno May, Mario Santellan, Jerome Schammel. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 to Request for Judicial Notice I/S/O Mtn. for Preliminary Injunction, # 13 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibit 1, # 14 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibit 2, # 15 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibit 3, # 16 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibit 4, # 17 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibit 5, # 18 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibit 6, # 19 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibit 7, # 20 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibit 8, # 21 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibit 9, # 22 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibit 10, # 23 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibit 11, # 24 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibit 12, # 25 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibit 13, # 26 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibit 14, # 27 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibit 15, # 28 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibit 16, # 29 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibit 17, # 30 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibit 18, # 31 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibit 19, # 32 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibit 20, # 33 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibit 21, # 34 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibit 22, # 35 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibit 23, # 36 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibit 24, # 37 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibit 25, # 38 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibit 26, # 39 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibit 27, # 40 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibit 28, # 41 Exhibit Defendants Demonstrative Exh. 1, # 42 Exhibit Defendants Demonstrative Exh. 2, # 43 Proposed Order)(Brady, Sean) (Entered: 01/27/2023)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...58747.48.0.pdf


A bunch of exhibits got filed. Looks like this is what was presented at the hearing.

[abinsinia]

TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Plaintiffs Lance Boland, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated, Reno May, Mario Santellan, Jerome Schammel for Court Reporter. Court will contact Christina Castron at ccastron@michellawyers.com with further instructions regarding this order. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter. (Dale, Joshua) (Entered: 01/30/2023)

This looks like ordering transcripts. Maybe they'll post them.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...58747.49.0.pdf

[homelessdude]

What do any of the defenses submittals have to do with laws in the correct time frame proving a legal history for a handgun roster, They don't. Just more delusional Ca, smoke and mirrors.

[JiuJitsu]

Originally Posted by homelessdude

What do any of the defenses submittals have to do with laws in the correct time frame proving a legal history for a handgun roster, They don't. Just more delusional Ca, smoke and mirrors.

Exactly. They don’t. So they are flailing and throwing everything against the wall just to see what sticks. Throwing poop like Saul Cornell “expert historian” testimony. What a joke.

They seem absolutely desperate in all these cases.

[abinsinia]

TRANSCRIPT, DAY 2, for proceedings held on 1/24/2023 at 9:05 a.m. ****Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through Court Reporter DEBBIE HINO-SPAAN at: WEBSITE www.debbiehinospaan.com; E-mail, dhinospaan@yahoo.com before the deadline for Release of Transcript restriction. After that date, it may be obtained from the Court Reporter or through PACER. Additional formats of the transcript (ASCII, Condensed, and Word Indexing/Concordance) are also available to be purchased at any time through the Court Reporter. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date.**. Redaction Request due 2/21/2023. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/3/2023. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/1/2023. (dhs) (Entered: 01/31/2023)

I think they want these transcripts because the CADOJ said it's illegal to switch slides on a Shield pistol.

[abinsinia]

TRANSCRIPT, DAY 2, for proceedings held on 1/24/2023 at 9:05 a.m. ****Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through Court Reporter DEBBIE HINO-SPAAN at: WEBSITE www.debbiehinospaan.com; E-mail, dhinospaan@yahoo.com before the deadline for Release of Transcript restriction. After that date, it may be obtained from the Court Reporter or through PACER. Additional formats of the transcript (ASCII, Condensed, and Word Indexing/Concordance) are also available to be purchased at any time through the Court Reporter. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date.**. Redaction Request due 2/21/2023. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/3/2023. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/1/2023. (dhs) (Entered: 01/31/2023)

NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 1/24/2023 at 9:05 a.m. re Transcript 50 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (dhs) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/31/2023)

I think they want these transcripts because the CADOJ said it's illegal to switch slides on a Shield pistol.

[ritter]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

I think they want these transcripts because the CADOJ said it's illegal to switch slides on a Shield pistol.

Wow. Since when and what law?

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by ritter

Wow. Since when and what law?

I'm not the best person to describe it anyone who knows more feel free to correct me. I believe it goes like this, the unsafe handgun section doesn't define "manufacture" and the courts normally use the prior section definition if there was no definition given. Where if you use the prior section's definition of "manufacture" then to manufacture an unsafe handgun becomes extremely sweeping where you can't change any parts in a gun (maybe not even the magazine).

Reno May describes the testimony in this video,

[ritter]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

I'm not the best person to describe it anyone who knows more feel free to correct me. I believe it goes like this, the unsafe handgun section doesn't define "manufacture" and the courts normally use the prior section definition if there was no definition given. Where if you use the prior section's definition of "manufacture" then to manufacture an unsafe handgun becomes extremely sweeping where you can't change any parts in a gun (maybe not even the magazine).

Reno May describes the testimony in this video,

So, night sights (any after market sights), slide milling, Apex triggers, grip panels, etc. would make a handgun illegal? That's a nutso reading of the law, if so.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by ritter

So, night sights (any after market sights), slide milling, Apex triggers, grip panels, etc. would make a handgun illegal? That's a nutso reading of the law, if so.

I think the sights are ok, because the roster page says the guns can have night sights. I don't know about other types of sights tho, like fiber optic sights.

[ASD1]

Originally Posted by ritter

So slide milling, Apex triggers, grip panels, etc. would make a handgun illegal? That's a nutso reading of the law, if so.

Well sort of.

If you take a rostered pistol and did any of those things it's no longer a rostered pistol because it's no longer "as tested" so if you shipped it to a dealer they could not dros it.

BUT

It could be done as a PPT because PPT is roster exempt. An any "unsafe hand gun" can be sold vie ppt.

[skeeter149]

Next field stripping and cleaning will be banned as manufacturing

[ritter]

Originally Posted by ASD1

Well sort of.

If you take a rostered pistol and did any of those things it's no longer a rostered pistol because it's no longer "as tested" so if you shipped it to a dealer they could not dros it.

BUT

It could be done as a PPT because PPT is roster exempt. An any "unsafe hand gun" can be sold vie ppt.

So do whatever you want to a PPT gun but anything you DROS as new, that's it. Huh.

[ASD1]

Originally Posted by ritter

So do whatever you want to a PPT gun but anything you DROS as new, that's it. Huh.

I don't like their logic.

But if you have or purchased a "unsafe handgun" you can do what ever you want to it because it's already a "unsafe handgun".

But if you purchased a rostered (safe hand gun) and change any aspect of it other than the sights you have manufactured a "unsafe handgun" as it is no longer "as tested".

[abinsinia]

I think the strictness of this manufacturing of an unsafe handgun is good for the case, because it's so strict that it makes it much more unconstitutional.

[command_liner]

Originally Posted by ASD1

Well sort of.

If you take a rostered pistol and did any of those things it's no longer a rostered pistol because it's no longer "as tested" so if you shipped it to a dealer they could not dros it.

BUT

It could be done as a PPT because PPT is roster exempt. An any "unsafe hand gun" can be sold vie ppt.

There is already a ruling on this exact detail. But perhaps the AG has forgotten.

When I first brought up the illogic of CA not permitting the sale of the XD Bitone pistol, I went around and around with the state. (Indeed this is XD Bitone pistol was one of the examples in Pena.) The state told me I could not buy an XD Bitone (black body, shiny slide), but I could buy a XD in black or in green. Further, the state explicitly told me that if I was to buy a shiny XD Bitone slide outside of California, and then assemble the parts in California, the result would be "not unsafe".

This is because the slide is not serialized, and I would not be altering the serialized part, which is "the gun".

The state specifically ignored the "Shall" part of the statue -- twice, and both ways. In the case of the XD Bitone, the state agreed "the gun" was the same as the black model, but refused abide by the "Shall" and would not declare the Bitone "not unsafe". OTOH, the green XD is a slightly different polymer -- as evidenced by the fact that it a different color all the way through. For the green variant the state declared the green gun to be "not unsafe", despite the (slightly) different polymer.

The stupidity vortex of XD with a green frame with a shiny slide was not entered by either me or the state.

[DolphinFan]

So, every time I practice with my .22LR Advantage Arms uppers, I'm manufacturing a new firearm?

The logic does not compute

[Paladin]

Just dropping in….

What’s the next step and when is it likely to occur?

If someone could keep the OP and/or title up to date with that info I’m sure others would also appreciate it.

[seabee1]

Man, these state .gov people are F'ing communists

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Just dropping in….

What’s the next step and when is it likely to occur?

If someone could keep the OP and/or title up to date with that info I’m sure others would also appreciate it.

I think we're waiting for the preliminary injunction ruling. Or at least waiting for the judge to order something.

[Foothills]

On the Shield, the loaded chamber indicator makes a little fin pop up in the middle of your slide. I could see that swapping out the slide would be considered eliminating the loaded chamber indicator, which is a specific design requirement.

[Socal_Jack]

How do they justify the microstamping part, when the tech doesn't exist in production guns.

Then a single company owns the patent, doesn't license it, so no one can develop a microstamped gun, even if the tech worked. I mean, sure, mabey its feasible if someone put some more testing and R&D, but no one is doing that. The company that owns the tech is not.

Of course there is caveats like reloading, or filing off microstamps, or if you need to replace a firing pin, and now a firing pin becomes a serialized controlled part, which I don't think is in legislation anywhere either.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by Socal_Jack

How do they justify the microstamping part, when the tech doesn't exist in production guns.

"public safety"

At no point is there any responsibility on the part of the legislation (and, seemingly the courts) to provide any real logic or reason to any of the things they do or do not do.

They're totally untouchable and are free to act unilaterally, without any opposition.

And no, there are no judges that are "afraid" of SCOTUS rebuke. That notion is ridiculously naive, though it is commonly cited.

[ke1234567]

I thought the hearing on the handgun roster was suppose to be on 2/10/23? Just wondering if there was a transcript of the hearing. Typically, you can tell how a justice is leaning based on the questions of counsel that are asked.