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

[Lightstrider]

So are we gonna defeat the roster?

[Offwidth]

Unlikely.

[ZNiner]

Originally Posted by Lightstrider

So are we gonna defeat the roster?

We should know by mid April if the SCOTUS will grant cert on the case. Until then we wait and speculate.

Would be nice to walk into my LGS and buy the latest and greatest handgun out there.

[SDCarpenter]

Originally Posted by ZNiner

We should know by mid April if the SCOTUS will grant cert on the case. Until then we wait and speculate.

Would be nice to walk into my LGS and buy the latest and greatest handgun out there.

and not pay over twice the value of it

[lostinsd82]

yea, id love to not have to pay 2x the retail price for the new glocks ;/

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by ZNiner

We should know by mid April if the SCOTUS will grant cert on the case. Until then we wait and speculate.

Would be nice to walk into my LGS and buy the latest and greatest handgun out there.

Why mid-April?

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by aBrowningfan

Why mid-April?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...postcount=2831 - Distributed for the decide-whether-to-grant conference of April 12.

Might get re-distributed a few times, but if they consider and decide on normal schedule, should announce the decision the following week.

[2Aallday]

Where’s FGG with his two-tone for a laugh?

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by 2Aallday

Where’s FGG with his two-tone for a laugh?

I too would like his views on this case.

[speedrrracer]

Originally Posted by 2Aallday

Where’s FGG with his two-tone for a laugh?

Fabio is The Man when it comes to knowing the 9th, but he stays in his lane, and cert petitions and SCOTUS are not the 9th

[wolfwood]

Originally Posted by speedrrracer

Fabio is The Man when it comes to knowing the 9th, but he stays in his lane, and cert petitions and SCOTUS are not the 9th

I've got my money on him being a California DOJ lawyer that is in front of the ninth a lot. One of these days we are going to figure out who he is.

[DVSmith]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

I've got my money on him being a California DOJ lawyer that is in front of the ninth a lot. One of these days we are going to figure out who he is.

You don't tug on superman's cape
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask off that old lone ranger
And you don't mess around with Jim...

Or in this case Fabio!

[MountainLion]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

I've got my money on him being a California DOJ lawyer that is in front of the ninth a lot. One of these days we are going to figure out who he is.

Some of us know Fabio, partly because we hang out in the same circles, partly because we live near Fabio. You are completely wrong. Matter-of-fact, your two sentences above demonstrate that you are also wrong about some other aspects of Fabio's personal information.

But don't worry, you are in excellent company by being wrong. At some point, hoffmang tried to first attract Fabio to work for the CalGuns foundation. When Fabio demurred, he tried to get Fabio in trouble with their boss: hoffmang was convinced that Fabio was one of the people working for Chuck Michel, and ratted him out with the boss. Fabio does not work for Chuck Michel, however, and as usual hoffmang was not only completely wrong, but also ended up ticking off Chuck and Fabio even more. If you look for that exchange in the archives of this forum, you may find out more information about all the people that Fabio is not.

Fabio is also not an Italian actor who runs around with a shaved chest.

Let me give you an important hint: I've been in a room with Governor Jerry Brown, in a room with Attorney General Kamala Harris, and in a room with Fabio. Each time I was with Brown or Harris or both, Fabio was not in the room. Does that help narrow it down? Let me give you another hint: Brown does not watch TV, he did not even know "Jeopardy", nor had he ever heard of Vanna White. He does not go jogging for exercise. Harris on the other hand is very culturally astute, and keeps herself in shape.

[Nvberinger]

Originally Posted by ZNiner

We should know by mid April if the SCOTUS will grant cert on the case. Until then we wait and speculate.

Would be nice to walk into my LGS and buy the latest and greatest handgun out there.

The key is ...what is an unsafe gun. If other states have the same fire arms without any safety issues, it reasonable that California law regarding safe roster list is unjustified.
Either California is right and 49 other states are wrong....or opposite is true.
You can also add in off rostered unsafe guns used by LE and military.
It's so obvious the State will lose this. They don't have a prayer.

[mshill]

Originally Posted by Nvberinger

The key is ...what is an unsafe gun. If other states have the same fire arms without any safety issues, it reasonable that California law regarding safe roster list is unjustified.
Either California is right and 49 other states are wrong....or opposite is true.
You can also add in off rostered unsafe guns used by LE and military.
It's so obvious the State will lose this. They don't have a prayer.

Not so obvious since they have already won, twice.

[ZNiner]

Originally Posted by Nvberinger

The key is ...what is an unsafe gun. If other states have the same fire arms without any safety issues, it reasonable that California law regarding safe roster list is unjustified.
Either California is right and 49 other states are wrong....or opposite is true.
You can also add in off rostered unsafe guns used by LE and military.
It's so obvious the State will lose this. They don't have a prayer.

We are all in agreement that the roster is unconstitutional and should get tossed but unless the SCOTUS grants cert then we will either have to wait until the next conference or bring another case against it in federal court and wait for years while it works it's way through the system.

I read the entirety of Judge Benitez's ruling in Duncan v. Becerra and I see no reason why that exact same in common use logic couldn't be used in regards to the roster, AWB and the latest ammo laws.

[y0manda1]

Originally Posted by Nvberinger

The key is ...what is an unsafe gun. If other states have the same fire arms without any safety issues, it reasonable that California law regarding safe roster list is unjustified.

Either California is right and 49 other states are wrong....or opposite is true.

You can also add in off rostered unsafe guns used by LE and military.

It's so obvious the State will lose this. They don't have a prayer.

If the off roaster firearm is "unsafe" then why are police, feds, military, and security exempt? Selecting off roaster firearms has nothing to do with safety.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[kevin2]

Originally Posted by MountainLion

Some of us know Fabio, partly because we hang out in the same circles, partly because we live near Fabio. You are completely wrong. Matter-of-fact, your two sentences above demonstrate that you are also wrong about some other aspects of Fabio's personal information.

But don't worry, you are in excellent company by being wrong. At some point, hoffmang tried to first attract Fabio to work for the CalGuns foundation. When Fabio demurred, he tried to get Fabio in trouble with their boss: hoffmang was convinced that Fabio was one of the people working for Chuck Michel, and ratted him out with the boss. Fabio does not work for Chuck Michel, however, and as usual hoffmang was not only completely wrong, but also ended up ticking off Chuck and Fabio even more. If you look for that exchange in the archives of this forum, you may find out more information about all the people that Fabio is not.

Fabio is also not an Italian actor who runs around with a shaved chest.

Let me give you an important hint: I've been in a room with Governor Jerry Brown, in a room with Attorney General Kamala Harris, and in a room with Fabio. Each time I was with Brown or Harris or both, Fabio was not in the room. Does that help narrow it down? Let me give you another hint: Brown does not watch TV, he did not even know "Jeopardy", nor had he ever heard of Vanna White. He does not go jogging for exercise. Harris on the other hand is very culturally astute, and keeps herself in shape.

Is this an LSAT question?

[El.Terrible_SoCal]

Originally Posted by y0manda1

If the off roaster firearm is "unsafe" then why are police, feds, military, and security exempt? Selecting off roaster firearms has nothing to do with safety.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

“Safe for me, not for thee”. If you haven’t figured it out yet, they are way more advanced than us.

[kemasa]

Originally Posted by y0manda1

If the off roaster firearm is "unsafe" then why are police, feds, military, and security exempt? Selecting off roaster firearms has nothing to do with safety.

Ahhh, you need to look at the doublespeak as they don't say unsafe, but instead the certified list says "not unsafe". Anything else is just unknown and hasn't been checked yet.

As you say, it has nothing to do with safety. Once tested, it should always remain on the list, but it doesn't. The police should be required more than anyone else to have fired which are tested, but if they didn't exempt them, then it is likely that the law wouldn't have passed. It is all a scam to ban firearms.

[y0manda1]

Originally Posted by kemasa

Ahhh, you need to look at the doublespeak as they don't say unsafe, but instead the certified list says "not unsafe". Anything else is just unknown and hasn't been checked yet.



As you say, it has nothing to do with safety. Once tested, it should always remain on the list, but it doesn't. The police should be required more than anyone else to have fired which are tested, but if they didn't exempt them, then it is likely that the law wouldn't have passed. It is all a scam to ban firearms.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Harry Ono]

Originally Posted by ZNiner

.

I read the entirety of Judge Benitez's ruling in Duncan v. Becerra and I see no reason why that exact same in common use logic couldn't be used in regards to the roster, AWB and the latest ammo laws.

exactly !

[Harry Ono]

Originally Posted by kemasa

Ahhh, you need to look at the doublespeak as they don't say unsafe, but instead the certified list says "not unsafe". Anything else is just unknown and hasn't been checked yet.

As you say, it has nothing to do with safety. Once tested, it should always remain on the list, but it doesn't. The police should be required more than anyone else to have fired which are tested, but if they didn't exempt them, then it is likely that the law wouldn't have passed. It is all a scam to ban firearms.

substance vs form.... their use of doublespeak may not work. More over the State does not have its own versions of the federal consumer safety departments like the FDA/FTC/FTA or any other.

[Harry Ono]

Originally Posted by y0manda1

If the off roaster firearm is "unsafe" then why are police, feds, military, and security exempt? Selecting off roaster firearms has nothing to do with safety.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Exactly

[Caleb1911]

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

The opinion never evaluates the regulation under rational basis, which in my mind could be one of the more interesting issues on appeal. Not that I think this one is going anywhere on appeal.

This case is now at the Supreme Court awaiting a certiorari decision.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....ic/18-843.html
I just read the filings and amici curiae briefs. My humble prediction is that, contrary to what FABIO has said repeatedly, this "stinker" of a case is granted cert, becomes a win for gun owners in California, and will be used by the court to enunciate clear guidelines on how to adjudicate the constitutionality of gun control laws going forward. In a nutshell, my prediction is that this is the case on which FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

[estrom]

I'm definitely no lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn once...could the Duncan ruling be used as an argument against the roster? Aren't some of the guns, particularly hand guns, on the roster because of capacity? The new Springfield XD 10mm would be an example since it only comes with 15 round magazines.

[WoodTurner]

Originally Posted by estrom

I'm definitely no lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn once...could the Duncan ruling be used as an argument against the roster? Aren't some of the guns, particularly hand guns, on the roster because of capacity? The new Springfield XD 10mm would be an example since it only comes with 15 round magazines.

There are multiple things handguns need, depending on the time they were submitted for testing, in order to be allowed on the roster.
You could read through this for a little understanding on how firearms are submitted.
https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Doc...a=(sc.Default)

The biggest problem now is micro microstamping. Any gun that wasn't already on the roster before May 2013 requires microstamping in order for California to except it for the roster. Since no firearms have it (and I believe no one has the technology yet) we have a problem.
There are other things that kept guns off of the roster even before microstamping went into effect. Things like magazine disconnect and loaded chamber indicator. Then there is the fact that some manufacturers just don't want to deal with it or pay the fees. I believe Smith and Wesson just gave up on California and dropped multiple handguns off the roster by not renewing them.

[estrom]

Originally Posted by WoodTurner

There are multiple things handguns need, depending on the time they were submitted for testing, in order to be allowed on the roster.
You could read through this for a little understanding on how firearms are submitted.
https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Doc...a=(sc.Default)

The biggest problem now is micro microstamping. Any gun that wasn't already on the roster before May 2013 requires microstamping in order for California to except it for the roster. Since no firearms have it (and I believe no one has the technology yet) we have a problem.
There are other things that kept guns off of the roster even before microstamping went into effect. Things like magazine disconnect and loaded chamber indicator. Then there is the fact that some manufacturers just don't want to deal with it or pay the fees. I believe Smith and Wesson just gave up on California and dropped multiple handguns off the roster by not renewing them.

Thanks for the info. It's sort of a pipe dream since I'm really intrigued by the new XD 10mm. The 10mm is a new caliber to the XD line which is being sold in CA in other calibers, so I'm hoping someday to see the 10mm in CA as well. Especially with 15 round mags!

[WoodTurner]

Originally Posted by estrom

Thanks for the info. It's sort of a pipe dream since I'm really intrigued by the new XD 10mm. The 10mm is a new caliber to the XD line which is being sold in CA in other calibers, so I'm hoping someday to see the 10mm in CA as well. Especially with 15 round mags!

Look into a Glock 20. It is on the roster and has 15rd mags available (CA model will come with 10rf).
You may not be a Glock guy, but there are options if open to other brands. I have a Glock 29, which is the subcompact 10mm.
I believe Dan Wesson also has a 10mm 1911 on roster, but don't quote me on that.

[Rail]

Watch closely what happens with the Ninth Circuit over the mag ban (injunctions/stays, etc) if SCOTUS grants cert on this case. Taking two 2A cases within months of each other means they will take more, and will be a warning sign to the anti circuits.

I'm convinced the reason the DC Circuit declined an en banc rehearing of Wrenn in 2017 was that they knew Kennedy would be retiring the following year.

[Offwidth]

Originally Posted by WoodTurner

Look into a Glock 20. It is on the roster and has 15rd mags available (CA model will come with 10rf).
You may not be a Glock guy, but there are options if open to other brands. I have a Glock 29, which is the subcompact 10mm.
I believe Dan Wesson also has a 10mm 1911 on roster, but don't quote me on that.

The only other 10mm on the roster is Kimber’s 1911.

Love my 29SF. I think I will add 20 with KKM barrel.

[Paladin]

So, 2 days until the initial conference and, I assume, we'll get an update on Monday, the 15th (Tax Day).

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by Paladin

So, 2 days until the initial conference and, I assume, we'll get an update on Monday, the 15th (Tax Day).

We can hope that the Benitex hardware test has inspired the conservatives on the court to conclude that it is time to clarify that this is, and always has been, the proper test. Simple and easy to apply and requires no balancing.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by Librarian

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...postcount=2831 - Distributed for the decide-whether-to-grant conference of April 12.

Might get re-distributed a few times, but if they consider and decide on normal schedule, should announce the decision the following week.

Fingers crossed. Or, did this get re-listed?

[Librarian]

Docket page - https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....ic/18-843.html

No update there, so I don't know. Can't seem to locate it on SCOTUSBlog.

Re-lists seem to come out on Mondays.

[nyla]

I am praying that they take the case.

[zuverza]

I don't believe in God or anything metaphysical but tonight I'm gonna say a prayer... Hell, i may even pray to the sacred virgin.

[kuug]

Still no updates, not even a mention on scotusblog

[Paladin]

Awaiting to find out Pena status, but no new cases granted cert.

[Paladin]

I looked over the List quickly, but did not see it listed as denied/etc.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...19zor_h3dj.pdf

I therefore assume later today it's docket page will show it as Distributed for next Conference on the 18th, this Thurs.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search....ic\18-843.html

Soooo, we'll all meet up -- same time, same place -- a week from now!