Renna v Bonta - US Dist Ct So Cal, 11/2020 (Roster: PI granted and stayed 3-31-23)

[SpudmanWP]

Also, Bruen held that even 3 analogous laws from the proper timeframe were not enough to pass the Tradition test.

Respondents next direct the Court to the history of the Colonies and early Republic, but they identify only three restrictions on public carry from that time. While the Court doubts that just three colonial regulations could suffice to show a tradition of public-carry regulation, even looking at these laws on their own terms, the Court is not convinced that they regulated public carry akin to the New York law at issue.

[Foothills]

I could see proof testing surviving. Not only because of the 1805 law, but because major manufacturers still proof test their firearms. Anyone ever get a firearm where they explain how the models are drop-tested and they include an expended cartridge fired from that handgun? It would be very hard to demonstrate that 250 years of proof-testing somehow infringed on 2A rights.

That being said, the other special requirements and especially microstamping are much less likely to pass muster.

[Caleb1911]

One outlier, from a State trying to protect an in-State vendor, does NOT an analog make. See Bruen for the definitions of analogs.

I think you are right. The key to defeating this argument is that the testing was not required of all manufacturers and that the selectivity reveals a bias towards local/in-state businesses. This in turn reveals that this law was not really about uniformly insuring public safety, but rather that it represented a barrier to entry for out of state businesses and businesses that were not the creature/darling of the state.

[BAJ475]

The judge ruled the plaintiffs did not adequately argue how they have standing to sue over the testing and roster fees. The claim as denied without prejudice so they can re-address it when it comes time for the trial and make a better case.

Yes, I can see a potential standing issue. They need the NSSF to join as a plaintiff.

[BAJ475]

The Renna order notes on p. 21 and following that the State offered an 1805 Massachusetts law that required proof testing of "off-brand" firearms that were not manufactured by Springfield Armory to insure that they could be used safely. Here is a part of Judge Sabraw's discussion regarding that law:

"Initially, Defendants point to an 1805 Massachusetts law that required certain guns to be inspected, marked, and stamped by an inspector ("prover") before they could be sold. (ECF No. 72-5, Cornell Decl. at 33; id. at Ex. 3.)12 The law required that the prover test certain muskets and pistols to ensure they safely discharged. 1805 Mass. Acts 588, " 1. The provers duty "shall be to prove" that the "musket barrels and pistol barrels" are "sufficiently ground, bored and breeched," and to prove the musket and pistol barrels "will carry a twenty-four-pound shot" 80 yards and 70 yards, respectively, without the barrels "burst[ing]" or in no respect fail[ing.]" Id. If the firearm passed the test, the prover would stamp his initials and the year of inspection on the firearm. Id."

Judge Sabraw goes on to comment in footnote #14:

"In this respect, the 1805 law and its barrel safety testing requirements may be similar to the UHA provisions that require handguns to meet firing and drop-safety testing requirements. The Court reserves ruling on that issue as it was not briefed by the parties. Similarly, the parties did not address the UHA's safety device requirement."

This law could present a major problem for completely eliminating the roster as it does appear to provide an analogue similar to the roster testing requirements that was formulated in the founding era and that was allowed to stand.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Yes. A law from one state is not a tradition. Did the Mass law require that the tester be independent from the manufacture? Did the tester have to be approved by the state?

[Silence Dogood]

I disagree that the 1805 MA law is analogous, even to the UHA?s manual safety and drop-test requirements.

If memory serves, Matthew Larosiere says in a recent Fudd Busters post that the 1805 law was ostensibly written to confirm that chambers and barrels did not explode upon firing, even if actually the law had more to do with stifling competition in the market. This would make that law one that addresses minimum performance, not performance characteristics that users will select based on their various intended uses.

By contrast, the UHA provisions dictate standards of performance characteristics that should remain at the discretion of the individual and not be mandated arbitrarily upon all individuals by the state. Some shooters will prefer a handgun without any safety at all, perhaps because the arm will be carried on an empty chamber. Some will prefer a very light-weight ?hair? trigger that might fail any drop-test proofing by nature of its design and intended use. Regardless of the rationale behind these choices, they are individual choices and it is not the government?s place to dictate such a performance characteristics.

The fact that some (even many) manufacturers do proof testing internally is irrelevant. It is not analogous to testing to verify that chamber/barrel pressures do not cause catestrophic failures as a result of poor metallurgy and/or manufacturing.

[BAJ475]

I could see proof testing surviving. Not only because of the 1805 law, but because major manufacturers still proof test their firearms. Anyone ever get a firearm where they explain how the models are drop-tested and they include an expended cartridge fired from that handgun? It would be very hard to demonstrate that 250 years of proof-testing somehow infringed on 2A rights.

That being said, the other special requirements and especially microstamping are much less likely to pass muster.

What violates the 2A is not proof testing itself but the requirement that the state approve the tester and forcing the manufacture to pay a fee to the state to get on a list and pay more fees to say on the list.

[SpudmanWP]

^^^ What he said

[tast101]

Even if this part stands, would manufactures be able to incorporate this test into their process (if they don’t already as a industry standard), and circumvent roster as they’ve got e thru safety testing so the rooster is nullified as these tests are being conducted already and it’s shown by the manufacturer. And get rid of the roster if that’s the only remaining piece of it?

[Foothills]

Given the wide range of consumer product safety regulations that have been in place for quite a while, I could see courts simply shrugging at proof-testing and saying it seems reasonable as it's an industry-wide practice anyway. And simply not address it in the decision. Particularly if the court seeks expert opinion on proof-testing and that expert comes back with, "Yeah, they all do it anyway."

There's a very long consumer safety tradition in various laws that would be analogous. It doesn't really burden sale for most industries, but the tradition is there. It's not been in 2A jurisprudence because firearms from major manufacturers aren't malfunctioning, they're trying to be creative and use other legal theories. I fully expect courts to find that some consumer safety testing requirements do not infringe. Especially since the manufacturers are still proof-testing in states that don't have a roster. It survives constitutional scrutiny for the same reason that 42 states being "shall issue" survives.

[abinsinia]

Given the wide range of consumer product safety regulations that have been in place for quite a while, I could see courts simply shrugging at proof-testing and saying it seems reasonable as it's an industry-wide practice anyway. And simply not address it in the decision. Particularly if the court seeks expert opinion on proof-testing and that expert comes back with, "Yeah, they all do it anyway."

There's a very long consumer safety tradition in various laws that would be analogous. It doesn't really burden sale for most industries, but the tradition is there. It's not been in 2A jurisprudence because firearms from major manufacturers aren't malfunctioning, they're trying to be creative and use other legal theories. I fully expect courts to find that some consumer safety testing requirements do not infringe. Especially since the manufacturers are still proof-testing in states that don't have a roster. It survives constitutional scrutiny for the same reason that 42 states being "shall issue" survives.

Your saying there is history , but there is none of this type. If there were history like you suggest, they would have used it during this case and the Boland case. The best they had was Mass. proof testing which didn't fit and wasn't a tradition. Maybe your thinking of history which is not relevant to the meaning of the second amendment, like in the 1900's.

[Dvrjon]

Even if this part stands, would manufactures be able to incorporate this test into their process (if they don?t already as a industry standard), and circumvent roster as they?ve got e thru safety testing so the rooster is nullified as these tests are being conducted already and it?s shown by the manufacturer. And get rid of the roster if that?s the only remaining piece of it?

CA PEN 32010

32010. (a) Any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person manufactured in this state, imported into the state for sale, kept for sale, or offered or exposed for sale, shall be tested within a reasonable period of time by an independent laboratory certified pursuant to subdivision (b) to determine whether that pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person meets or exceeds the standards defined in Section 31910.
(b) On or before October 1, 2000, the Department of Justice shall certify laboratories to verify compliance with the standards defined in Section 31910. The department may charge a fee to certify a laboratory to test any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person pursuant to Sections 31900 to 32110, inclusive. The fee shall not exceed the costs of certification.

I doubt the state would surrender that control.

Pursuant to California Penal Code sections 31900-32110, effective January 1, 2001, no handgun model may be sold, transferred, manufactured, etc., in California unless that model has been tested by a certified laboratory and subsequently approved by the Department of Justice.

* The following laboratories are currently certified by the Department of Justice to test handguns for safety/functionality related to this requirement:

NTS Technical Systems-Belcamp
4603B Compass Point Road
Belcamp, MD 21017
(410) 297-8154

Professional Analysis and Consulting, Inc.
4951 Indiana Ave, # 600
Lisle , IL 60532
(630) 466-4040

[Ocdlaw]

This is an overall great ruling. When Benitez issues his rulings, the dam will be broken.

[michigander]

I disagree that the 1805 MA law is analogous, even to the UHA?s manual safety and drop-test requirements.

If memory serves, Matthew Larosiere says in a recent Fudd Busters post that the 1805 law was ostensibly written to confirm that chambers and barrels did not explode upon firing, even if actually the law had more to do with stifling competition in the market. This would make that law one that addresses minimum performance, not performance characteristics that users will select based on their various intended uses.

By contrast, the UHA provisions dictate standards of performance characteristics that should remain at the discretion of the individual and not be mandated arbitrarily upon all individuals by the state. Some shooters will prefer a handgun without any safety at all, perhaps because the arm will be carried on an empty chamber. Some will prefer a very light-weight ?hair? trigger that might fail any drop-test proofing by nature of its design and intended use. Regardless of the rationale behind these choices, they are individual choices and it is not the government?s place to dictate such a performance characteristics.

The fact that some (even many) manufacturers do proof testing internally is irrelevant. It is not analogous to testing to verify that chamber/barrel pressures do not cause catestrophic failures as a result of poor metallurgy and/or manufacturing.

Even if it is an analogue, there is not a tradition of this type of law across the states.

One of the issues I have not seen brought up is that there are guns that have gone in and out of production while the roster was in place that no manufacturer will pay to have tested (for instance, the Sig P224 and P227). These handguns will still be banned, as would likely any handguns with a low production run be banned because a manufacturer would not pay to have them tested.

[Paul S]

The Renna order notes on p. 21 and following that the State offered an 1805 Massachusetts law that required proof testing of "off-brand" firearms that were not manufactured by Springfield Armory to insure that they could be used safely. Here is a part of Judge Sabraw's discussion regarding that law:..........................

"Initially, Defendants point to an 1805 Massachusetts law that required certain guns to be inspected, marked, and stamped by an inspector ("prover") before they could be sold
Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Isn't the "cutoff year" for consideration/inclusion of an analogue 1791?