Effect of Bruen on old cases like Pena

[IVC]

Bruen does not directly apply to the California roster. It is an open question as to whether the test enunciated in Bruen will apply to firearms as opposed to only the right to keep or bear; the 2A is nonspecific as to whether we have a right to bear any and all arms out there.

The court also GVR-ed two cases that deal with "arms" which are part of the "plain text of 2A" - the MD AWB and CA large capacity magazine ban.

If it was an open question the way you suggest, the court would've simply denied the cert in those "arms-related" cases, not granted and vacated the decision. Why vacate a decision that upholds AWB and another that upholds magazine capacity limit if it is "an open question?"

The two circuit courts follow your suggestion and we'll be back at SCOTUS in no time with an actual decision that's going to be even stronger than Bruen. It would be true judicial rebellion.

[f80vm]

In Renna v Becerra, the part of the lawsuit challenging the roster was dismissed while the challenge to the "3 for 1" rule was allowed to proceed. I wonder if the dismissal can now be appealed in light of Bruen, effectively making Renna, Pena 2.0.

[JiuJitsu]

In Renna v Becerra, the part of the lawsuit challenging the roster was dismissed while the challenge to the "3 for 1" rule was allowed to proceed. I wonder if the dismissal can now be appealed in light of Bruen, effectively making Renna, Pena 2.0.

I really hope the part of the roster case that was dismissed can be reinstated as part of this current case since 1) the part that was dismissed was previously decided using incorrect intermediate scrutiny criteria and not allowable per the recent Bruen decision so therefore IMO very much remains a valid legal challenge, and 2) this is an ACTIVE case so why couldn't they simply reinstate it if it was incorrectly dismissed in light of Bruen.

I guess we'll see what happens next. But I know that one of the top priorities of the CRPA and other 2A organizations is going after the stupid and unconstitutional roster.

So even if this part of the current roster case is not reinstated I guarantee another new lawsuit will be filed quickly. Hopefully we will see a lot more injunctions against these clearly now-unconstitutional laws while we wait years for the courts to restore our rights. A right delayed is a right denied and law-abiding gun owners have suffered long enough here in CA.

[IVC]

Again, the case that is "finalized" cannot be resurrected even if the reasoning changed significantly. Only pending cases will be affected. Anything else will require filing another lawsuit (which won't be difficult now).

[JiuJitsu]

Again, the case that is "finalized" cannot be resurrected even if the reasoning changed significantly. Only pending cases will be affected. Anything else will require filing another lawsuit (which won't be difficult now).

I'm talking about Renna vs Bonta (Roster case #2), which is currently active. I am not talking about resurrecting Pena vs Lindley (Roster case #1, which we lost at the 9th). I would hope an active case could be updated to revisit the part of it that was thrown out by the judge since Bruen made it quite relevant again. Or maybe I'm just being too optimistic. Or it will be requested/revisited again on appeal.

Either way, that roster will not hold up in court eventually.

[curtisfong]

Looked like a genius at the time.

If the refs are corrupt, I never understood how predicting how the same corrupt refs might call a game is even remotely "genius".

Doesn't look like a genius anymore.

He's still smart. I just wish he was more honest and willing to admit how broken the system is.

[aBrowningfan]

Such a dreamer. Bruen does not directly apply to the California roster. It is an open question as to whether the test enunciated in Bruen will apply to firearms as opposed to only the right to keep or bear; the 2A is nonspecific as to whether we have a right to bear any and all arms out there.

...snip

What about firearms that are in common use outside of CA? Plenty of un-rostered pistols are in common use outside of CA. Glock 19 Gen 5s come to mind.

[OleCuss]

What about firearms that are in common use outside of CA? Plenty of un-rostered pistols are in common use outside of CA. Glock 19 Gen 5s come to mind.

I don't think that any court outside the 9th Circus has defined what "common use" is. Right now I suspect the courts would stick with the idea that considering what SCOTUS has said about "dangerous" weapons that a handgun safety roster is OK. And whether a firearm is in common use may hinge on type rather than on brand.

So a Gen 5 Glock is a semi-automatic pistol. As long as there is a semi-automatic pistol on the Kalifornia roster then the roster is OK.

I'm not a legal scholar but I don't think that the SCOTUS has said anything at all which would invalidate that specious logic.

I think that there are something like 800 handguns on the roster at this time. A lot of the differences are cosmetic so that isn't a good reflection of the reality.

What I'm wondering, however, is whether the diversity of the available handguns is enough to pass muster with the right plaintiff(s).

My wife has small hands. The pistols I use are just too darned big for her to properly fire because when she holds them properly her finger doesn't reach the trigger. So back when you could do the SSE we got her a Gen 4 Glock G42. You can't get that one anymore and I don't know whether there are other pistols on the roster which will fit her hand. If not, then we could find someone else with small hands and have a better shot at dumping the roster.

Failing something like that I'm actually not optimistic about getting rid of the roster any time soon. I'm not arguing that the courts should keep doing what they have been doing, just that I'm not at all confident that the SCOTUS will stomp on the roster unless it can be demonstrated that we have a plaintiff who cannot get a handgun off the roster which is functional for them.

Hoping my pessimism is not realism.

We actually need the right plaintiff(s) in the right circumstance.

[Sgt Raven]

https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status...021576/photo/1
The CA AG has already advised that "good cause" is no longer a criteria in issuing a CCW. He does go on at length about "good moral character", so it remains to be seen how that will play out.

IIRC, wasn't there a long discussion about what "Good Moral Character" is in relationship to State & Local Government employees?