2022 08 01 Boland V Bonta - Handgun Roster : on hold for Duncan 3-2024

[robertfchew]

When will this go to a hearing

[Roswell Saucer]

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]

When will this go to a hearing

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

[marcusrn]

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]

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

[Roswell Saucer]

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]

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.

[abinsinia]

Finally, we agree that Tennessee’s prohibition on carry-
ing “publicly or privately” any “belt or pocket pisto[l],” 1821
Tenn. Acts ch. 13, p. 15, was, on its face, uniquely severe,
see Heller, 554 U. S., at 629.

So in Bruen the Tennessee law was "uniquely severe" almost certainly means it was not constitutional.

California's law is also "uniquely severe".

[redhead]

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

[GetMeCoffee]

So in Bruen the Tennessee law was "uniquely severe" almost certainly means it was not constitutional.

California's law is also "uniquely severe".

That was in reference to the total ban on any "belt or pocket pistol". The opinion then goes on to note that the TN Supreme Court read this language to permit the carry of larger military-style pistols. In doing so, they allowed the law to stand. I can see where LonogHornBob's concern comes from, but as Loiterer points out, the TN law addressed carry, whereas the roster addresses ownership transfer.

[Librarian]

Loiterer points out, the TN law addressed carry, whereas the roster addresses ownership.

No, it doesn't.

Ownership is not addressed in PC 32000 and following. The Roster is a restriction on what a CA-licensed FFL may transfer to a non-exempt CA resident (as well as what a CA resident may import from out of state).

Non-prohibited CA residents may still own non-Roster handguns, and may transfer them to other non-prohibited CA residents.

In contrast, the enjoined PC 32310 criminalizes possession of large-capacity magazines - regardless of ownership.

Not that different as a result - many cannot own/possess if FFLs cannot transfer to you - but the technicalities are significant.

[GetMeCoffee]

No, it doesn't.

Ownership is not addressed in PC 32000 and following. The Roster is a restriction on what a CA-licensed FFL may transfer to a non-exempt CA resident (as well as what a CA resident may import from out of state).

Non-prohibited CA residents may still own non-Roster handguns, and may transfer them to other non-prohibited CA residents.

In contrast, the enjoined PC 32310 criminalizes possession of large-capacity magazines - regardless of ownership.

Not that different as a result - many cannot own/possess if FFLs cannot transfer to you - but the technicalities are significant.

Whoops. Thanks for catching that - I edited my post.