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

[RobertMW]

I noticed that the Colt "Centennial Anniversary America Remembers" 1911 was removed from the roster recently. That was the one I wanted. None of the Colt 1911s still on the roster are going to cut it, especially not the Audie Murphy Tribute, Brothers Forever Vietnam Tribute, D Day Tribute, Elvis Presley, Fearless Defenders of Freedom, George S. Patton Tribute, John Wayne Tribute, Rampant Colt Tribute, Saluting America's Armed Forces, Samuel Colt 200th Anniversary, Texas Rangers Tribute, Vietnam War Tribute, or the We the People models.

I wonder what the roster would look like if we were to look at it from a slightly different view.

What if we didn't count different finishes of the same firearm, how short does the list get? What if we took it a step further, and didn't count the exact same model of handgun, just manufactured by a different company? What if we went even one step further, and we did not count a different barrel length as a different model?

Right now the roster is at 796 approved models. Lets take away the different commemorative finish 1911's, we probably just eliminated half of the roster in one quick swipe. Lets do the same for all the other guns, a gun is a gun whether it is blued, stainless, black, FDE, pink, whatever. That probably took us down below a quarter.

Lets remove all the different copies of the same firearm, just from different companies. Lets just say a 1911A1 from one company is the same as from another. How many did that just take off?

Lets not count different barrel lengths, caliber, or frame size, unless the change meant that something functionally had to be altered in order to make it work, for example: A glock 17, 19, 22, 23 are essentially the same, but the glock 26/27 had an entirely different recoil rod designed for it. Probably removed another 3/4ths or more from what was left.


What does the list look like when you remove all the redundancy?

We are left with a few dozen truly unique firearm designs, and even the most modern of them falling years behind the latest and greatest versions of themselves, either in terms of manufacturing precision, safety, or functional design.

[paultakeda]

The thing is, isn't it on the manufacturer to register a new finish? I thought that if the handgun was functionally unaltered they could add it to the roster, grandfathered in due to an older model with a different finish (hence new models added this year that have no microstamping tech).

That's where Pena is weak: a new finish is on the manufacturer, an ambi-safety is something that can be added without burden, etc.

Where the judgement by Meuller can be to the favor of the Plaintiff is by the time it gets to the 9th the roster will have almost no semiautos on it. Her argument was about "class availability". With the roster decimated, that argument fails. The 14A argument is also a 50/50 argument: I don't see how an LEO's job allows them to have what the state defines as an "unsafe handgun". No job should allow this exemption: "unsafe" is "unsafe". That alone should compromise the roster.

On the flip side, I find it interesting that the roster hinges on CA FFL transfers. The decision in Mance could actually strengthen Mueller's argument that a CA resident will not suffer undue burden by driving to AZ or NV or TX to buy a handgun that a CA FFL cannot transfer/sell to them.

[Rastoff]

The thing is, isn't it on the manufacturer to register a new finish?

I'm not sure what you mean by "on the manufacturer", but yes, a new finish can be added without resubmitting for testing. Thus, if the ONLY thing changed was color, then a manufacturer could add it, but they still have to list it as a different model and pay the yearly fee. Like most aspects of the roster, that is completely unreasonable.

[IVC]

I noticed that the Colt "Centennial Anniversary America Remembers" 1911 was removed from the roster recently. That was the one I wanted. None of the Colt 1911s still on the roster are going to cut it, especially not the Audie Murphy Tribute, Brothers Forever Vietnam Tribute, D Day Tribute, Elvis Presley, Fearless Defenders of Freedom, George S. Patton Tribute, John Wayne Tribute, Rampant Colt Tribute, Saluting America's Armed Forces, Samuel Colt 200th Anniversary, Texas Rangers Tribute, Vietnam War Tribute, or the We the People models.

Cute, but still a straw man.

The question is whether there is a reason to ban Colt "Centennial Anniversary America Remembers" 1911, not whether other models will do.

(I would be tempted to ban it solely based on the silly name and commercialized patriotism; however, governments are supposed to justify their decisions when dealing with civil rights.)

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

What if...gun manufacturers simply put magazine disconnects and loaded chamber indicators on their "latest and greatest" models (the plaintiffs in Pena helpfully submitted all the evidence and studies to justify these safety regulations when they filed their first MSJ) and just got on board with microstamping (notice that their evidence stops more than a little short of saying it's not possible to do it), then they could sell those models to their heart's content! Even if the number of approved handguns keeps on dwindling, the DOJ has a good argument that it's the gun manufacturer's intransigence not the law that's responsible for that.

[IVC]

Even if it were "gun manufacturer's intransigence," it's still the state the prohibits the sale of a product that is not only legal for sale in all other states, but is legal both to posses and sell in the state.

The state needs to formulate a compelling/important government interest not only for the ban, but for a highly selective ban which includes grandfathering. "Manufacturers don't like us" is not even in the same universe.

[randomBytes]

Because many people would not buy guns with magazine disconnects.
LCI done right isn't a big deal (my 90yo luger has one), but magazine disconnects is a safety hazard, not feature.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

LCI done right isn't a big deal (my 90yo luger has one), but magazine disconnects is a safety hazard, not feature.

Not according to the study the plaintiffs submitted. Magazine disconnects would save many lives and prevent many catastraphoic injuries; many children have died in accidental shootings already!

[rm1911]

where the court dropped the ball, and completely screwed up is that the roster allows states to legislate and regulate away rights, having the effect of an outright ban, but not being a direct ban. imagine:

-an author license requiring all authors publishing books to first pay a $10,000 fee to submit a book to a publisher. and limiting authors to publishing one book per year.

-a requirement that all women undergo psychiatric counseling, a 10 day wait, visual ultrasound, and visitation to a hospital nursery prior to having an abortion. or limiting women to one abortion every five years.

those are a couple of examples, and I'm sure we can come up with plenty more. the biggest difference between cars and guns is that cars are specifically used in the public sphere, whereas guns are primarily a private sphere. hunting licenses apply to the public sphere of firearm usage. thus, licensing and regulating (i.e. cars) can pass muster if only because of how and where they are used. do we need a "self defense of home and family" license? no. it's implied in the 2A.

this is a very dangerous decision if for no other reason than it gives government unlimited powers to regulate each and all of our actions, private as well as public. no right is sacred or protected, as no right is free from regulation.

note: I only use abortion, which is so near and dear to the leftists, as an argument they would never accept.

[paultakeda]

where the court dropped the ball, and completely screwed up is that the roster allows states to legislate and regulate away rights, having the effect of an outright ban, but not being a direct ban.

The problem we face is that the roster does not look like a ban as long as items of the same class, even if not the models one specifically wants, remain on the roster; plus according to the judge items not on the roster remain available through other means.

It can be viewed as logic or sophistry, but either way it's an argument that in a judicial setting can be argued either way.

[Rastoff]

The problem we face is that the roster does not look like a ban as long as items of the same class, even if not the models one specifically wants, remain on the roster;...

This is where the case about allowing registered sex offenders to live within x number of feet of a school zone, works in our favor.

In that case the judge ruled that it was difficult to find housing of a particular type. Using the "class" logic, a house is a house is a house. So, if that case goes through, then the same logic must be applied to this one. This means the roster fails.

[1911GUY]

I find the micro stamping stipulation complete nonsense.

Imagine if you will a situation where someone decides to commit a crime using his OWN registered gun with the knowledge that it has a micro stamping feature. It would be right up there with someone using their own vehicle to rob a bank.

No one with half a brain is going to use their own micro stamping pistol to commit a crime, instead, they would steal someone else's or find a pistol without the feature.

I know I'm just stating the obvious, but it is more apparent that micro stamping is not really there to assist lazy LE, but there to further wipe out our already extremely limited options in the pistol market.

Also, I find it more of a safety concern as a consumer when I can not find a pistol that meets my exact needs to comfortably manipulate its trigger and safety mechanisms and am forced to get something that makes me feel like I'm holding a brick (most gen 3 glocks, hk's etc).The roster is in itself a safety concern by limiting its options for people of different sizes.

[RipVanWinkle]

What if...gun manufacturers simply put magazine disconnects and loaded chamber indicators on their "latest and greatest" models (the plaintiffs in Pena helpfully submitted all the evidence and studies to justify these safety regulations when they filed their first MSJ) and just got on board with microstamping (notice that their evidence stops more than a little short of saying it's not possible to do it), then they could sell those models to their heart's content! Even if the number of approved handguns keeps on dwindling, the DOJ has a good argument that it's the gun manufacturer's intransigence not the law that's responsible for that.

I think the DOJ's "good argument" is what you were referring to when you wrote:

Even if there were some radical diminution in the number of handguns on the roster, there would be a huge cause and effect problem; if manufacturers stop selling in california en masse it wouldn't be a matter of "can't comply with the roster law" but "don't want to comply." Whatever points might be scored on anomolaies/irrationalities in the law can be fixed by legislation. There will not be any knockout punch.

I doubt that the manufacturers would only argue that some kind of microstamping is impossible under any and all circumstances. I assume they've done their market research and would argue that gun buyers don't want it, and the cost of doing the research and requisite manufacturing modifications couldn't be be recouped by sales to the few states that are likely to require it. Ruger and S&W are publicly traded companies after all, and have obligations to their shareholders.

And I don't understand what you mean by a "huge cause and effect problem". Didn't the microstamping requirement originate 15 years or so ago and get activated in 2007, then shelved over the patent issue and then activated again? If microstamping was the hottest tech gadget to end all tech gadgets would manufacturers have waited all these years for CA to mandate it rather than cash in from the beginning? They could have licensed it from the patent holder or developed their own technology. Cause and effect are ordinarily constrained to time's arrow. The manufacturers didn't didn't balk until CA implemented the microstamping mandate, not the other way round.

Anyway, the naughty manufacturers aren't the plaintiffs in this case, their customers are. We're stuck in the middle. But K. C. Brown's First Theorem will probably prevail, and if not there will be a fix by legislation as you suggest.




__________________

[IVC]

Not according to the study the plaintiffs submitted. Magazine disconnects would save many lives and prevent many catastraphoic injuries; many children have died in accidental shootings already!

Heh, this is not about the plaintiffs' approach and whether they messed up, although you have earned the right to take potshots at their strategy by calling it early and correctly.

For the rest of us it's a real question of whether schemes such as "roster" are something that should pass legal review. Or, more broadly, what the implications are of a paradigm shifting case such as Heller.

(Also, your most cynical remarks seem to lack the signature giggly smiley which appears to be reserved for more obvious digs. )

[RobertMW]

I doubt that the manufacturers would only argue that some kind of microstamping is impossible under any and all circumstances. I assume they've done their market research and would argue that gun buyers don't want it, and the cost of doing the research and requisite manufacturing modifications couldn't be be recouped by sales to the few states that are likely to require it. Ruger and S&W are publicly traded companies after all, and have obligations to their shareholders.

I think most gun buyers DGAF if there is microstamping or not. It's mostly the vocal minority (us) that really don't want microstamping, but that is mostly because we have thought about the potential worst case scenarios (aka we are all slightly paranoid )

And yes, I would think that the manufacturers WILL argue that MS is impossible to implement in the current form that the CA .gov prescribed.

Doing the firing pin thing, that is pretty easy and truly would only cost a couple bucks per gun, and would work well'ish until it wears out or is filed off.

The "Second Location" is where the whole law falls apart. There is no second location in the chamber of a gun that would work. If you put it on the bolt or breech face, you will be imprinting onto the area that will already have head stamps on them, it will be harder material, and there will be less force on those areas to imprint with. If you try and put it on the case wall, you will be weakening the chamber wall by drilling out and press fitting a stamp into the chamber wall. This stamp will always have to be protruding, so you will have brass constantly scraping over the stamp on the way in and out. The stamping will likely not imprint, which is necessary for it to be legal, per the law, and the protruding stamp has a high likelyhood of causing feed and extraction malfunctions.

The second location will either not work, invalidating the legality of it. Or it will reduce the safety of the firearm, so a company can not sell it. So yeah, a company would spend some amount of money developing the stamps, and never recuperate a cent, because it will never be sold.

This is simply a pipe dream idea, created by people who are not engineers.