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

[Tincon]

They don't need to pay for testing, but they have to pay to have it on the list, which they might not do and there are MANY examples of that.

Are you sure? Here is the code:

32030.
(a) A firearm shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of subdivision (a) of Section 32015 if another firearm made by the same manufacturer is already listed and the unlisted firearm differs from the listed firearm only in one or more of the following features:
(1) Finish, including, but not limited to, bluing, chrome-plating, oiling, or engraving.
(2) The material from which the grips are made.
(3) The shape or texture of the grips, so long as the difference in grip shape or texture does not in any way alter the dimensions, material, linkage, or functioning of the magazine well, the barrel, the chamber, or any of the components of the firing mechanism of the firearm.
(4) Any other purely cosmetic feature that does not in any way alter the dimensions, material, linkage, or functioning of the magazine well, the barrel, the chamber, or any of the components of the firing mechanism of the firearm.
(b) Any manufacturer seeking to have a firearm listed under this section shall provide to the Department of Justice all of the following:
(1) The model designation of the listed firearm.
(2) The model designation of each firearm that the manufacturer seeks to have listed under this section.
(3) A statement, under oath, that each unlisted firearm for which listing is sought differs from the listed firearm only in one or more of the ways identified in subdivision (a) and is in all other respects identical to the listed firearm.
(c) The department may, in its discretion and at any time, require a manufacturer to provide to the department any model for which listing is sought under this section, to determine whether the model complies with the requirements of this section.

I don't see anything about payment. So it seems to me that if they are paying to keep the original model on the list all they need is the affidavit to keep the cosmetically different model listed. If it falls off they could just submit the affidavit again.

As far as other modifications taking guns off the roster and limiting transfer, yes it's a stupid part of the law, but it doesn't show that it's all "about money and getting the manufacturer to put it on the list (ie. Sig Mosquito in Pink)."

[kemasa]

Yes, I am sure. The CA PC section you posted is in regards to the testing and exempting it from that, not the cost for having it on the list. You need to look at ALL of the CA PC.

It is about money, as well as limiting the options. If it wasn't, then once it was tested, it should always be listed and it should not be taken off the list when it is not paid for. ALL the versions should be able to be listed, not a charge for each one.

[Tincon]

Yes, I am sure. The CA PC section you posted is in regards to the testing and exempting it from that, not the cost for having it on the list. You need to look at ALL of the CA PC.

LOL I believe you, but what PC section is it?

[aBrowningfan]

Yes, I am sure. The CA PC section you posted is in regards to the testing and exempting it from that, not the cost for having it on the list. You need to look at ALL of the CA PC.

It is about money, as well as limiting the options. If it wasn't, then once it was tested, it should always be listed and it should not be taken off the list when it is not paid for. ALL the versions should be able to be listed, not a charge for each one.

Ummm. It stopped being about gun safety when the drop testing requirement was supplemented with the latest editions of 'requirements'. The money being charged for listing probably doesn't cover the cost of the personnel doing the administration of the list.

[kemasa]

LOL I believe you, but what PC section is it?

That is your homework assignment. You know that after the testing, the manufacturer has to pay each year in order to keep it on the list. That is your hint.

[kemasa]

Ummm. It stopped being about gun safety when the drop testing requirement was supplemented with the latest editions of 'requirements'. The money being charged for listing probably doesn't cover the cost of the personnel doing the administration of the list.

It was never about gun safety.

[command_liner]

Manufacturers can add models to the list which are only cosmetically different from a listed model by submitting a sworn affidavit, they don't need to pay and go through all the usual procedures to add such a gun separately to the list.

Not true.
The failure of the BOF to follow their own rules is what lead me to file the first complaint of what eventually became the Pena case.

The SA XD was approved. The two-color version of the same gun was not. The bitone version uses the same "gun" -- the frame. Only the slide changed. But a change in slide color was disapproved, despite my year of wrangling on this point.

At the same time, SA was able to change the "gun" -- the frame -- on other pistols and get approval. Changed polymer color means change of material of "the gun". These were approved without discussion.

The behavior of the BOF was arbitrary and capricious. The BOF told me to buy a gun in CA, and then buy a slide directly from SA and assemble the components myself. That would be legal and "not unsafe". Yet if I bought the pieces together at one time from a FFL in CA, the transaction was "not not unsafe".

My government at work!

Thank goodness Calguns was able to pick this up and run with it. I was done arguing with those idiots.

[Dokbrick]

I am so ready for the roster to be struck down. As a strictly handgun shooter, I am so sick of these limitations and this "black market" of overpriced off roster guns on the market place sub forum. I thought the brief was well written, but I fear that there will be no victory. Let us hope my pessimistic nature is wrong.

[slayer61]

<snip>

The behavior of the BOF was arbitrary and capricious. The BOF told me to buy a gun in CA, and then buy a slide directly from SA and assemble the components myself. That would be legal and "not unsafe". Yet if I bought the pieces together at one time from a FFL in CA, the transaction was "not not unsafe".

My government at work!

Thank goodness Calguns was able to pick this up and run with it. I was done arguing with those idiots.

That has got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. Just ludicrous.

[CaliforniaLiberal]

That has got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. Just ludicrous.

I take it you've never heard the story of how the CA Bullet Button came about?


Could we please have the Bullet Button Story from one of the CalGunners who was involved? I love that story...

[Tincon]

Not true.
The failure of the BOF to follow their own rules is what lead me to file the first complaint of what eventually became the Pena case.

The SA XD was approved. The two-color version of the same gun was not. The bitone version uses the same "gun" -- the frame. Only the slide changed. But a change in slide color was disapproved, despite my year of wrangling on this point.

At the same time, SA was able to change the "gun" -- the frame -- on other pistols and get approval. Changed polymer color means change of material of "the gun". These were approved without discussion.

The behavior of the BOF was arbitrary and capricious. The BOF told me to buy a gun in CA, and then buy a slide directly from SA and assemble the components myself. That would be legal and "not unsafe". Yet if I bought the pieces together at one time from a FFL in CA, the transaction was "not not unsafe".

My government at work!

Thank goodness Calguns was able to pick this up and run with it. I was done arguing with those idiots.

Heh, well maybe someone should have told Gura about that.

[kemasa]

The roster only affects transfers from a FFL which is not exempt (PPTs are exempt). After you get the firearm, you are free to do anything that you want.

As documented, there are ways (for some) which allow you to get firearms which are not on the roster.

My simple question for the CA DOJ is to explain why LEOs are exempt. It seems to me that if it was about safety, LEOs should be required to have what they claim is a "safe" firearm. But we all know it is not about safety.

[ke6guj]

The roster only affects transfers from a FFL which is not exempt (PPTs are exempt). After you get the firearm, you are free to do anything that you want.

but are you? there are some who argue that any modifications that take a rostered firearm and convert it into an off-roster configuration is "manufacturing an unsafe firearm" and a violation of the law. it would be nice to see that in writing from CADOJ that it is legal to swap slides on an XD to make an off-roster configuration.

[kemasa]

Changing the grips would not be manufacturing, nor would changing the color or engraving it. The BATF does not consider changing parts to be manufacturing, so the CA DOJ would have a hard time claiming that.

I don't think that they would ever write a letter saying that it is illegal to change the slide, nor that it is legal, as they just don't do that (anything that you said can be used against you in a court of law).

[command_liner]

Heh, well maybe someone should have told Gura about that.

I talk to Alan occasionally. And Bill W, and Paul Payne, Jason, Chuck and Ed, and even Ivan. Never managed to chat with Dona, even though she took my place. My case was one of many, but not compelling enough. I am just an average white guy. It looks like I was first on this topic, but a one armed guy wanting to buy an ambidextrous firearm is a better plaintiff.

The Pena case is not about logic, but showmanship. The other side always looks like incoherent bumbling fools. Our side needs great plaintiffs.