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

[orangeusa]

I was wondering the same thing - they mentioned MANY times how many guns are available on the roster, but it may have been helpful if they mentioned how many different models are available in the other 49 states.

I don't know what that number is, but 200-ish pistols might actually seem like a lot of choices to some people, until you mention that people in the other 49 states have over 3,000 (or whatever) different models to choose from. For some reason nobody mentioned that figure.

I would have printed out the list. Consider guns with 5 colors ect. Have a pile of paper that is 110 pages vs 8 pages. Just guessing.

.

[BAJ475]

It was interesting to watch this over again and see the parts I missed. After a second complete view I have a better opinion of how it went over all. I wish the panel would have asked the state, where they feel the line of restriction goes too far. I found the question about banning Lugers interesting. Setting micro-stamping aside by requiring LCI and Mag disconnect they would be banning all Glocks the most popular handgun in the world. We'll see what happens, trying to hold out some hope.

Asking the State where too far would be would not have gotten a better answer than they gave to the Luger question. Keep in mind that the State never conceded the point that there was any burden on the Second Amendment in the first place. The court seemed to jump over this issue assuming that there was a burden and that the roster was more than mere regulations of the commercial sale of firearms, although they did ask Gura to address this point.

[FalconLair]

sometimes it sounded like the court felt you should have no real expectation to be able to purchase a NEW firearm, especially if you already own one

keep driving that 1980 Ford Escort - after all, it gets you from point A to point B, right?

[orangeusa]

sometimes it sounded like the court felt you should have no real expectation to be able to purchase a NEW firearm, especially if you already own one

keep driving that 1980 Ford Escort - after all, it gets you from point A to point B, right?

The justice on the far right, was very clear that he understood that new semi-autos were banned by the existing rulings and law.

QUESTION : What happens now? Do they decide to continue the case or kill it?

.

[robertkjjj]

Some of you wonder why Gura didn't bring up the HUGE selection of guns in other states. He had his reasons.

This is the kind of court that would NOT be impressed or amused by such a comparison. They would scoff at him, interrupt, and almost immediately say "This is California law we're discussing here. Not Texas. "
An appeals court, sitting in a courtroom in CA, likely leaning liberal, is not going to be at all sympathetic to what "other" states are doing.
The ONLY time I saw those judges really focus and sit up and listen to what any outsiders say, is when Gura was quoting Supreme Court precedent. Judges truly respect what SC judges say and the rulings they make, and I suspect almost every judge's lifetime dream was to be on the SC at one point.
My real problem is this: Gura had to wait 8 years to get this chance to present to this group, yet the judges allowed a total of only 45 minutes ? Seriously? That borders on the sadistic.

[Ubermcoupe]

I'm by no means a legal expert, but my memory is the the Judge in the district court claimed that the 2A wasn't in question because there are hundreds of handguns available for sale. Basically since you have one firearm available your rights aren't being infringed. Can the 9th circuit kick it back down and say -The district judge made a mistake by saying the 2A was not in question, therefore they punt making a decision and we're back to waiting a few more months/years?

I believe the church or library analogy brought by both Justices Wallace & Bybee would be the relevant reference in applying the current state logic re the roster to another constitutional amendment.

As such, a restriction on a constitutional right (from the Bill of Rights, no less) should hold strict scrutiny and the District Court should have to uphold a demonstrated compelling government interest to limit that right (which the roster cannot).

[CaliforniaLiberal]

For all of you "How long" folks.

Experience with past 2nd Amendment cases at the 9th Circuit would suggest at least 3 to 4 months and maybe a year to a year and a half. Or longer.

Sometime in 2018 is a reasonable guess.

"This is why we need a "Two Weeks" Smilie

[robertkjjj]

Anyone have any idea why the delay to decide such cases is so long?

Is it because it really takes over a year to decide how to process this 45 minute hearing, or is it simply because these judges hate guns and they want to drag out these anti-gun laws as long as is humanly possible?

[SWalt]

Anyone have any idea why the delay to decide such cases is so long?

Is it because it really takes over a year to decide how to process this 45 minute hearing, or is it simply because these judges hate guns and they want to drag out these anti-gun laws as long as is humanly possible?

If you read the OP this particular case was stayed for a number of years. The original complaint was in 2009. "The wheels of Justice turn slowwwwwwww".

[Ubermcoupe]

Anyone have any idea why the delay to decide such cases is so long?

Is it because it really takes over a year to decide how to process this 45 minute hearing, or is it simply because these judges hate guns and they want to drag out these anti-gun laws as long as is humanly possible?

All of your summations are accurate.

To this I would add that there are roughly 12k appellate filings in the 9th every year (page 58 - PDF: http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/publicat...Report2015.pdf)

[FalconLair]

Some of you wonder why Gura didn't bring up the HUGE selection of guns in other states. He had his reasons.

This is the kind of court that would NOT be impressed or amused by such a comparison. They would scoff at him, interrupt, and almost immediately say "This is California law we're discussing here. Not Texas. "
An appeals court, sitting in a courtroom in CA, likely leaning liberal, is not going to be at all sympathetic to what "other" states are doing.
The ONLY time I saw those judges really focus and sit up and listen to what any outsiders say, is when Gura was quoting Supreme Court precedent. Judges truly respect what SC judges say and the rulings they make, and I suspect almost every judge's lifetime dream was to be on the SC at one point.
My real problem is this: Gura had to wait 8 years to get this chance to present to this group, yet the judges allowed a total of only 45 minutes ? Seriously? That borders on the sadistic.

i was wondering more why he didn't touch on the fact that it is the STATE trying to require gun manufacturers to create a technology that doesn't exist - the court seemed to think gun manufacturers don't want to implement the technology, when, in reality, it doesn't exist

it shouldn't be on the shoulders of gun manufacturers to do the research & development of microstamping - it's not like an LCI, or a mag disconnect, which is plausible, therefore doable - i did however like how the Judge pondered the repercussions to the owner of a firearm that might inadvertently lose it's magazine during the course of use, rendering it useless although chambered

one of the Justices already seemed to concede that he didn't see where microstamping contributed to the safety of a firearm, which, is what the roster is supposedly all about, so, why would the requirement be justified - i thought he could've worked that angle a bit more aggressively

[nedro]

I understand why an attorney would stick to his script on something so widely important such as this case.
But there were so many brass rings to snatch, mostly handed to him by all three justices.
And yet, he took none of them and just stuck to his script.
Huge opportunity lost.

[coryhenry]

It seemed like two of the judges got it, the one in the middle I couldn't tell. I'm assuming she was the one that agreed with the Peruta decision.

[PTLaro]

I think Gura lost an argument at the end when two of the judges disagreed with him about the loaded chamber indicator (LCI) not being a safety feature on a firearm. But that really was not the basis for the lawsuit.

After watching the complete arguments and based on all the judges overall questions, I think it will go 2-1 in favor of us and maybe 3-0.

I believe Gura showed that microstamping requirement on the handgun roster does not pertain to safety but an avenue to eventually ban all handguns. Even the judge in the middle somewhat admitted to that when she said to both attorney's that eventually no handguns could be available.

Does it matter if we win here? The state will ask for an en banc, get it and a majority hearing the en banc will be anti-gun. Just like Peruta.

We need President Trump to get the 9th filled with conservative judges to balance out the the left bias.

[relatively-anonymous]

I got a chance to watch the video: This may be a pollyanna view, but I think that the oral arguments were enough to reopen the case for trial. Even if the judges wouldn't necessarily rule for the lawyers on our side based on the arguments presented in that timed format, the hearing was intended to see if the previous decision had enough doubt cast on it to justify more examination. Based on how many questions the judges had and the responses to them, I believe they have enough doubt to reopen this for another trial. What do you guys think?