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

[Tincon]

Does this qualify as ruling that can be referred to that indirectly says that after you buy the gun you can modify it without fear of being charged with manufacturing an unsafe handgun?

Was limiting the application of the law to "new" guns necessary to the legal reasoning that resulting in the outcome of that case? No. So it's dicta, and you can refer to it all you want but it's not persuasive authority even in federal court and won't help you at all if you are charged in state court with manufacturing an unsafe handgun.

For the home builders, build it as a single shot, shoot it and you have a good argument that it is no longer new.

No, you don't, not even if the above was actual authority.

[jeremiah12]

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.

Well, I read this from the District's Court ruling:

(I added the bolding for emphasis)

Does this qualify as ruling that can be referred to that indirectly says that after you buy the gun you can modify it without fear of being charged with manufacturing an unsafe handgun?

After it is first sold to the consumer, it is no longer new. The judge says that PC 32000 only applies to the manufacture and sale of new guns deemed "unsafe".

For the home builders, build it as a single shot, shoot it and you have a good argument that it is no longer new.

If you build off of a serialized receiver you purchase through an FFL, since the receiver is the firearm, the argument would be it is now used so you could skip the single-shot step. I would not want to use this one, I still thing building single-shot first is the safest route.

I am just putting this out there.

[Tincon]

Then it does not matter about anything since the CA DOJ can make up anything that they like and ignore anything that they like.

I am not sure of what you are trying to prove.

DOJ didn't make that up, the CA legislature did. Manufacturing an unsafe handgun is illegal. "Unsafe handgun" is so broadly defined (by the legislature) that it could be very easy for a person to manufacture one without even realizing they were breaking the law. The resulting "unsafe handgun" is factually no more unsafe than the "safe" handgun it is cosmetically different from. It's a stupid law that accomplishes nothing but an offense against the 2A rights of Californians. That's what the lawsuit is about.

[slayer61]

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...

Nope. Never heard the story of the origination of the bullet button. Kinda new still to the shooting sports.

[kemasa]

It's not about what the ATF thinks constitutes manufacturing a firearm. The ATF might not think connecting 11 ammo links together is manufacturing either, but if you do that in CA you have manufactured a large capacity magazine.

Then it does not matter about anything since the CA DOJ can make up anything that they like and ignore anything that they like.

I am not sure of what you are trying to prove.

[Tincon]

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).

It's not about what the ATF thinks constitutes manufacturing a firearm. The ATF might not think connecting 11 ammo links together is manufacturing either, but if you do that in CA you have manufactured a large capacity magazine.

[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.

[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).

[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]

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.

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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.