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

[ddestruel]

[RipVanWinkle]

You know it is true because the CA DOJ said so? Really? I don't see where it said that it expired. Jerry Brown refused to sign off on it.

What objective proof do you have that there is the ability for more than one manufacturer to do it unencumbered by any patent restrictions?

http://www.guns.com/2012/06/18/calguns-foundation-patent-microstamping/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_microstamping

It was all discussed on calguns on this thread awhile back:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=763952

[kemasa]

The patent expired.

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/ag...013-BOF-03.pdf

You know it is true because the CA DOJ said so? Really? I don't see where it said that it expired. Jerry Brown refused to sign off on it.

What objective proof do you have that there is the ability for more than one manufacturer to do it unencumbered by any patent restrictions?

http://www.guns.com/2012/06/18/calguns-foundation-patent-microstamping/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_microstamping

[Rastoff]

This ruling is a political dance. Saying that "you can still buy guns" because there are some on the list, is exactly the same as saying it's legal to limit ammunition sales because the second amendment doesn't specifically mention ammo. The courts have already ruled that limiting ammo is unconstitutional because it is a fundamental aspect of the gun.

I'm going to stop here because I'm just becoming more angry and I'll get banned.

[CrazyPhuD]

That means that a patent on an idea has expired. It still isn't a feasible technology. I have never seen a micro stamping study that puts markings on the casing, just the primer. I've never seen a study that shows that the technology is reliable. I've never seen a feasible design that can comply with the law as written. It should never have been certified. There should have been a case challenging the decision made by the Attorney General that decided that this tech was ready for the big time.

The point of the law was never about microstamping being 'feasible' or even practical...it's about it being plausible.

The goal with microstamping is to halt the sale of handguns. Initially newly manufactured guns and eventually all guns. To accomplish that goal feasibility of a technology is unnecessary.

[paultakeda]

I believe this statement is correct: handguns in California are as legal as federally allowed; CA FFLs simply can't SELL you one that isn't on the roster.

If that is the case, it'd be interesting to instead go for a federal alteration of interstate transfer laws such that it is legal for a person to purchase, in person, a firearm in a state that is not their state of residence provided it is legal in their state of residence, and to therefore pay FFL fees out of state and be able to ship it to themselves. It could even be a requirement: if you purchase a firearm out of state you MUST have it delivered to your home address.

[RipVanWinkle]

That means that a patent on an idea has expired. It still isn't a feasible technology. I have never seen a micro stamping study that puts markings on the casing, just the primer. I've never seen a study that shows that the technology is reliable. I've never seen a feasible design that can comply with the law as written. It should never have been certified. There should have been a case challenging the decision made by the Attorney General that decided that this tech was ready for the big time.

You're absolutely right. But it did allow the CA DOJ to mandate microstamping, never mind that it doesn't exist as a feasible technology. CA is proud of doing this sort of thing. Think about the emissions standards for autos and power generation. X% of electrical energy has to be from "renewable" sources by the year 20XX, and hydro doesn't count. One of the defendant's documents in this case argues that microstamping is important because if CA requires it everybody will have to require it. Everything starts in CA.

How this sort of thing will play out when applied to a fundamental right is another matter.

[mej16489]

That means that a patent on an idea has expired. It still isn't a feasible technology. I have never seen a micro stamping study that puts markings on the casing, just the primer. I've never seen a study that shows that the technology is reliable. I've never seen a feasible design that can comply with the law as written. It should never have been certified. There should have been a case challenging the decision made by the Attorney General that decided that this tech was ready for the big time.

Requiring microstamping on a casing in two places is like requiring the smell a gun produces to be identical to unicorn farts.

[RobertMW]

The patent expired.

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/ag...013-BOF-03.pdf

That means that a patent on an idea has expired. It still isn't a feasible technology. I have never seen a micro stamping study that puts markings on the casing, just the primer. I've never seen a study that shows that the technology is reliable. I've never seen a feasible design that can comply with the law as written. It should never have been certified. There should have been a case challenging the decision made by the Attorney General that decided that this tech was ready for the big time.

[Drivedabizness]

I think that you are right that this case does not win on appeal. However, I think the Court will apply intermediate scrutiny and reject the lower court's proclamation that the roster does not burden Second Amendment conduct. This ruling misread both Chovan and Jackson to come to that conclusion. Jackson applied RATIONAL BASIS DRESSED UP AS intermediate scrutiny to San Francisco ban on the retail sale of hollow point ammo and Chovan reads that if a law impacts the right at all some form of heightened scrutiny applies. Hence the lower court really should have applied intermediate scrutiny even if wanting to uphold the roster.
Hopefully that means that if the roster gets significantly worse a subsequent case will be able to strike it.

Fixed it for you

[RipVanWinkle]

What about the fact that there is no evidence that there is a means to microstamp that is patent free (look at the CA PC for the specific wording)?

The patent expired.

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/infobuls/2013-BOF-03.pdf

[RipVanWinkle]

This was my question, too. But can this be used in the appeal for this particular case if the case is firmly about not being able to purchase a specific model belonging to a class of models that have some on the roster? I don't know how appeals work with regards to changing the focus of the argument.

From my layman's understanding this specific case is weak against the roster except when taken along with all other cases like Heller to amount to an aggregation regarding the restriction of gun sales to private citizens, but it can remove the microstamp requirement due to it imposing an implicit ban due to the lack of a practical example of that technology.

The roster listing fees are imposed on the manufacturers and importers, but they are not plaintiffs in this case. The plaintiffs are not the folks on whom the fees are imposed, so they would probably not have standing to raise this issue. They certainly didn't raise it in the trial.

The microstamping issue is another matter. The plaintiffs did raise that issue and argued that the CLI and MD restrictions had already diminished the number of roster listings, and the microstamping requirement would cause further erosion of roster listings. The judge rejected that argument, saying that any additional decrease in roster listings was "hypothetical". See my post here:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=15901214&postcount=1419

The problem with this case is that it was premature, in the sense that it was initiated in 2009 when the roster count was still relatively high and the roster listings diminished slowly over most of the course of the trial, but accelerated more recently to about 60% of the number at the start of the trial. That left the number at 795 handguns as of the judges order date. She saw that as a more than adequate number of choices for obtaining a handgun and held that the plaintiffs second amendment rights were not burdened, or at most only trivially so.

Now, going forward to the appeal, the only possibility for a positive outcome is having the roster listings collapse to the point that even an appellate judge might be persuaded that the second amendment has been burdened. Can that happen? Maybe. There will still be models of semiautomatic center fire handguns that will be offered because previously tested models will be grandfathered in as long as the manufacturers continue to pay $200 to keep them listed. Others will drop out because they, say, change the barrel length or switch from adjustable to fixed rear sights but don't add microstamping. It's going to be messy!

[kemasa]

What about the fact that there is no evidence that there is a means to microstamp that is patent free (look at the CA PC for the specific wording)?

[paultakeda]

No new evidence on appeal. Appeal is about whether the case was decided correctly on the evidence presented at trial.

If that's true then I don't see how this case can get rid of the roster even on appeal with the 9th. But given the time it takes to go through the courts, if the 9th reviewed this in 2016 there is the distinct possibility that the hypothetical scenario described in a footnote on Page 20, Line 23-28, will be a real scenario, and indicate an implicit ban on new firearms that are arguably safer than grandfathered models maintained on the roster (the Glocks would be a good example?). That might get the microstamp requirement removed, since that's the only requirement preventing newer, safer models from entering the roster.

[Noble Cause]

Originally Posted by Rossi357
We have a new level of scrutiny. Irrational basis.

Clever, I like it....

Yep, very astute observation.

Rossi357 wins the Internet Quote of The Day Award....


Noble