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

[Ubermcoupe]

The 9th Circuit can issue any decision it wants. It knows it won't be taken up by the Supreme Court, since firearms are involved.

As such, why in the world would you believe the 9th Circuit (the en banc court, at any rate) would give us anything?


There was a time where even modest optimism was reasonable. That time has long since passed. No, at this point, if you're going to claim we're going to get anything at all, you're going to have to make a solid argument, with supporting evidence, in favor of it. The default is now that we will lose, because that is exactly what has happened thus far, under nearly every circumstance.

That wasn't known at the time this action was brought, so in no way is it criticism of that. And there's some possibility (not much, but some) that the Supreme Court composition will change in our favor before this would otherwise get there. But absent substantial real evidence to that effect, the fate of this case is quite clear, and unambiguously against us.

I sometimes think about our legal environment now, how emboldened the current courts are to reach decisions heavily influenced by personal opinion or crafting case opinions to meet a desired outcome, and then imagine how different it was just 15 years - even 10 years ago - regarding Kasler v. Lockyer and OLLs.

What. A. Change.

[taperxz]

The 9th Circuit can issue any decision it wants. It knows it won't be taken up by the Supreme Court, since firearms are involved.

As such, why in the world would you believe the 9th Circuit (the en banc court, at any rate) would give us anything?


There was a time where even modest optimism was reasonable. That time has long since passed. No, at this point, if you're going to claim we're going to get anything at all, you're going to have to make a solid argument, with supporting evidence, in favor of it. The default is now that we will lose, because that is exactly what has happened thus far, under nearly every circumstance.

That wasn't known at the time this action was brought, so in no way is it criticism of that. And there's some possibility (not much, but some) that the Supreme Court composition will change in our favor before this would otherwise get there. But absent substantial real evidence to that effect, the fate of this case is quite clear, and unambiguously against us.

If you can’t see the difference in the argument between cases, I can’t help you.

The Pena case clearly has a different argument in regards to firearms than most. Its more about state over site than the 2A. Even though, the 2A is the argument.

Notice how little Fabio gets involved in the case here.

When the state went rogue and stated the exact same gun can’t be sold in a different color..... The courts can’t ignore this

[kcbrown]

None of that matters. This case is in front of the 9th Circuit, which has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to do anything and everything to ensure that we lose. On what basis can you possibly even contemplate that, somehow, this time will be different?

A number of lawyers have claimed that the court will not address arguments that aren't raised. But the court can certainly ignore arguments that are raised, because it has done precisely that in the past. If 2A is what is raised then that is what it'll address, most especially since there is so little in 2A jurisprudence that is in our favor. It'll ignore anything else that might result in a more favorable outcome.

How many times do you need that football pulled away out from underneath you before you realize that it'll always be pulled away?

Notice how little Fabio gets involved in the case here.

True as that may be, I'm skeptical that his lack of commentary will help the outcome, amusing as such a notion is.


Oh yes they can. They can ignore any damned thing they please. Didn't you learn ANYTHING from Peruta?? When will you begin to learn just how arbitrary and outcome-focused the courts have become?

[thedrickel]

If the courts ruled the way they should they absolutely would agree it's insane you can't buy the same gun in a different color. Unfortunately that is not the reality we are dealing with. They know they can ignore Heller and McDonald. The decision will say "what's so hard about buying the other color slide and swapping them out? Seems like that is a lot easier than filing a federal suit!"

[champu]

There was a time where even modest optimism was reasonable. That time has long since passed.

9th circuit three judge panel: "We find that, given a pragmatic evaluation of what guns have been allowed on the roster as requirements have been added, that the latest requirement constitutes a ban on firearms specifically of the type deemed protected in the Heller decision, therefore the microstamping requirement is found to be unconstitutional."

9th circuit en banc, "First of all, I shall throw my hot coffee in the plantiff's face. *splash* Now... per Heller, this is a 'qualification on the commercial sale' of firearms which only affects vendors, and as we noted in Teixeira no one even has a right to sell firearms, so we fart in your general direction for daring to mention the second amendment in this case. But even if we had to consider that garbage amendment, which we don't, this law would survive any level of scrutiny, because it's called the 'not unsafe handgun roster' who's name alone conveys, and thus ensures, the perfect amount of public safety... all hail the roster!"

[phdo]

[champu]

Let's say I want to practice Christianity but I can't because it's not available. The state is allowing me to practice Judaism because it has the same core ideas but just call God by a different name. What you want is not available but here's a close substitute. Deal with it.

[mshill]

Or carrier pigeon.

[TruOil]

Um, the Bill of Rights is there to protect God given rights. Not sure this is up for debate here.

\

You miss the pint. The BOR does not GRANT rights, it prevents the Government, in various degrees, from interfering with these PRE-EXISTING rights. The distinction is important: if the right pre-exists the constitution, a repeal of the amendment does not repeal the right, just the protections for the right.

[TruOil]

The NSSF vs CA Microstamping doesn't argue on the basis of the constitutionality. Do some research for yourself. NSSF argues that a law that requires something that is impossible to do cannot be enforced. NSSF lost the first case because they admitted that it is possible to place two stamps both on the firing pin. If manufacturers would just comply, then they could sell new guns in CA. If they choose not to comply, then they can continue selling older models. Please people, do some research before you go popping off. I hate this too, but they are the facts and there are sure a lot of uneducated people here. Pena vs Cid, now that is based on the constitutionality of the handgun roster. If the court upholds in the NSSF case that it is possible to place two stamps using the firing pin (one above the other), than how is the handgun roster unconstitutional? All manufacturers have to do is comply with the requirements to sell new guns in CA, just like car manufacturers had to comply with the airbag requirements to sell cars (which they fought bitterly and lost). Also, the state can simply argue that old handguns are exempt for new roster requirements so just keep producing and selling old models.

Where did they argue this and what case did they lose? All that occurred in this case is that the Court denied competing motions for summary judgment. Somewhere during trial court litigation, the State filed a motion contending that the decision of the AG was not subject to judicial review. The trial court denied the motion. The State appealed (because it is patently aware that if the certification can be challenged, it will lose on the merits). The Court of Appeal agreed with the NSSF, and affirmed the trial court order. The State again appealed to the California Supreme Court. The issues to be determined are: 1) whether the certification is subject to judicial review; and assuming that it is, 2) What is the standard of review the trial court should court employ in reviewing the certification determination?

Long ago, in the trial court, the State, conceding that the existing technology stamped the case only on the primer, argued that the conditions for certification were satisfied if that technology stamped two separate identifiers on the primer. The trial court concluded that this was not credible, as the statute requires the the casing be stamped in two separate location on the case, not twice on the primer.
I have read claims that a system of stamping complying with the law could be devised, but I have never seen any proof, no patent, no proof of concept. If you disagree, cite a source. If there were in fact such technology that supports the certification, then the State would win, and all of these appeals are completely meaningless and a waste of time and resources. This certainly has NOT been an issue in this case, and it is not an issue in the Supreme Court hearing next month.

[TruOil]

This.

If it was really about safety, LE would NOT be exempt, not for their duty gun, not for their personal guns.

Also, once tested, the firearm should forever remain on the list, but instead if the annual payment is not made, the law abiding citizens can no longer buy it.

The color, grips or engraving should not matter either, but it does.

It is not a "safe handguns roster," it is a Roster of guns that are "Not Unsafe." The color, grips and engraving do not matter. By statute. The LEO are exempt from the Roster because, the Legislature believed, officers receive extensive training with the safe handling of firearms, and theoretically know when their guns are loaded. And between you, me and the lamppost, I am perfectly happy that the State has handguns tested to assure that they will not fire if dropped and that they will not blow up with factory ammo (usually). The rest, not so much. My Kahr has no manual safety, no LCI and no mag disconnect. But it is DAO. In my view, the additional safety features subsequently required by the roster are not to make the guns more safe, they are rather a recognition that there are lots of idiots out there who are unsafe in the use of their firearms. In other words, they are not product safety requirements, they are anti-Darwin laws.

[taperxz]

It is not a "safe handguns roster," it is a Roster of guns that are "Not Unsafe." The color, grips and engraving do not matter. By statute. The LEO are exempt from the Roster because, the Legislature believed, officers receive extensive training with the safe handling of firearms, and theoretically know when their guns are loaded. And between you, me and the lamppost, I am perfectly happy that the State has handguns tested to assure that they will not fire if dropped and that they will not blow up with factory ammo (usually). The rest, not so much. My Kahr has no manual safety, no LCI and no mag disconnect. But it is DAO. In my view, the additional safety features subsequently required by the roster are not to make the guns more safe, they are rather a recognition that there are lots of idiots out there who are unsafe in the use of their firearms. In other words, they are not product safety requirements, they are anti-Darwin laws.

Yet the FSC test basically tells you NOT to rely on mechanical safety mechanisms when it comes to firearms.

[EM2]

It is not a "safe handguns roster," it is a Roster of guns that are "Not Unsafe." The color, grips and engraving do not matter. By statute. The LEO are exempt from the Roster because, the Legislature believed, officers receive extensive training with the safe handling of firearms, and theoretically know when their guns are loaded. And between you, me and the lamppost, I am perfectly happy that the State has handguns tested to assure that they will not fire if dropped and that they will not blow up with factory ammo (usually). The rest, not so much. My Kahr has no manual safety, no LCI and no mag disconnect. But it is DAO. In my view, the additional safety features subsequently required by the roster are not to make the guns more safe, they are rather a recognition that there are lots of idiots out there who are unsafe in the use of their firearms. In other words, they are not product safety requirements, they are anti-Darwin laws.

were it that the gov should regulate keyboards and remove all of the ‘F’ keys so as to save us all from obscene forum posts.

The gov should not be in the business of saving us from ourselves.

[kemasa]

It is not a "safe handguns roster," it is a Roster of guns that are "Not Unsafe." The color, grips and engraving do not matter. By statute. The LEO are exempt from the Roster because, the Legislature believed, officers receive extensive training with the safe handling of firearms, and theoretically know when their guns are loaded. And between you, me and the lamppost, I am perfectly happy that the State has handguns tested to assure that they will not fire if dropped and that they will not blow up with factory ammo (usually). The rest, not so much. My Kahr has no manual safety, no LCI and no mag disconnect. But it is DAO. In my view, the additional safety features subsequently required by the roster are not to make the guns more safe, they are rather a recognition that there are lots of idiots out there who are unsafe in the use of their firearms. In other words, they are not product safety requirements, they are anti-Darwin laws.

Any manufacturer who produced an unsafe firearm would be sued out of existence, so the state doing what they are is pointless, plus as said, what they are doing shows otherwise.

Please explain how a police officer can deal with a firearm that would fail the drop test.

The features required are stupid as well and there have been officers who have had an unloaded firearm fire.

The bottom line it is about trying to ban guns PERIOD. There is NO reason to drop off a firearm if the manufacturer doesn't pay the next year as the firearm has not changed, it is only about money. There is no reason to charge more for each color version.

Don't fall for the false claims.

[TruOil]

Any manufacturer who produced an unsafe firearm would be sued out of existence, so the state doing what they are is pointless, plus as said, what they are doing shows otherwise.

Please explain how a police officer can deal with a firearm that would fail the drop test.

The features required are stupid as well and there have been officers who have had an unloaded firearm fire.

The bottom line it is about trying to ban guns PERIOD. There is NO reason to drop off a firearm if the manufacturer doesn't pay the next year as the firearm has not changed, it is only about money. There is no reason to charge more for each color version.

Don't fall for the false claims.

The law as originally enacted was an effort to ban "Saturday Nite Specials," guns that did blow up, jam, and fire when dropped. There are guns to this day that have failed the drop test (Sig and one other). So I don't know what you mean when you ask how an officer can deal with a firearm that isn't drop safe. Officers are allowed to buy anything, even firearms that are not approved for duty use. You have to ask the Legislature why they exempted them, but as we have seen with other laws (e.g. CCW laws), it is usually political, i.e., to avoid opposition by departments and the police union(s), etc. so that the law will get passed. It doesn't have to make sense when we are talking politics.