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

[abinsinia]

That feature not only prevents accidental discharges—which itself protects “hearth and home”—but also informs the owner when the gun is loaded so that the weapon maybe fired in self-defense.

So now he's proclaiming these feature prevent accidental discharges, and trying to sell me on it! This is yet another dishonest option, from really stupid judges ..

[Sousuke]

Well you can serialize a firearm but you can NOT serialize a bullet casing in 2 places. It is IMPOSSIBLE to serialize the inside of a barrel chamber, and it is IMPOSSIBLE to leave a microstamp from the firing pin because it doesn't hit the casing it hits the primer.

Either complete ignorance or an agenda to violate the 2A. While it is specific to California I hope the SCOTUS would take the case. My guess is that since no firearm exists they are NOT in common use and therefore NOT covered under the Second Amendment, and ALL OTHER firearms ARE.

My understanding is the primer does count as one location and the headstamp area is a second.

[kcbrown]

Where the rubber hits the road is how the regulations affect one's exercise of the right to self-defense and the "it's irrational because it's the same firearm just a different color" etc. arguments are precisely why this turd was doomed to be flushed into oblivion. It is by far the worst argument that could possibly have been made under the circumstances lol. "I want two-tone" who gives a sh*t?!

So the Constitutionality of a law is irrelevant if the judge deems the argument against the law sufficiently unimportant, even if the law has no rational basis as applied in the context of the argument against the law. Right?

Put another way, all a judge has to do is claim (implicitly or explicitly) that the reason the plaintiff wants to do what he wants is insufficiently important, and the law stands in that context even if the law is irrational in that context. Right?

Funny, I thought laws without a rational basis were always Unconstitutional (under the circumstances in the case of as applied challenges, and under all circumstances in the case of facial challenges) regardless of why the plaintiff might want to violate those laws.

Where did the Supreme Court state any exclusions to the rational basis requirement of law?


Yes, I realize it's a trivial thing to want a two-tone firearm instead of a single-color firearm. But to argue that such is sufficient to cause one to lose the case is to argue that the judge is making a political decision, not a judicial one.

[Walther_Guy]

But to argue that such is sufficient to cause one to lose the case is to argue that the judge is making a political decision, not a judicial one.

That's all we were ever going to get from this court. Certainly not a decision based on the Constitution. That part about "...shall not be infringed." It doesn't exist as far as these idiots are concerned. They stop reading after the part about Militias.

[ssaction]

The sad thing is this case has been going on for over 9 years.

[2Aallday]

Where the rubber hits the road is how the regulations affect one's exercise of the right to self-defense and the "it's irrational because it's the same firearm just a different color" etc. arguments are precisely why this turd was doomed to be flushed into oblivion. It is by far the worst argument that could possibly have been made under the circumstances lol. "I want two-tone" who gives a sh*t?!

[SonofWWIIDI]

It's clear these are not gun owning judges.



They refer a few times to how the law doesn't stop possession only commercial sales. Again they don't own guns because if they did they would know that the law regulates commercial sales, and possession. I can't just buy a gun on the used market if it's not commercially available inside California. Maybe they think you can just buy the gun out of state, or import it, which of course they would know you can't if they owned guns.

But I bet their body guards are.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

The 2A burden on self-defense by the roster is obvious: one cannot benefit from the latest advances in...self-defense.

Like a state of the art High Standard Buntline revolver?

Plaintiff Brett Thomas has sought to purchase a High Standard Buntline style revolver, and has identified a willing seller who stands ready to deliver said handgun to Plaintiff, but Plaintiff cannot purchase and take possession of that handgun as that handgun is not, cannot, and will not be placed on the California Handgun Roster by Defendant.

What a joke lol.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Hmm... Do you think SCOTUS would take this case? Being a pretty CA-specific law, I'm concerned that they'd pass.

What's next, en banc?

Actually, D.C. now has a microstamping law.

That ordinance can be found here -

With "microstamp ready" being defined here -

[Uncivil Engineer]

The oral arguments attempted to use the seatbelt analogy.

But even the judges pointed out that seatbelts were amazing available on many cars before they were required by law and had a proven track record of safety.

The roster falls here for two reasons. First owning a car isn't a protected right. California could make private ownership of cars illegal tomorrow. We don't have a constitutional protected right to cars.


Second there isn't one gun on the market with microstamping of any kind. There isn't even public demonstration of one ever existing. There is only a patent claim. And just as with the patents on free energy machines, it has yet to be demonstrated as feasible.

Love them out hate them loaded chamber indicators and magazine disconnects exist on firearms. They also report to serve the rosters purpose, increasing safety. Micro stamping has nothing to do with safety, it is a hypothetical law enforcement tool. Allowing it added to the roster requirements begs the question what can't be added to the roster requirements? What about GPS location? What about gun sight cameras? What about weight requirements? Such as all hand guns must weigh 30lbs because the heavier they are the less likely you are too carry them.

The fact that micro stamping doesn't exist is enough to prove this isn't about safety and is simply a slow motion backdoor ban.

[2ajunkie]

[Chewy65]

Heller held that

banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster

.

Doesn't the UHA ban "the most preferred firearm" if the most preferred are the newer models?

[abinsinia]

Heller held that

.

Doesn't the UHA ban "the most preferred firearm" if the most preferred are the newer models?

I think it does, but the judges on the 9th circuit don't think so. They think it just governs commercial sales conditions and qualifications so it's presumptively legal and not a gun ban per Heller.

[Uncivil Engineer]

How small should the roster be to qualify as a ban?

As we aren't going to see microstamping or what ever amount of unobatimium will be required next.

When will we be asking for the manufacturers to stop playing ball with the Gestapo?

I think it does, but the judges on the 9th circuit don't think so. They think it just governs commercial sales conditions and qualifications so it's presumptively legal and not a gun ban per Heller.

[kemasa]

When a firearm is removed from the list due to a lack of payment shows that it is bogus, as well as exemptions showing that it isn't about safety.