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

[Blade Gunner]

No surprise here. Hopefully it will get certed when Kavanaugh is confirmed.

[Blade Gunner]

P

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?

Following the pretzel logic of the 9th circus ruling, if there is only one hand gun on the roster, then it doesn’t violate 2A.

[Blade Gunner]

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



That ordinance can be found here -

With "microstamp ready" being defined here -

Micro Stamping to go along with micro brains.

[IVC]

The evidence of "impossibility" fell short, it was essentially a litigation posture and the majority saw through that and was generally not impressed by the manufacturers' deliberate non-compliance with the roster. (I made similar observations here and here.)

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?!

Fooled one judge, though.

Your gloating over prediction that is supposedly based on merits doesn't take into account that there was a strong dissent. Either that judge is an idiot and shouldn't be on the bench because the case was so "obviously wrong," or your idea of what is "obviously wrong" is skewed.

KC predicted the same outcome as you did and didn't even have to get into the merits. That prediction is actually a much better prediction because it addresses the causality.

I appreciate your insights and I don't dismiss your arguments or that the court used them, but I also take into account that merely knowing how a political court will twist a case to reach the political conclusion doesn't validate the legal merits of the case.

Are you going to eat crow if this case goes to SCOTUS (with Kavanaugh on it) and it gets reversed? Does that mean that we get to reverse who is supposedly stupid and who is supposedly smart?

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

KC predicted the same outcome as you did and didn't even have to get into the merits. That prediction is actually a much better prediction because it addresses the causality.

You really should take the timing of the predictions into account. I called this one within a day or two after it was filed -- almost 10 years ago? -- when everyone else was spellbound by CGF and its paralawyering manager of litigation, without having any clue who would be deciding the case in the trial court or on appeal, and without any data on 2A decision making by federal courts post-Heller and McDonald (because there was none), and explained then precisely what was going to happen and why, and backed that up over the years with further explication as necessary. And big surprise, it played out exactly as I predicted, on every point, on every legal issue, from burden on the exercise of the right, to the quantum of evidence that would be sufficient to sustain public safety regulations of firearms under intermediate scrutiny, to more recently the manufacturers' dubious assertion that they can't comply with the roster etc. Just dumb luck I guess, lol. And by the way the dissent is not "strong" but lukewarm, having no quarrel with the LCI and MDM result, and largely procedural with respect to microstamping. The majority opinion on the legislature's consideration of conflicting evidence, efficacy, etc. under intermediate scrutiny is spot on and mirrors a prior thread in which I challenged CGF's experienced though unlicensed scholar of the law's wildly inaccurate claims about intermediate scrutiny, that thread no longer appears to be accessible but I did find a reference to that thread which sums up my position succinctly and is in line with how the majority decided this particular case under intermediate scrutiny. The analysis here really is a straightforward application of law to facts.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Another post about intermediate scrutiny and the roster case in particular, from 7 years ago. I don't think the state had even filed its MSJ opposition brief at that point, or that the ninth circuit had even announced a 2A standard of review, it was just me explaining what would happen under intermediate scrutiny when the courts would inevitably review the legislature's judgment. I suppose it's just a coincidence, though, or "politics," that Alameda Books and Turner (and Kachalsky and Peruta per my more recent post linked above), etc., would all make an appearance in the 9th circuit roster opinion. You have to remember that at that time (2011 and I think before) CGF was making crackpot claims that they were going to "wipe the floor" under intermediate scrutiny. It fu*king kills me that their predictably doomed strategy has led to this which will lead to worse. Idiots. lol.

[Eureka1911]

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

Zero. If there is but a single weapon available according to the 9th, then the 2A has not been violated. Next stop SCOTUS.

[Eureka1911]

No surprise here. Hopefully it will get certed when Kavanaugh is confirmed.

I think even the current court with Kennedy would overturn this absurd ruling.

[speedrrracer]

Another post about intermediate scrutiny and the roster case in particular, from 7 years ago.

Trying to see if I understand the "intermediate scrutiny" in that case, hoping you can tell me if this makes sense:

So because this new law is taking an innovative approach, there can't be any existing data as to its efficacy, so the state is relieved of their burden (if there ever was any) to bring data under intermediate scrutiny, and "common sense" is just fine.

So what is the correct approach to challenge such a statute then, assuming if some years later, the gathered data shows that the innovation was a failure, public safety (or whatever the compelling interest was) is not improved?

Would a constitutional challenge in a few years, bringing the court the data demonstrating the failure of the law to achieve the compelling interest, then have chance at overturning the law?

It fu*king kills me that their predictably doomed strategy has led to this which will lead to worse. Idiots. lol.

Well I for one hope you aren't killed; like the others above I appreciate your insights. And when you say "will lead to worse" to what are you referring?

[abinsinia]

Another post about intermediate scrutiny and the roster case in particular, from 7 years ago. I don't think the state had even filed its MSJ opposition brief at that point, or that the ninth circuit had even announced a 2A standard of review, it was just me explaining what would happen under intermediate scrutiny when the courts would inevitably review the legislature's judgment. I suppose it's just a coincidence, though, or "politics," that Alameda Books and Turner (and Kachalsky and Peruta per my more recent post linked above), etc., would all make an appearance in the 9th circuit roster opinion. You have to remember that at that time (2011 and I think before) CGF was making crackpot claims that they were going to "wipe the floor" under intermediate scrutiny. It fu*king kills me that their predictably doomed strategy has led to this which will lead to worse. Idiots. lol.

Can you imagine a roster case which would get the roster over turned in the 9th circuit ? From my perspective, there is no gun case which will win the in the 9th. Many of us live under a carry ban in California and the 9th up held it, Young will be given En Banc, and they will up hold the carry ban again using the lone dissent from the three judge panel as a frame work for it.

It doesn't seem like much of a trick to suggest gun cases will lose in the 9th.

[John Browning]

If they would have issued this decision five years ago we would have been boned.

With the soon to be new Justice...I think we are good. Patience.

[erik_26]

I have just read the summary. Its a loss. I am to angry to deeply read the opinion. Everything else I can understand but the microstamping requirement? Come on

I hope a en bacn petition get filed just to kill time. Once that is denied hopefully Kavanaugh will be on the bench


http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...3/15-15449.pdf

Yes, it sounds like a 2-1 loss.

It's my opinion that all gun laws are a violation of the 2nd amendment. Having said that, in the context of the current way of interpreting things, they at least agreed with the concept that guns were still available that had chamber indicators and mag disconnects. However, they completely ignore the fact that not one single company makes a gun with micro-stamping.

This ruling just shows once again that the 9th circuit is not a law abiding entity and will do whatever they want regardless of what the law says. All of them should be removed and imprisoned for miscarriage of justice.

We're WINNING!!!!

I am waiting for someone on here to spin this as a win and I am also waiting the mandatory Calguns for all my gun rights to be restored.

[Rastoff]

What's next, en banc?

Three possibilities:

• The plaintiffs give up. If they do this we're just stuck with this ruling.
• They can ask for an en banc hearing. To date we've lost all of these that I know of. Most likely due to the extreme liberal nature of the 9th.
• They appeal it to the US Supreme Court. I might be wrong, but I believe this is possible and they don't have to go to an en banc hearing.

I hope this goes to the SCOTUS. Like many here, I believe the current judges give us the edge. Of course they might decide not to hear it like they did with Peruta.

[kcbrown]

You really should take the timing of the predictions into account. I called this one within a day or two after it was filed -- almost 10 years ago? -- when everyone else was spellbound by CGF and its paralawyering manager of litigation, without having any clue who would be deciding the case in the trial court or on appeal, and without any data on 2A decision making by federal courts post-Heller and McDonald (because there was none), and explained then precisely what was going to happen and why, and backed that up over the years with further explication as necessary. And big surprise, it played out exactly as I predicted, on every point, on every legal issue, from burden on the exercise of the right, to the quantum of evidence that would be sufficient to sustain public safety regulations of firearms under intermediate scrutiny, to more recently the manufacturers' dubious assertion that they can't comply with the roster etc. Just dumb luck I guess, lol.

I don't consider it dumb luck at all. I consider it to be masterful, very well done.

Admittedly, at least some of that is probably hindsight, but so be it.

In any case, your prediction here wins over mine precisely because yours was so much more detailed.

But I do have one question that arises from this: do you believe the outcome would have been the same in the 5th Circuit? If not, why not?

And by the way the dissent is not "strong" but lukewarm, having no quarrel with the LCI and MDM result, and largely procedural with respect to microstamping. The majority opinion on the legislature's consideration of conflicting evidence, efficacy, etc. under intermediate scrutiny is spot on and mirrors a prior thread in which I challenged CGF's experienced though unlicensed scholar of the law's wildly inaccurate claims about intermediate scrutiny, that thread no longer appears to be accessible but I did find a reference to that thread which sums up my position succinctly and is in line with how the majority decided this particular case under intermediate scrutiny. The analysis here really is a straightforward application of law to facts.

Here's a question for you: if a right always, or very nearly always, loses in the face of intermediate scrutiny, is it truly a right at all? How can it possibly be considered a real right if it can be infringed by the government simply by the government claiming, without real proof (not just "preponderance of the evidence", since that standard only considers the sides of evidence relative to each other irrespective of the degree or quality of the evidence), that the law satisfies some public safety goal?

[chris]

In other words this state is doomed as far as gun rights are concerned. Get used to losing is what I understand.