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

[Chewy65]

Was the record inadequate?

Trying to carefully understand the opinion and just focusing on the record below and how the court used it to chose intermediate scrutiny.

Because the restrictions do not substantially burden any such right, intermediate scrutiny is appropriate.

Slip p. 14

There is no evidence that CLIs or microstamping interferes with the functioning of any arms.

p. 16

all of the plaintiffs admit that they are able to buy an operable handgun suitable for self-defense—just not the exact gun they want. Purchasers have adduced little evidence that the handguns unavailable for purchase in California are materially more effective for self-defense than handguns currently for sale in the state.

pp. 16 - 17

There is no evidence in the record that the hundreds of firearms available for purchase are inadequate for self-defense.

p. 18

Because OF A LACK OF EVIDENCE THAT the UHA does not effect a substantial burden, we conclude that intermediate scrutiny is adequate to protect the claimed Second Amendment rights at issue here.

p. 18


Is it true that the record was lacking in evidence and if so, why? I know first hand that my well cared for Sig jammed up because the spring of its MDM failed. Reportedly failures are also caused by LCI's.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Is it true that the record was lacking in evidence and if so, why?

Here you go!

Any machine can malfunction. A firearm is no different.

lol.

[taperxz]

[taperxz]

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

Not really. FGG all along has pointed out the structural issues in the cases.

Not nessesarily the goal. Wolfwood just won a case. (Ongoing)

[Chewy65]

So far the most important part of the opinion is the isssue of legislative deference raised in Bybee's dissent. He would defer to the legislature as to the efficacy of microstamping to assist the police but would not defer to it as to the whether microstamping guns can be manufactured.

The majority summarily cites to the principles
of legislative deference laid out above to conclude that we
must defer to California with respect to both the efficacy of
microstamping to aid police and the question of whether
manufacturers can produce handguns that satisfy the testing
protocol.

Slip at p. 61

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

He would defer to the legislature as to the efficacy of microstamping to assist the police but would not defer to it as to the whether microstamping guns can be manufactured.

It's way more narrow than that; all the judges on the panel know that microstamping guns can be manufactured and that the manufacturers are gaming it with their cagey declarations that don't prove anything. The dissent's quibble is with the stringency of the regulatory testing protocol (4 cartridge casings, etching in two places, one complete EIN on each casing, verified with stereo zoom microscope), ambiguity in the declarations on discrete technical points, etc. The manufacturers' litigation posture is so obvious that it overshadows the substance of the dissent, and plenty of wiggle room for the state if the dissent ever gained traction.

[taperxz]

It's way more narrow than that; all the judges on the panel know that microstamping guns can be manufactured and that the manufacturers are gaming it with their cagey declarations that don't prove anything. The dissent's quibble is with the stringency of the regulatory testing protocol (4 cartridge casings, etching in two places, one complete EIN on each casing, verified with stereo zoom microscope), ambiguity in the declarations on discrete technical points, etc. The manufacturers' litigation posture is so obvious that it overshadows the substance of the dissent, and plenty of wiggle room for the state if the dissent ever gained traction.

[abinsinia]

It seems far fetched that manufactures would exit the biggest market for firearms in the U.S. for a decade, and all because they don't like the safety measures. I mean these are capitalists companies after all, aren't they ?

However, the testing protocol allows the manufacture to provide , in fact they have to, all the ammo used in the testing. If they only need one readable serial number then they could perfectly match the ammo for the gun i.e. make sure there's soft primers etc. The second stamp would be readable %20 of the time, but the pin stamp would have to always be readable.

but if they could do it, why aren't they?

[Old4eyes]

If the manufactures cave into California for the microstamping in a "fixed" testing (reminds me of Volkswagon), then what will the legislature demand next? It's a line in the sand that if crossed by the gun makers will signal the downfall of the gun industry. Period.

[abinsinia]

I think I can sympathize with the idea of a line in the sand, but the reality is that many of these manufactures are public companies. As such they don't have the luxury to drop the market for political reasons. If you look Sig for instance, they basically did everything California wanted, and yet still no microstamped Sigs are on the market.

[IVC]

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.

Yet, your analysis was highly political. What you essentially predicted was that (1) there was a way to undermine Heller and treat 2A as a stepchild of a right, and (2) the CA-9 would take political stance and go against 2A.

I stand by the assertion that KC predicted (1) court is political, (2) the court would play politics over merits, and (3) when the court wanted to reach a certain predetermined outcome, they would find the way.

The difference is that KC didn't attempt to predict the mechanism by which the court would do it (which is what you predicted correctly, kudos for that), but he accurately captured the causal part of the decision, i.e., that the court would be political and that they wouldn't care about merits. In that respect, even though his prediction appears to be trivial, it is actually much more precise and valuable - it isolates how the court works.

Note that his model has now been confirmed and it can be applied to any decision in CA-9. It can be used to predict what happens in Young, without knowing anything about the merits of the case. That's a powerful causal model.

All we've seen in this case is that the court is political and that they don't care about 2A. I had hopes that they would be more principled, but that was just an optimist in me. At this time, all I care about is the political game and how to win it. Pending justice is a great start.

When this case goes to SCOTUS, if Kavanaugh is on the court at that time, and if the cert is granted, do you think they will confirm the CA-9 argument of, essentially, "I want two tone, wah, wah, wah," or do you expect they will look at the merits of the case differently?

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

You'd be hard pressed to find a decision more pro-regulation than Heller, and to think otherwise is delusional lol. My prediction had nothing to do with the undermining of Heller but instead the opposite.

[CandG]

You'd be hard pressed to find a decision more pro-regulation than Heller, and to think otherwise is delusional lol. My prediction had nothing to do with the undermining of Heller but instead the opposite.

Are the LOLs really necessary? We all appreciate your opinions but it's just condescending and irritating when you speak the way that a 14 year old girl texts.

"Sorry your mom just died but I told you she probably had cancer lol"

[Hooligan]

I don't get how they can say this "only" regulates commerce and not possession. How does one get to possession without first going through commerce?

And how is not being able to acquire something not considered a 'substantial burden'. Then what is? I don't get the logic.

But, this is the ninth circus, so not unexpected, kinda surprised it got one dissenting opinion.

[abinsinia]

I don't get how they can say this "only" regulates commerce and not possession. How does one get to possession without first going through commerce?

And how is not being able to acquire something not considered a 'substantial burden'. Then what is? I don't get the logic.

Somehow they lied to themselves, or maybe they just don't understand how guns get sold. But from the opinion it looks like they convinced themselves that the people of California can legally obtain weapons out of state an bring them back into California. At the least, somehow they think off roster weapons are
ubiquitously available in California. So you can get it, just not thru a California FFL. Of course, we all know this is not true.