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

[North86]

Order is here: http://ia801400.us.archive.org/30/it...91444.94.0.pdf

Basically, since we can still buy "safe" guns, the roster doesn't burden the second amendment. Step two is not triggered.

An individual's preference for a particular firearm was judged as out-weighed by the state's authority to ensure "safe guns", and since a few 100K of new guns were bought last year, the judge thinks we're lucky enough to be able to chose from those available. B!tch.

I think her speech needs to be restricted to a quill and parchment. Maybe she'll do less damage to the country then.

[wildhawker]

Can this be appealed to the SCOTUS?

This was a district court decision. Next step is the Ninth Circuit.

-BC

[glockman19]

Can this be appealed to the SCOTUS?

[ojisan]

"JUDGMENT dated *2/26/15* in favor of Defendants against Plaintiffs pursuant to order signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 2/25/15. (Meuleman, A) (Entered: 02/26/2015)"

[JAWS]

We lost: http://ia601400.us.archive.org/30/it...44.docket.html

Can't find the actual judgment yet.

[oc16]

so its a waiting and numbers game now i was unfortunate to have not purchased any off roster handguns when the loop hole was still available but i did get my hands on a nice p38 its old, and outdated but its all i got :/

[M. D. Van Norman]

I was referring only to the slew of gun-control laws passed since McDonald.

[IVC]

Heller and McDonald

Those laws precede Heller and McDonald so it's not as clear cut that we should get a PI.

However, we DID get a PI, e.g., in AB-962 (which is still being litigated, so we're not out of the woods) based on "vagueness," so all is NOT doom and gloom.

[M. D. Van Norman]

But the state legislature has no problem passing new gun-control laws. Heller and McDonaldnot on our side.

[oc16]

so where do we stand in all of this, the judge wants to preserve the roster but fails to allow the same model gun in heller on California soil that should be the turning point. Even if micro stamping were to be removed we would get another idiot law to cover the old one. Well it seems all of the cards are on the table if it fails in court it might take a few years but i do have high hopes for the supreme court to do an entire sweep of California gun control. Unless we all magically become peace officers i doubt anything will be restored or until ***** harris takes boxers spot and realizes how hard it is to pass gun control in congress.

[Librarian]

Somewhat amusingly, severability (AKA 'saving clause') is a hot topic in Municipal Codes; for example, San Francisco's Code returns over a hundred hits on "severability", 10 for "saving clause".

Article 35 of the Police Code - "FIREARM STRICT LIABILITY ACT"

SEC. 3503. SAVING CLAUSE; INVALIDITY OF PART OF ARTICLE NOT TO AFFECT REMAINDER.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Article is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Article. The Board of Supervisors hereby declares that it would have passed this Article and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.
(Added by Ord. 288-00, File No. 001490, App. 12/22/2000. Former Section 3503 was added by Ord. 311-82, App. 6/28/82; repealed by Ord. 288-00)

[North86]

You DON'T need a "severability" clause in the penal code. It doesn't work that way. The different elements of the Roster were passed by different bills.

Any section could be struck without removing another section, unless they were dependent on each other. The original portions of the penal code concerning the roster do NOT depend on the later provisions and so are "severable".

Understood. Thanks for the clarification.

I am still optimistic, but maybe less so.

[dave_cg]

So, you could read the law - http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...r=4.&article=5. - and see if the average legislator is as smart as a 1L.

(Hint: no)

Hmm... well, I admit that it's much easier to get me to read twisted C code than law. But from other posts in this thread it seems that severability is baked into the standards for interpretation, so it seems that average legislators are not required to be smart.

But you knew that.

[JoshuaS]

You DON'T need a "severability" clause in the penal code. It doesn't work that way. The different elements of the Roster were passed by different bills.

Any section could be struck without removing another section, unless they were dependent on each other. The original portions of the penal code concerning the roster do NOT depend on the later provisions and so are "severable".

[kcbrown]

Based on the lack of a severability clause in the law (as discussed above) I have a feeling its an all or nothing deal for us.

Nope. Lack of a severability clause does not save us, thanks to how California state law is interpreted in that respect (the federal judiciary defers to the state judiciary on such matters, if I'm not mistaken).

California state law is interpreted as if it has a severability clause unless the legislative intent of the entire statute is called into question in the absence of the struck portion. One would have to be daft to suggest that such is the case here if the microstamping requirement alone is struck (well, yes, the actual legislative intent is to ban handguns, but the courts will never be convinced of that. They will presume the actual intent is "public safety").

This interpretation of California law has been in effect since the early 20th century. The case law on this subject is that old.

I could even quote directly from the decision that outlines the above. I found it easily, but I'd rather the enemy have to work at least a little at this. I'm sure the district judge is familiar with the case I speak of, which is why I have no doubt at least parts of the roster will remain intact.