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

[herccheif]

Looks like 815 presently

https://www.oag.ca.gov/firearms/certguns

I remember when this Calguns Foundation graph came out showing that the number of guns on the roster was dropping to zero in 2017. I think they were trying to scare people into donating.

The truth is bad enough without getting into inaccurate data scare tactics.

Don't forget, of those 800ish, approx 500 are semi auto, and only about 200 are unique pistols. The rest are just copies in different color.

[Dutch3]

Where do I sign up for the training class that would help prevent an unsafe pistol from kabooming into shrapnel? Or the training class that would prevent an unsafe pistol from firing into a bystander when it discharges after being accidentally dropped?

It is a public safety issue for sure. In what other occupation/industry in this state would employees be permitted (or required) to carry tools that the state has deemed unsafe?

None, that I am aware of. Public employees carrying unsafe tools, loaded and exposed in public. In the presence of infants and children. CAL-OSHA should be all over this.

[Dutch3]

Design Feature if anything. You are just stamping data to the cartridge, so it can be in any form that is later readable. Extraction can actually be a part of the marking process in the case of a bar code for instance.

I would agree that a barcode might be the only form of microstamp readable after the smearing process of extraction. It would still depend on the malleability of the hot brass and other forces imparted on the case during the process.

Too many variables, IMHO, for the process to be considered reliable.

[Chewy65]

Where do I sign up for the training class that would help prevent an unsafe pistol from kabooming into shrapnel? Or the training class that would prevent an unsafe pistol from firing into a bystander when it discharges after being accidentally dropped?

Get it right. Being on the roster only certifies that it is not unsafe in regards to certain characteristics and testing. The fact that it is not on the roster does not mean it is unsafe. As far as I know no agencies give officers or allow them to carry what the agencies view to be unsafe guns.

[Dutch3]

All of the "b-b-but it's irrational!!" arguments put the nail in the coffin of any argument that the roster burdens the exercise of the right, not that Pena even tried to argue that. These can easily be dismissed because nobody cares if you want two tone when you can buy the identical handgun in a different color. "I want two tone wah wah!!"

And the identical handgun in a different color is still an identical handgun, displaying a different SKU. Features are identical. Function is identical. For all intents and purposes, it is the same gun.

[Uncivil Engineer]

Further when you classify by cartridge your can get down to the single digits.

Don't forget, of those 800ish, approx 500 are semi auto, and only about 200 are unique pistols. The rest are just copies in different color.

[Chewy65]

My fear is that SCOTUS grants cert and sends the case back to the trial court to litigate the practicality of microstamping.

[ojisan]

The California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale is sometimes called the "Safe Handgun List", because the establishing legislation, SB15 in 1999 referred to unsafe handguns.
Penal Code 32000 (was 12125.)
(a) Commencing January 1, 2001, any person in this state who
manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state
for sale, keeps for sale, offers or exposes for sale, gives, or lends
any unsafe handgun shall be punished by imprisonment in a county
jail not exceeding one year.

(Plain reading: all handguns are 'unsafe").

Penal Code 32015 (was 12131.)
(a) On and after January 1, 2001, the Department of Justice
shall compile, publish, and thereafter maintain a roster listing all
of the pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being
concealed upon the person that have been tested by a certified
testing laboratory, have been determined not to be unsafe handguns,
and may be sold in this state pursuant to this part. The roster shall
list, for each firearm, the manufacturer, model number, and model
name.

(Plain reading: once the gun passes the CA tests and is listed on the Roster, it is considered "not unsafe" in CA).

The legislature and resulting Penal Codes started the reference to "unsafe" handguns.

Those that have been tested and passed the CA tests are "not unsafe".
The general public may only purchase new handguns that are "not unsafe".

Any law enforcement person who is using any handgun that is not on the Roster is by the law's definition using an "unsafe" handgun.
Of course, LE has an exemption to the Roster, so while they can legally use whatever they want, by CA law they are using unsafe handguns.

Now this is all a matter of crazy CA semantics and double speak.
The "Saturday Night Specials" are by and large all gone and none are sold new these days.
I agree with the rational argument that there are few, if any, truly unsafe handguns currently sold in the US.
But this is California, where rational is not respected, by the state or the courts.

[Dutch3]

Get it right. Being on the roster only certifies that it is not unsafe in regards to certain characteristics and testing. The fact that it is not on the roster does not mean it is unsafe. As far as I know no agencies give officers or allow them to carry what the agencies view to be unsafe guns.

Regardless of the agencies' views, the state of CA sees it differently.

On roster = 'Not Unsafe'. Off-roster = "Unsafe'.

[IVC]

Except there weren't even 4 votes to accept cert in the cases that were declined.

Two problems.

First, there could have easily been 4 votes, just not 5.

Second, you were referring to SCOTUS as being done with 2A as if it's a monolithic entity, when in reality it's likely a matter of a single vote. We do know explicitly that there is strong support for 2A on SCOTUS by some justices and that they would/will rule the same way we see this turd of a CA-9 ruling.

[IVC]

I have read the argument so many times and please do not take this personally, but it is a stupid argument to make. The Legislature could well find that law enforcement officers have the training to enable them to use less safe handguns.

The argument is similar to the one that microstamping is not about safety because stamping does not make the gun more or less likely to kill of injure. Microstamping, if it works, is about public safety since it is a tool to enable law enforcement identify the shooter in some instances.

This is a bit tricky - yes, legislature can make all sorts of arguments, but they didn't. Even if they did, they would still have to defend it in court.

Imagine an abortion law that requires all abortions to be performed with "microstamped tools" (an abstract name for tools that don't exist), therefore, as a convenient side effect, banning all abortions. They can, for example, let you have an abortion as long as you use technology from the last century and don't use anesthetic, so "wah, wah, you can get what you don't want, just not what's modern and available in other states."

How would this get defended in court and would it stand?

I mean, there are voter ID laws being stricken down based on simple correlation to lower voter turnout, yet we are talking here about a massive attack on 2A and "gun culture" and pretending that it can stand based on "it's for the children" argument...

[Sousuke]

And the identical handgun in a different color is still an identical handgun, displaying a different SKU. Features are identical. Function is identical. For all intents and purposes, it is the same gun.

Unless you change the magazine release. oh wait wrong thread.

[Metal God]

These can easily be dismissed because nobody cares if you want two tone when you can buy the identical handgun in a different color. "I want two tone wah wah!!"

This logic to me is bass ackwards .

you can buy the identical handgun in a different color.

Is the whole point . If the guns are identical except in color , why would one be allowed and the other not ? If the guns are indeed identical they will pass the same safety test . Your argument is not reasonable , I mean not even a little bit . If acceptable at what point does that argument stop . " it's a 9mm what's the big deal you can still buy that Hi-point over there so we can prohibit all 9mm Sigs" ???? How about no cartridge larger the 22LR , there are hundreds of firearms you can still buy . Oh poor little gun owner you can't buy a 9mm any more wah wah - shut up and go buy your 22LR firearm we know what's safest for you .

[kcbrown]

All of the "b-b-but it's irrational!!" arguments put the nail in the coffin of any argument that the roster burdens the exercise of the right,

"The law has no rational basis, therefore it imposes no burden, and therefore withstands Constitutional muster". Right?

not that Pena even tried to argue that. These can easily be dismissed because nobody cares if you want two tone when you can buy the identical handgun in a different color. "I want two tone wah wah!!"

Ah.

So the rational basis requirement isn't a rule. More like a "guideline". Right?

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Don't forget, of those 800ish, approx 500 are semi auto, and only about 200 are unique pistols. The rest are just copies in different color.

It was a tragedy when the "Centennial Anniversary America Remembers" 1911 was dropped from the roster, but so long as the Audie Murphy commemorative 1911 is still on the roster the law is arguably constitutional.