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

[ZNiner]

The key is ...what is an unsafe gun. If other states have the same fire arms without any safety issues, it reasonable that California law regarding safe roster list is unjustified.
Either California is right and 49 other states are wrong....or opposite is true.
You can also add in off rostered unsafe guns used by LE and military.
It's so obvious the State will lose this. They don't have a prayer.

We are all in agreement that the roster is unconstitutional and should get tossed but unless the SCOTUS grants cert then we will either have to wait until the next conference or bring another case against it in federal court and wait for years while it works it's way through the system.

I read the entirety of Judge Benitez's ruling in Duncan v. Becerra and I see no reason why that exact same in common use logic couldn't be used in regards to the roster, AWB and the latest ammo laws.

[y0manda1]

The key is ...what is an unsafe gun. If other states have the same fire arms without any safety issues, it reasonable that California law regarding safe roster list is unjustified.

Either California is right and 49 other states are wrong....or opposite is true.

You can also add in off rostered unsafe guns used by LE and military.

It's so obvious the State will lose this. They don't have a prayer.

If the off roaster firearm is "unsafe" then why are police, feds, military, and security exempt? Selecting off roaster firearms has nothing to do with safety.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[kevin2]

Some of us know Fabio, partly because we hang out in the same circles, partly because we live near Fabio. You are completely wrong. Matter-of-fact, your two sentences above demonstrate that you are also wrong about some other aspects of Fabio's personal information.

But don't worry, you are in excellent company by being wrong. At some point, hoffmang tried to first attract Fabio to work for the CalGuns foundation. When Fabio demurred, he tried to get Fabio in trouble with their boss: hoffmang was convinced that Fabio was one of the people working for Chuck Michel, and ratted him out with the boss. Fabio does not work for Chuck Michel, however, and as usual hoffmang was not only completely wrong, but also ended up ticking off Chuck and Fabio even more. If you look for that exchange in the archives of this forum, you may find out more information about all the people that Fabio is not.

Fabio is also not an Italian actor who runs around with a shaved chest.

Let me give you an important hint: I've been in a room with Governor Jerry Brown, in a room with Attorney General Kamala Harris, and in a room with Fabio. Each time I was with Brown or Harris or both, Fabio was not in the room. Does that help narrow it down? Let me give you another hint: Brown does not watch TV, he did not even know "Jeopardy", nor had he ever heard of Vanna White. He does not go jogging for exercise. Harris on the other hand is very culturally astute, and keeps herself in shape.

Is this an LSAT question?

[El.Terrible_SoCal]

If the off roaster firearm is "unsafe" then why are police, feds, military, and security exempt? Selecting off roaster firearms has nothing to do with safety.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[kemasa]

If the off roaster firearm is "unsafe" then why are police, feds, military, and security exempt? Selecting off roaster firearms has nothing to do with safety.

Ahhh, you need to look at the doublespeak as they don't say unsafe, but instead the certified list says "not unsafe". Anything else is just unknown and hasn't been checked yet.

As you say, it has nothing to do with safety. Once tested, it should always remain on the list, but it doesn't. The police should be required more than anyone else to have fired which are tested, but if they didn't exempt them, then it is likely that the law wouldn't have passed. It is all a scam to ban firearms.

[y0manda1]

Ahhh, you need to look at the doublespeak as they don't say unsafe, but instead the certified list says "not unsafe". Anything else is just unknown and hasn't been checked yet.



As you say, it has nothing to do with safety. Once tested, it should always remain on the list, but it doesn't. The police should be required more than anyone else to have fired which are tested, but if they didn't exempt them, then it is likely that the law wouldn't have passed. It is all a scam to ban firearms.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Harry Ono]

.

I read the entirety of Judge Benitez's ruling in Duncan v. Becerra and I see no reason why that exact same in common use logic couldn't be used in regards to the roster, AWB and the latest ammo laws.

exactly !

[Harry Ono]

Ahhh, you need to look at the doublespeak as they don't say unsafe, but instead the certified list says "not unsafe". Anything else is just unknown and hasn't been checked yet.

As you say, it has nothing to do with safety. Once tested, it should always remain on the list, but it doesn't. The police should be required more than anyone else to have fired which are tested, but if they didn't exempt them, then it is likely that the law wouldn't have passed. It is all a scam to ban firearms.

substance vs form.... their use of doublespeak may not work. More over the State does not have its own versions of the federal consumer safety departments like the FDA/FTC/FTA or any other.

[Harry Ono]

If the off roaster firearm is "unsafe" then why are police, feds, military, and security exempt? Selecting off roaster firearms has nothing to do with safety.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Exactly

[Caleb1911]

FABIO will really get goosed on this

The opinion never evaluates the regulation under rational basis, which in my mind could be one of the more interesting issues on appeal. Not that I think this one is going anywhere on appeal.

This case is now at the Supreme Court awaiting a certiorari decision.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-843.html

I just read the filings and amici curiae briefs. My humble prediction is that, contrary to what FABIO has said repeatedly, this "stinker" of a case is granted cert, becomes a win for gun owners in California, and will be used by the court to enunciate clear guidelines on how to adjudicate the constitutionality of gun control laws going forward. In a nutshell, my prediction is that this is the case on which FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

[estrom]

I'm definitely no lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn once...could the Duncan ruling be used as an argument against the roster? Aren't some of the guns, particularly hand guns, on the roster because of capacity? The new Springfield XD 10mm would be an example since it only comes with 15 round magazines.

[WoodTurner]

I'm definitely no lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn once...could the Duncan ruling be used as an argument against the roster? Aren't some of the guns, particularly hand guns, on the roster because of capacity? The new Springfield XD 10mm would be an example since it only comes with 15 round magazines.

There are multiple things handguns need, depending on the time they were submitted for testing, in order to be allowed on the roster.
You could read through this for a little understanding on how firearms are submitted.

https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I80547680380011E18024FEFE7CFA98B6?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)

The biggest problem now is micro microstamping. Any gun that wasn't already on the roster before May 2013 requires microstamping in order for California to except it for the roster. Since no firearms have it (and I believe no one has the technology yet) we have a problem.
There are other things that kept guns off of the roster even before microstamping went into effect. Things like magazine disconnect and loaded chamber indicator. Then there is the fact that some manufacturers just don't want to deal with it or pay the fees. I believe Smith and Wesson just gave up on California and dropped multiple handguns off the roster by not renewing them.

[estrom]

There are multiple things handguns need, depending on the time they were submitted for testing, in order to be allowed on the roster.
You could read through this for a little understanding on how firearms are submitted.

https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I80547680380011E18024FEFE7CFA98B6?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)

The biggest problem now is micro microstamping. Any gun that wasn't already on the roster before May 2013 requires microstamping in order for California to except it for the roster. Since no firearms have it (and I believe no one has the technology yet) we have a problem.
There are other things that kept guns off of the roster even before microstamping went into effect. Things like magazine disconnect and loaded chamber indicator. Then there is the fact that some manufacturers just don't want to deal with it or pay the fees. I believe Smith and Wesson just gave up on California and dropped multiple handguns off the roster by not renewing them.

Thanks for the info. It's sort of a pipe dream since I'm really intrigued by the new XD 10mm. The 10mm is a new caliber to the XD line which is being sold in CA in other calibers, so I'm hoping someday to see the 10mm in CA as well. Especially with 15 round mags!

[WoodTurner]

Thanks for the info. It's sort of a pipe dream since I'm really intrigued by the new XD 10mm. The 10mm is a new caliber to the XD line which is being sold in CA in other calibers, so I'm hoping someday to see the 10mm in CA as well. Especially with 15 round mags!

Look into a Glock 20. It is on the roster and has 15rd mags available (CA model will come with 10rf).
You may not be a Glock guy, but there are options if open to other brands. I have a Glock 29, which is the subcompact 10mm.
I believe Dan Wesson also has a 10mm 1911 on roster, but don't quote me on that.

[Rail]

Watch closely what happens with the Ninth Circuit over the mag ban (injunctions/stays, etc) if SCOTUS grants cert on this case. Taking two 2A cases within months of each other means they will take more, and will be a warning sign to the anti circuits.

I'm convinced the reason the DC Circuit declined an en banc rehearing of Wrenn in 2017 was that they knew Kennedy would be retiring the following year.