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

[randomBytes]

I'm sure the 9th could find that the roster passes strict scrutiny.
"We squinted real hard - looks good to us"

[3B830]

Do they have any constraints that their ruling has to relate to that case in some way? If so I don't see how the roster case has much to do with that case

SCOTUS only answers the unique “question” of the present case which then becomes “binding precident” for lower courts to follow. How SCOTUS came to answer that question is called “dicta” and although should be taken as persuasive reasoning is not always followed by lower courts deciding cases with different “questions”.

Yes, the roster seems more related to Heller’s catagorical pistol ban than NY’s carry restrictions.

What the NY case will answer however is “does the 2A apply outside the home” and that will affect all the other 2A cases in the pipeline.

[Uncivil Engineer]

I'm sure the 9th could find that the roster passes strict scrutiny.
"We squinted real hard - looks good to us"

True but it should be an easy appeal. Even it is isn't many other courts will do the right thing which will yield many circuit splits and so again we win on appeal. At some point, the ninth will need to accept we are in a post-Heller, McDonald world. Or they will just be irrelevant as every case they decide wrongly is overturned.


Remember before all the assault weapon bans most all these groups were banning hand guns. Then heller shut that down. Now assault weapons and carry/storage restrictions. So they can be forced into retreat but they don't go quietly or easily.

[AKSOG]

Cant the court create something like a common use test and make the lower courts apply it with strict scrutiny in relevant 2A cases? Since they obviously dont seem to take Heller seriously.

[champu]

Cant the court create something like a common use test and make the lower courts apply it with strict scrutiny in relevant 2A cases? Since they obviously dont seem to take Heller seriously.

SCOTUS, really, can’t make the lower courts do anything; they can just overrule them if they feel it is prudent to do so.

Ultimately “common use” and “strict scrutiny” are subjective and, therefore, in the purview of a court hostile to a right, meaningless.

[BryMan92]

[pacrat]

Or they will just be irrelevant as every case they decide wrongly is overturned.

9th Circus already has an 80% overturn rate at SCOTUS.

[CandG]

9th Circus already has an 80% overturn rate at SCOTUS.

To be fair, all of the circuits have a pretty high overturn rate (and in recent years, the Ninth Circuit ranks 4th-highest).



Of course, this makes logical sense - SCOTUS would be wasting their time if they granted cert to a bunch of cases that they already agreed with the circuit court's opinions on.

It's like saying that 80% of all Toyotas that get towed to a repair shop have a problem that needs to be fixed - while it's a factually correct statement, it's not a very shocking one (why would someone tow a working car to the shop?), and is disingenuous to not also mention that a similar statistic also applies to every other make of car. It's an irrelevant and misleading statistic anyways unless you also include the total number of cars that never needed to be towed to a repair shop.

[Uncivil Engineer]

To be fair, all of the circuits have a pretty high overturn rate (and in recent years, the Ninth Circuit ranks 4th-highest).



Of course, this makes logical sense - SCOTUS would be wasting their time if they granted cert to a bunch of cases that they already agreed with the circuit court's opinions on.

It's like saying that 80% of all Toyotas that get towed to a repair shop have a problem that needs to be fixed - while it's a factually correct statement, it's not a very shocking one (why would someone tow a working car to the shop?), and is disingenuous to not also mention that the same also applies to every other make of car. It's an irrelevant and misleading statistic anyways unless you also include the total number of cars that have never had to be towed to a repair shop.

Agreed the stats should be the percentage of cases SCOTUS reviews. But even that is a bit wonky as they may grant a case from one court and then toss the others back down.

[Offwidth]

Common use is as objective as can be done here. One could postulate that, say, handguns of caliber, capacity, and construction commonly issued to peace officers in a community are presumptively in common use and not unusual and dangerous. Though that would also lead to selective fire rifles being available. Which is a good thing.

[lostinsd82]

honestly the roster essentially says that it's OK for certain groups of people (LEO, DMV employees (lol), selected other carve outs) to have "unsafe" handguns but the rest of us can't acquire them through normal channels - save buying them at inflated prices from the "chosen few" such a thing should never survive a normal legal review, not in this country - we all know this.

Imagine - if you tried to take away these "modern handguns in common use" from the community that has never been limited in acquiring them - the outrage....

[nikonmike5]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/us/politics/fact-check-trump-ninth-circuit.amp.html

[CandG]

I think we’re playing a statistics game. Although that chart showing 2007 to present may be correct, the link below shows that in the last couple of years 9th has been leading the pack....per NYT.

So you have to decide if a broad average is more relevant or the recent trend.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nyt...rcuit.amp.html

The statistics about this are irrelevant, as I discussed in the 2nd half of my post after the chart:

Of course, this makes logical sense - SCOTUS would be wasting their time if they granted cert to a bunch of cases that they already agreed with the circuit court's opinions on.

It's like saying that 80% of all Toyotas that get towed to a repair shop have a problem that needs to be fixed - while it's a factually correct statement, it's not a very shocking one (why would someone tow a working car to the shop?), and is disingenuous to not also mention that a similar statistic also applies to every other make of car. It's an irrelevant and misleading statistic anyways unless you also include the total number of cars that never needed to be towed to a repair shop.

[Offwidth]

Selection effect.

Statistics is relevant in a sense that if cert is granted at all then we are highly likely to win.

[nikonmike5]

The statistics about this are irrelevant, as I discussed in the 2nd half of my post after the chart: