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

[Federalist50]

So what's happening with this case? Are we basically waiting for SCOTUS to say whether or not they will be hearing it?

On hold pending NYSRPA.

[kuug]

On hold pending NYSRPA.

and then it will be GVR'd

[AKSOG]

On hold pending NYSRPA.

[Librarian]

So what's happening with this case? Are we basically waiting for SCOTUS to say whether or not they will be hearing it?

I continue to be bemused by the reading habits of others.

But perhaps our local habits are not common.

In these lawsuit cases, we try (but do not always succeed) to note current status in the first post of the thread.

I also try to update the thread title with some abbreviated phrase that indicates the last event; here, really, the last thing that is publicly known is the filing of the cert petition. That has neither been granted nor refused, and our reasoned speculation is, as noted, that the certiorari decision is waiting on the NYSRPA case.

Sitting with no movement at all since 2018 does seem as if we'd forgotten something, but SCOTUS has no deadlines at all in law, their own written procedures, or in custom.

We have a corps of court-watchers; should there be any news, it will be posted here within hours of the event.

[kuug]

I continue to be bemused by the reading habits of others.

But perhaps our local habits are not common.

In these lawsuit cases, we try (but do not always succeed) to note current status in the first post of the thread.

I also try to update the thread title with some abbreviated phrase that indicates the last event; here, really, the last thing that is publicly known is the filing of the cert petition. That has neither been granted nor refused, and our reasoned speculation is, as noted, that the certiorari decision is waiting on the NYSRPA case.

Sitting with no movement at all since 2018 does seem as if we'd forgotten something, but SCOTUS has no deadlines at all in law, their own written procedures, or in custom.

We have a corps of court-watchers; should there be any news, it will be posted here within hours of the event.

You should keep this link as a sticky in the national and CA forums to reduce these types of thread bumps

https://airtable.com/shrcrC5FsedZqIi3T/tblMclNyymYiklOOg/viwM47ZZsFWQo69Vf?blocks=hide

[Quickdraw559]

You should keep this link as a sticky in the national and CA forums to reduce these types of thread bumps

https://airtable.com/shrcrC5FsedZqIi...Vf?blocks=hide

[ronlglock]

If you have a C&R FFL and CA DOJ COE, then you are exempt from the 1 in 30 even for modern firearms, so in that case you could buy all that you can afford.

If I remember correctly, the DOJ end-run which implemented 1-in-30 for FFL03/COE on modern firearms was to prevent us from stocking up during the SSE "grace period." Let's hope that doesn't come back from the grave.

The handgun roster is a absolute joke and a problem because of the black market after all look at how many police officers got in trouble for straw purchases and I don’t even know why they are exempt from the law if their job is to enforce it..

Officers are exempt from the law because of their need to carry "unsafe" handguns in the performance of their duties. Their union also is very good at lobbying.

[kemasa]

If I remember correctly, the DOJ end-run which implemented 1-in-30 for FFL03/COE on modern firearms was to prevent us from stocking up during the SSE "grace period." Let's hope that doesn't come back from the grav.

No, it is about making it harder and more expensive to get guns. Consider that they want to limit long guns to one every 30 days.

[EM2]

If I remember correctly, the DOJ end-run which implemented 1-in-30 for FFL03/COE on modern firearms was to prevent us from stocking up during the SSE "grace period." Let's hope that doesn't come back from the grave.



Officers are exempt from the law because of their need to carry "unsafe" handguns in the performance of their duties. Their union also is very good at lobbying.

Nope, there is no NEED to carry an off roster handgun in the performance of their duties.
The state could simply 'roster' whatever handgun(s) was necessary for the performance of their duties.

Nope, this is about setting up a special class of citizen and power over the rest.

[kemasa]

Nope, there is no NEED to carry an off roster handgun in the performance of their duties.
The state could simply 'roster' whatever handgun(s) was necessary for the performance of their duties.

This. If it were about safety, it would be far more important that the firearms that officers carry be tested, as well, it would only apply to duty firearms and not other firearms, such as a .22 pistole.

Nope, this is about setting up a special class of citizen and power over the rest.

I disagree, that is a side affect, but I think that the main goal is to make it much harder and less likely for people to buy firearms. If you reduce the selection, it is less likely that people will buy as many.

The exemption for LEOs was needed so that they were not against it, which worked. Unfortunately, it is often the case that people are only against things which directly affect them, rather than what is right and wrong. Consider taxing items for things which don't relate to that item, such as smoking and children which many people will support because they don't smoke.

[that one guy]

After reading benetiezs 120 page ruling regarding ammo. He says something about interstate commerce. Can that same tactic be used with the handgun roster?

[kuug]

After reading benetiezs 120 page ruling regarding ammo. He says something about interstate commerce. Can that same tactic be used with the handgun roster?

Yes it can

[Elgindy25]

After reading benetiezs 120 page ruling regarding ammo. He says something about interstate commerce. Can that same tactic be used with the handgun roster?

Link? What was said about the roster exactly?

[HowardW56]

Link? What was said about the roster exactly?

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...anting-MPI.pdf Pages 37 - 39

[Sputnik]

Ya, and the courts work at internet speed.

It didn't get denied for a reason. NY may predicate what happens to Pena. How do you not get this?

Nearly so if you are the state AG and you want an emergency stay on an unfavorable preliminary injunction; then you can get the judges up at ten pm on Friday night on just a few hours notice.
No double standard there...