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

[taperxz]

My theory is they are planning on taking a new 2a case now that nyspra went moot.
There question is which one.

I bet we see all then go to conference that haven't already. Then we so only one accepted. The others will be held in limbo. Then assuming we get a good ruling with a new test the others will be sent back. Now if we for some reason Roberts fails us we will see the next case taken and we will repeat.

While it sucks I think it will signal to the other judges that the issue isn't going away. Heller and McDonald are begging ignored and that needs to stop. My guess wee might even see some support maybe in the form of less rabid opposition by the left. As it looks like the courts and time is against them and they might want to craft their retreat instead of leaving it to the next few Trump judges that might be fine with going after the NFA.

[Robotron2k84]

My theory is they are planning on taking a new 2a case now that nyspra went moot.
There question is which one.

I bet we see all then go to conference that haven't already. Then we so only one accepted. The others will be held in limbo. Then assuming we get a good ruling with a new test the others will be sent back. Now if we for some reason Roberts fails us we will see the next case taken and we will repeat.

While it sucks I think it will signal to the other judges that the issue isn't going away. Heller and McDonald are begging ignored and that needs to stop. My guess wee might even see some support maybe in the form of less rabid opposition by the left. As it looks like the courts and time is against them and they might want to craft their retreat instead of leaving it to the next few Trump judges that might be fine with going after the NFA.

That’s a losing hand for the conservatives. SCOTUS rules for seniority says the Chief Justice gets first crack at the opinion as long as s/he votes in the majority. He could side with the liberals each time and grab the case to do with as he pleases.

[Davidwhitewolf]

There's a nice list at SCOTUSblog of the 10 pending cert requests distributed for conference here.

On a personal note, I am bemused to think I may be joining the ranks of those here who can namedrop personal connections to Supreme Court plaintiffs. I once bought a very nice revolver from Mr. Pena, and I had the honor of competing against Mr. Mance in a quickdraw contest at one of the Gunblogger Rendezvous in Reno a few years back. Exciting times!

[press1280]

In theory, they could consolidate some of them.

I think the 3 NJ cases could be consolidated since it's the exact same law. But no matter which case they choose as long as the result changes the standard of review then the rest of the cases get sent back to the circuits with the new standard.

[dark_hatchling]

SCOTUS is reviewing this case to decide if they will accept it. This case, and many others, were held by SCOTUS pending the NYSRPA case which was mooted. Now SCOTUS wants another case, and this case is a possible one.

Would there be a possibility of SCOTUS accepting and ruling on the case during this current term?

[jessdigs]

I really hope this case makes it. We've suffered long enough

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[abinsinia]

There's a nice list at SCOTUSblog of the 10 pending cert requests distributed for conference here.

On a personal note, I am bemused to think I may be joining the ranks of those here who can namedrop personal connections to Supreme Court plaintiffs. I once bought a very nice revolver from Mr. Pena, and I had the honor of competing against Mr. Mance in a quickdraw contest at one of the Gunblogger Rendezvous in Reno a few years back. Exciting times!

It's a nice bragging right.

I think we're seeing history in the making. No gun cases for a long time and now we have a deluge ..

[Robotron2k84]

Sad, petty (force removal of grandfathered guns), and predictable. SCOTUS really stepped in it, this time.

[9Cal_OC]

Plus this takes effect in 2022, so maybe mootness may not be possible.

And wtf, dropping 3 grandfathered ones for a new “safe” one? I hate those features and the legislatures treats CA gun owners like children.

[CandG]

Plus this takes effect in 2022, so maybe mootness may not be possible.

And wtf, dropping 3 grandfathered ones for a new “safe” one? I hate those features and the legislatures treats CA gun owners like children.

Changing the wording of the law, without changing the fact that the plaintiffs are suffering from it, cannot moot the case. Mootness can only be achieved by causing the plaintiffs to no longer need relief. This bill does absolutely nothing to offer any relief to the plaintiffs. There would still be zero guns that can be added to the roster.

This bill was not crafted with the goal of mooting Pena. The bill was crafted with the goal of being one step closer to a roster completely devoid of any handguns that are approved for purchase. There are only something like 300 unique pistols on the roster today - this bill has the potential (assuming someone can actually figure out how to make microstamping work) to reduce that number to 100.

[NorthBay Shooter]

I personally hope they take Pena, with the result of doing away with the roster and forever fixing the scrutiny question. As much as I would love one of the carry cases to be resolved with CA getting actual carry, it would not matter if I can't buy the gun I want to carry. That and living in Marin County, my LEO would never issue anyway.

[BaronW]

CA legislature tweaking the law is not the same level of mootness as seen in NYSPRA vs NYC. NYC didn't tweak/repeal the law, a higher authority (New York state) eliminated the ability for NYC to have such a law on the books. The only way to have that happen here is if the US Congress federally outlawed the roster.

Any attempts by CA to evade judicial review by making changes (or even repealing it) should not trigger mootness. If anything, they could be seen as an attempt to undermine the court that must be addressed.

[9Cal_OC]

CA legislature tweaking the law is not the same level of mootness as seen in NYSPRA vs NYC. NYC didn't tweak/repeal the law, a higher authority (New York state) eliminated the ability for NYC to have such a law on the books. The only way to have that happen here is if the US Congress federally outlawed the roster.

Any attempts by CA to evade judicial review by making changes (or even repealing it) should not trigger mootness. If anything, they could be seen as an attempt to undermine the court that must be addressed.

Yet USSC mooted NY case even though we know they were trying to undermine the court.

[ShadowGuy]

CA legislature tweaking the law is not the same level of mootness as seen in NYSPRA vs NYC. NYC didn't tweak/repeal the law, a higher authority (New York state) eliminated the ability for NYC to have such a law on the books. The only way to have that happen here is if the US Congress federally outlawed the roster.

Any attempts by CA to evade judicial review by making changes (or even repealing it) should not trigger mootness. If anything, they could be seen as an attempt to undermine the court that must be addressed.

I will disagree. The NYC repeal and the NYS new law did not give NYSPRA everything it requested. The ability for a person to make unscheduled stops is still not defined in either, and when questioned during orals, the lawyer accepted this, and replied with a non-binding promise not to enforce.

From Alito directly...

... It is certainly true that the new City ordinance and the new
State law give petitioners most of what they sought, but
that is not the test for mootness. Instead, “a case ‘becomes
moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.’” Chafin v.
Chafin, 568 U. S. 165, 172 (2013) (emphasis added). “‘As
long as the parties have a concrete interest, however small,
in the outcome of the litigation, the case is not moot.’” Ibid.
.....

The petitioners wanted unrestricted transport. They gave an example like, a second residence, NY gave them that, but that was just an example not the full request.

In the case of Pena, what is to stop the following hyperbolic scenario:

CA updates the law to "macro-stamping" rather than "microstamping"

2A Laywer: "Your honor, how is it any more possible to put a 50mm stamp on a 9mm shell case?"

Judge: Well, thats a different question than the microstamping question presented, you will have to go back and bring a case on those grounds. CA has removed the requirement for microstamping. See you in 10 years.

More realistically, they could remove all the requirements of the roster, but keep the roster, moot the case, stall on adding new guns to roster, add back a new set of impossible standards.

[BaronW]

I will disagree. The NYC repeal and the NYS new law did not give NYSPRA everything it requested. The ability for a person to make unscheduled stops is still not defined in either, and when questioned during orals, the lawyer accepted this, and replied with a non-binding promise not to enforce.