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

[CHS]

Someone just needs to go and try to buy the exact gun that Heller won his case with.

"Oh, I can't? Well, Heller says I can."

Uhhh, perhaps you should actually READ the Pena case. The Dick Heller revolver is central to it

[CZ man in LA]

At the time of implementation, i don't think anyone would have dreamed that the roster would have turned into what it is today.

The same can be said about CA's policies against open carry.

The Mulford Act was hastily passed by then the GOP majority in California and signed by then Gov. Reagan because of the fear of Black Panthers (those who aren't of "good moral character" in the eyes of politicians at the time) open carried guns into the State Capitol.

In essence, the modern day gun control movement in CA was started by the GOP in CA at the time because they didn't like the idea of blacks and minorities packing guns.

They didn't imagine that it would lead to what we have today.

[REH]

Tracking projections, though it's certainly possible the rate of loss could increase w DOJ's affidavit enforcement: http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/roster/.

With the downward trend of available handguns, will this help the case against the state?

[radioburning]

Thank god banning the sale of guns "in common use" isn't unconstitutional...

[/SARCASM]

[orangeusa]

I understand the point about the original intent.

BUT, the addition of microstamping, which I believe is physically impossible, basically limits us to no new guns.
We are stuck with existing quantity and grandfathered guns, unless you want to pay $$$ which rules out all but high end guns.
Hell, I wanted to transfer a DA revolver and realized that the cost was more than the gun is worth, not to mention conversion to SA is a bear for this gun.

Sad and amazing.

BTW - The wiki for Pena vs Cid is pretty far out of date.
.

[e90bmw]

I understand the point about the original intent.

BUT, the addition of microstamping, which I believe is physically impossible, basically limits us to no new guns.
We are stuck with existing quantity and grandfathered guns, unless you want to pay $$$ which rules out all but high end guns.
Hell, I wanted to transfer a DA revolver and realized that the cost was more than the gun is worth, not to mention conversion to SA is a bear for this gun.

Sad and amazing.
.

An to add to that....
Get them before they drop off the roster.
Get your SSE before they ban that too.

Did they ever think that the knee jerk reaction to all these laws puts more guns in people's hands?
If they hadn't enacted the micro-stamping and tried to retroactively ban large cap magazines *AND* forced registration of long guns;
I would not have bought two lowers last year and two pistols.

[orangeusa]

I saw.that Gura, etc. filed a motion adding microstamping to the suit, has that been ruled on? I have trouble understanding legaleze...

.

[CaliforniaLiberal]

I saw.that Gura, etc. filed a motion adding microstamping to the suit, has that been ruled on? I have trouble understanding legaleze...

.

This is just new, pertinent information provided to the court that weighs in on our side of the argument, hopefully improving our case. Once it is accepted by the court it does not get a separate ruling, it's just added to the stack of arguments and information that the court considers.

[chris]

The same can be said about CA's policies against open carry.

The Mulford Act was hastily passed by then the GOP majority in California and signed by then Gov. Reagan because of the fear of Black Panthers (those who aren't of "good moral character" in the eyes of politicians at the time) open carried guns into the State Capitol.

and we can thank those idiots for setting the bar for good moral character so high many can't get a CCW in some counties. thankfully that will change.

In essence, the modern day gun control movement in CA was started by the GOP in CA at the time because they didn't like the idea of blacks and minorities packing guns.

gun control is historically rooted in racism as it was then as it is today. and the media willingly does not report it at all.

They didn't imagine that it would lead to what we have today.

and carried on by the DemoKratic party in ways that no one ever imagined.

[JoshuaS]

The same can be said about CA's policies against open carry.

The Mulford Act was hastily passed by then the GOP majority in California and signed by then Gov. Reagan because of the fear of Black Panthers (those who aren't of "good moral character" in the eyes of politicians at the time) open carried guns into the State Capitol.

In essence, the modern day gun control movement in CA was started by the GOP in CA at the time because they didn't like the idea of blacks and minorities packing guns.

They didn't imagine that it would lead to what we have today.

Nonsense. The gun control movement in California started with AB80 ( 1854) under Gov. Bigler, a Democrat!

Oddly repealed during the tenure of the only governor neither a Democrat nor a Republican!

Ok, Mulford act....proposed before the Panthers were on the capitol. The Panthers were there specifically to protest it. Anyways, passed a Democratically controlled Assembly...higher percent of Dems voted for it. Not a GOP majority, but a Dem majority.


But none of that is relevant. Because the parties are not at all the same as back then. We cannot care what Democrats used to stand for, but what they do stand for. And same with the GOP. By and large, even under Deukmejian, the GOP has opposed gun control (Deukmejian might have signed Roberti Roos, but in the legislature Republicans opposed it)

I have my disagreements with the modern GOP, not least of which would be immigration policy. But besides the inaccuracies and this criticism, I do agree that "racism" had a role. AB80 was part of a goal of exterminating all Indians. AB263 particularly targeted immigrants, legal ones, and the good moral clause was to be used against certain groups of course, wink wink. And AB1591 was in part out of fear of blacks.


But I don't think racism is the motivator today, at least not on a conscious level.

[Maestro Pistolero]

But I don't think racism is the motivator today, at least not on a conscious levell.

I'll grant that it is unconscious to a a varying degree. But it is absolutely about not trusting those who are responsible for the bulk of violent crime, for WHATEVER socio-economic reasons, to excersize the right to self defense.

I've said it before and I'm saying it now, the liberal power structure will NEVER willingly trust the average, impoverished African American with the right to autonomous self-defense. Today, in the United states, wittingly or unwittingly, gun control is still racism embodied. The fact that white folks are the also victims of these policies is but a tolerated consequence.

[IVC]

I've said it before and I'm saying it now, the liberal power structure will NEVER willingly trust the average, impoverished African American with the right to autonomous self-defense.

Interesting way to put it. I would put more weight on "average" and "impoverished" than the race, but the concept remains: there are those that cannot be trusted to make their own decisions.

We even see it with the way First Lady is pushing for better eating habits - a very commendable cause, but the implementation assumes that people need to be told and forced to act.

The final irony is that the liberal power structure (like the phrase) is doing everything to deflect this mistrust and accuse the conservatives of doing it.

[RP1911]

If I can remember that far back, if it wasn't for Quackenbush (R), Roberti-Roos could have died in public safety committee.

[JoshuaS]

If I can remember that far back, if it wasn't for Quackenbush (R), Roberti-Roos could have died in public safety committee.

Well it only narrowly passed. Quackenbush (GOP) and Arles (Dem), both NRA A-Rated members initially opposed it and flipped.

He was THE GOP traitor. He and Filante were the only GOP to vote yes. The rest opposed, despite the governor's support.



In anycase, even that recently is misleading. The GOP is far more pro-gun now.

Remember, one legislator, Davis, GOP, from Valencia, spoke out strongly against it...he was the former police chief of Los Angeles. Times have changed dramatically. Until the late 1990's there was still a strong conservative presence in Los Angeles County...

Yes, there are exceptions. And don't vote merely based on the letter after the name. But by and large, one party opposes gun control, the other supports it.

[RP1911]

Well it only narrowly passed. Quackenbush (GOP) and Arles (Dem), both NRA A-Rated members initially opposed it and flipped.

He was THE GOP traitor. He and Filante were the only GOP to vote yes. The rest opposed, despite the governor's support.



In anycase, even that recently is misleading. The GOP is far more pro-gun now.

Remember, one legislator, Davis, GOP, from Valencia, spoke out strongly against it...he was the former police chief of Los Angeles. Times have changed dramatically. Until the late 1990's there was still a strong conservative presence in Los Angeles County...

Yes, there are exceptions. And don't vote merely based on the letter after the name. But by and large, one party opposes gun control, the other supports it.

Yup. And Condit (D) voted against it in public safety committee. It passed 5-3. Could have been 4-4 or 3-5.