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

[FreedomWriter]

...With each legislative session we see more infringing bills pass into law. They make bills faster than we can get them even heard in a a court and we have just the mail order ammo bill overturned to date and a few vetoes by Brown. And Brown has been more friendly to our cause than his successor will be. Pretty dismal record in regaining our right.

Does anyone know how this is possible? If these laws are genuine infringements in Constitutional Rights, then how could it be possible that any state in the union gets away with it so frequently?

Either the Constitution exists or it does not exist. "...shall not be infringed." I do not understand why that has to be complicated or why it takes a supreme court ruling just so that everyone can agree that "...shall not be infringed" means "...shall not be infringed."

My point? My point is that this matter should have been challenged and taken all the way to the supreme court eons ago. That's my point. The cat is out of the bag now. The State probably feels that it can continue to get away with murdering the Constitution in broad daylight, because nobody does anything about it when they do.

The moment you allowed one cockroach in the door, that is the moment you've lost your entire kitchen. Now, they are trying to take over the entire house. This whole roster nonsense should have been heavily challenged the moment rumor hit the streets that it was coming. There should have been a well organized effort to challenge the constitutional basis for the roster, not getting involved with having to argue legal nonsequitur after the fact (strict scrutiny, etc., etc., etc.)

They are running the show - which is bassackwards. We should be running the show. We are The People. The government is there for our benefit. When it crosses the constitutional line, The People (no matter how small the group might be) need to lay the hammer and force a constitutional showdown right at the outset.

But, no. The community here in California, has sat down and let this happen. I'm new to the community - I just got here. But, I can now see that this ENTIRE THING was mismanaged from the very outset. No proper organizational effort and no strategic intent in dealing with the State.

I fix things. I get paid to come into situations and solve problems that others cannot solve in corporate environments. Structural problems. Problems that are large in scale and scope. After being in the community for a short period of time and studying this problem for an ever shorter period of time, I can see massive mishandling of the matter.

No strategic intent. That is much different than spreading buckshot tactical solutions around while hoping for the best long-term. This was a structural problem from the moment it started. I am just sorry that I was not involved back then. This is really sad. It did not have to be this way. That roster could have been long gone by now. In fact, if done the right way, it need never have come into existence in the first place.

The "roster" was never meant to be merely a roster. It was meant to be a Wild Trojan Horse and nothing less. The State understood "strategic intent" and they implemented a plan for exactly that. When you are dealing with that level of opposition, you had better have a strategic intent model of your own.

It is clear to me now, that nobody in the community was even thinking about a proper solution set.

There is but one last method for dealing with this problem, but it would take massive participation on the part of everyone in the community. But, I just don't see the will in the community sufficient to make it work.

I can see exactly where this is going, so I'll make the prediction right here:

1) The roster will remain extant.
2) Microstamping will remain extant.
3) OEMs will eventually give up handguns in California entirely.
4) California will become the first State to see a Total Gun Ban (excepting Relics & Collectables with strict physical parameters)

Why? Because the community SCREWED itself by not properly framing the entirety of the State's plan as being unconstitutional and illegal from the very start.

It is this statement right here, taken straight from the CADOJ website that was never strategically challenged by the community:

Effective January 1, 2001, no handgun may be manufactured within California, imported into California for sale, lent, given, kept for sale, or offered/exposed for sale unless that handgun model has passed firing, safety, and drop tests and is certified for sale in California by the Department of Justice. Private party transfers, curio/relic handguns, certain single-action revolvers, and pawn/consignment returns are exempt from this requirement.

The case should have therefore been:

That bars the people of California from their right to "...keep and bear arms..." of there choosing and therefore, puts the State of California in the position of being able to place restrictions on the people's access to the rights contained within the United States Constitution.

The notion that the State has the right to restrict the constitutional rights of the individual, as long as the State has a compelling reason for doing so, is absurd on its face and should have been challenged a long time ago strategically as well. Having said that, the notion that that State has the right to restrict the constitutional rights of the individual, should not be construed to also mean the The People in the aggregate. In other words, where the State might have an "excuse" (for lack of a better term) to abridge the right(s) of an individual, it has no right to abridge access to The People, as such an act itself would be tyranny, if the rights being denied are indeed Constitutionally derived. The State would therefore be charged with abuse of power.

Where was this above case ever filed? If it has been filed, please let me know.

[FreedomWriter]

The only thing you've missed is that the judiciary is just as corrupt and evil as any political entity is. That we sit here today with so little liberty left when compared with people of even 100 years ago is proof of that. The judiciary was supposed to be a check against the other two branches of government. It has turned into a rubber stamping machine. Our win/loss record is proof of that.

It makes you wonder who is really running things. We The People, represent a far larger contingent than those we elect and those who are appointed by those we elect. Yet, this minority wields tremendous power and control over We The People. It has to make anyone scratch their head in total bewilderment as to how such a phenomena could persist, in light of the facts (though not often times well known facts).

So, who is running things? Some say:

- Committee of 300
- Vatican City
- Club of Rome
- Black Nobility
- etc.

We need to ask the question: Why do Judges wear black robes? We need to know the differences between Natural Law and the various Cannon Law contexts and why it matters in issues involving Individual Rights. We need to be asking ourselves precisely who is the "individual" anyway and what does "individual" really means under natural -vs- cannon law.

Our country is unique and that's the real beauty of it. We are unique because we not only have a Constitution, which spells out the rights of the people and the restrictions placed on government - but, we also have the Bill of Rights. It was like the founders said: Hey, look. We are making it clear what the rights of the people are in the Constitution, but we are going to make things crystal clear by way of the Bill of Rights - just in case some politician or bureaucrat gets some silly idea in their head that they are somehow more elevated than you, The People.

I don't want to get started on this - this whole damn system pisses me off. Why? Because, the majority of "The People" don't spend enough time educating themselves about what's really going on in the world around them and it pulls the rest of us down in the process, because We The People means everybody and not just the few of us keeping an "eye" (oh boy) on the "system."

I'm laughing aloud right now, but rest assured it is not because I am happy. I'm sick of the apathy in our country. I'm so sick of it.

We just had an election in this state and some 18.5% eligible to vote turned up at the polls recently. No wonder we are getting our teeth kicked in by the "system."

I don't know what is going to become of our Republic anymore. I just don't know. We must be right on the cusp of tyranny - right at this very moment - standing right at the brink of something painfully wicked. I am saddened that more people don't see it coming.

Economic Slaves. That is precisely what the elites want. The don't want to kill us, they want to economically enslave us and restrain any degree of individual freedom they can, which might lead to upsetting the apple cart. That's the whole game (system) in a nutshell, if the real truth be told. But, in this game - real truth be damned. It is not a fair system and it will never be fair until The People awaken and take control of it for the benefit of all. I know that sounds revolutionary, but I mean no harm to The People - only the chains that bind them.

Sigh. So, sad. So, very, very sad. Where did it all go wrong? When did it all go wrong? Was it ever right to begin with? Can The People ever awaken enough to change course? When will it be too late? Things are not as they appear to be on the surface. My gut tells me that there is something brewing. Something very evil.

A trillion dollars in tax payer money on wars for oil. The largest economic crisis since 1929/32. Nearing 17 trillion in total debt. A congress completely in gridlock and totally out of fiscal control. A world banking system predicated on predatory practices. A growing wealth gap. The obliteration of the middle class. Outsourcing of America's economic strength over the past 30 years. Melting polar ice caps. Rising sea levels. Increasingly intense winters and summers. Increasing earthquake activity. Dogs and Cats sleeping together. The whole darn thing is getting really weird, if it has not passed that threshold already.

But, hey - economic slaves are not supposed to know, care or complain about any of this stuff. Just make that next SUV payment and move on down the road to next Tuesday - where we saddle up and do it all again. Either we all wake up and solve our problems, or we are going to continue getting screwed on so many levels, that there won't be enough holes in our collective body for them to stick their collective penis in us. We are getting raped in broad daylight.

Sorry, to be so blunt - but We The People are fast asleep while the damn house is on fire. A nightmare scenario playing out right before our very own eyes.

[thedrickel]

You're preaching to the choir, buddy. What does any of that have to do with this case?

This forum has gotten way too full of people's preachy bs lately.

[mag360]

So if less than half of the registered republicans voted we could have replaced every single dem up for election this time and had it be reep vs reep come the general election. That is a shame to throw power away.

[riftol]

I'm shocked. When did the State's rights supersede or surpass the rights of the People, as outlined in the United States Constitution? Second, upon what authority does the State own the power to take away and/or abridge the clearly delineated Constitutional Rights of the People?



Really? How does State requirement override the United States Constitution? Do states get to make up their own Constitutional Amendments? I thought the Constitutional Amendment process was clearly outlined under Article V.



The whole damn thing is now a total red herring nonsequitur. We are now fighting a mythical battle that really does not exist. Why is the focus on methods and procedures and made-up fictional requirements such as (oh, I love this one) Substantial Burden. How did we get here? Does anyone know?

"How did we get here?"

Under federalism: "It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."

California authorities will argue that consistent with the constitutional principle of federalism, California is legitimately exercising its police power in the interest of public safety; officials will also argue that California is leading in the furtherance of public safety by requiring that after a certain date, imported firearms have a microstamp, a requirement that is a reasonable regulation that does not infringe the Second Amendment.

In short: It can be credibly argued that in the interest of public safety, California is a laboratory that is constitutionally experimenting with nascent, microstamping technology.

New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann (1932)

Justice Brandeis' dissent:






Our function is only to determine the reasonableness of the Legislature's belief in the existence of evils and in the effectiveness of the remedy provided.


Under these circumstances, to hold the act void as being unreasonable would, in my opinion, involve the exercise, not of the function of judicial review, but the function of a super-Legislature. If the act is to be stricken down, it must be on the ground that the Federal Constitution guarantees to the individual the absolute right to enter the ice business, however detrimental the exercise of that right may be to the public welfare.



Whatever the nature of the business, whatever the scope or character of the regulation applied, the source of the power invoked is the same. And likewise the constitutional limitation upon that power. The source is the police power. The limitation is that set by the due process clause, which, as construed, requires that the regulation shall be not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious; and that the means of regulation selected shall have a real or substantial relation to the object sought to be obtained.

In my opinion, the true principle is that the state's power extends to every regulation of any business reasonably required and appropriate for the public protection.

I find in the due process clause no other limitation upon the character or the scope of regulation permissible.


It is settled that the police power commonly invoked in aid of health, safety, and morals extends equally to the promotion of the public welfare.


Yet the advances in the exact sciences and the achievements in invention remind us that the seemingly impossible sometimes happens. There are many men now living who were in the habit of using the age-old expression: 'It is as impossible as flying.' The discoveries in physical science, the triumphs in invention, attest the value of the process of trial and error. In large measure, these advances have been due to experimentation. In those fields experimentation has, for two centuries, been not only free but encouraged. Some people assert that our present plight is due, in part, to the limitations set by courts upon experimentation in the fields of social and economic science; and to the discouragement to which proposals for betterment there have been subjected otherwise. There must be power in the states and the nation to remould, through experimentation, our economic practices and institutions to meet changing social and economic needs. I cannot believe that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, or the states which ratified it, intended to deprive us of the power to correct the evils of technological unemployment and excess productive capacity which have attended progress in the useful arts.


To stay experimentation in things social and economic is a grave responsibility.

Denial of the right to experiment may be fraught with serious consequences to the nation.

It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.

This Court has the power to prevent an experiment.

We may strike down the statute which embodies it on the ground that, in our opinion, the measure is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.

We have power to do this, because the due process clause has been held by the Court applicable to matters of substantive law as well as to matters of procedure.

But, in the exercise of this high power, we must be ever on our guard, lest we erect our prejudices into legal principles.

If we would guide by the light of reason, we must let our minds be bold.

[Drivedabizness]

Remember that, originally, the Constitution merely constrained the Feds from stepping into areas occupied by the States. For example, a number of States already had "State" religions and even fined people who did not adhere to that faith. It wasn't until after the Civil War (and power of arms) that the amended Constitution authorized Federal power to uphold peoples civil rights against the States.

Given the refusal of SCOTUS to clean up the mess they made with the sloppy language in Heller, in practical terms, the only way I see CA and the other recalcitrant States changing their ways is for a pro 2A (and pro liberty) President to appoint an AG with similar values. I'd like to see the full resources of the US DOJ deployed against corrupt politicians who don't even pay lip service to the Constitution. It would be satisfying to see CA put under the kind of consent decree that already runs our prisons so that no action that might infringe our rights could be entertained by the Legislature.

Probably just a dream...

[M. D. Van Norman]

What am I missing?

Other than at least 224 years of legalistic history? Nothing.

Welcome to Calguns.

[M. D. Van Norman]

Remember that, originally, the Constitution merely constrained the Feds from stepping into areas occupied by the States.

[chris]

I'm shocked. When did the State's rights supersede or surpass the rights of the People, as outlined in the United States Constitution? Second, upon what authority does the State own the power to take away and/or abridge the clearly delineated Constitutional Rights of the People?


It would seem to me that someone allowed the State to take an inch and they ultimately took a mile, which then brought in the need to argue in court such extraneous conditions that really don't matter in light of what the Second Amendment says. It seems to me that the focus has been lost and the State has been allowed to re-write the rules and by doing so, violate (at will) the United States Constitution.

these parts here have troubled me for the last 25 years. when was the state allowed to supersede the supreme law of the land? it never ceases to amaze me at the arrogance of the legislators here at their blatant violation of our Constitution.

pardon me for carving up your post but these parts here interested me.

[monk]

About to be 6/9. Where the heck is that decision?

[mossy]

About to be 6/9. Where the heck is that decision?

it will happen when it happens. i stopped counting the days.

[chris]

About to be 6/9. Where the heck is that decision?

it will happen when it happens. i stopped counting the days.

don't worry about the days. we will hear about the decision which ever way it goes. hopefully it goes our way but we have to wait.

I look forward to hearing it.

[IVC]

hopefully it goes our way but we have to wait.

Keep in mind that this is just a District Court level, so the process will be long even after we get the ruling whichever way it goes.

Given that the microstamping recently kicked in and that the case was updated to reflect it, combined with the rapid drop off of handguns from the roster and inability to add any new ones, there is hope that this one might actually go our way even at this level.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

There was an order last week, the judge wants the parties to brief (1) whether the microstamping law is a defacto ban of unrostered handguns, and if not, what is the burden on 2A and (2) is there a "reasonable fit" between the safety/testing requirements and the legislative purposes of the roster legislation. I'm going from memory here; I think the parties had 20 days to submit the requested briefs. The judge said there was not enough in the current record to decide the MSJ (or was it cross MSJs I don't remember).

[Casual_Shooter]

Thanks FGG. Appreciate your (and other knowledgeable people's) input.