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

[Bruce]

I thought there was to be a decision on this by the end of June, or did I miss it?

[IVC]

I thought there was to be a decision on this by the end of June, or did I miss it?

Most likely this summer or fall. There is no deadline.

The case is now fully briefed with the recent addition of microstamping filings (I believe they are all complete) and the ball is in judge's court. She can issue a ruling, or ask for more documentation. We expect the ruling, though.

[command_liner]

I thought there was to be a decision on this by the end of June, or did I miss it?

There will be a ruling before the end of June. We are not sure which June.

[antiseen]

If we get a good ruling does it strike down the roster or does it only strike down microstamping?

[HowardW56]

If we get a good ruling does it strike down the roster or does it only strike down microstamping?

That would be the difference between a good ruling and a great ruling...

[RobertMW]

That would be the difference between a good ruling and a great ruling...

Yeah, and I feel like the only reason so much time is passing is so that the judge can come up with ANY reason to only give us a "good" ruling.

It's obvious that micro-stamping is not implementable soon, maybe not ever without a fundamental change in how a handgun operates. But I'm sure that the judge is going to find reasoning to keep the roster mostly intact.

"They don't want guns to go off when dropped? Sure! That's a valid safety concern. They want a banner to show when a gun is loaded? Sure! That's a valid safety concern. Ok, the micro-stamping thing was premature, lets strike that one."

And thus the roster doesn't change, not really. The judge will use some kind of intermediate scrutiny to let most of it pass. Just prepare for this to drag through a couple more years of appeals.

[IVC]

If we get a good ruling does it strike down the roster or does it only strike down microstamping?

That would be the difference between a good ruling and a great ruling...

Yeah, and I feel like the only reason so much time is passing is so that the judge can come up with ANY reason to only give us a "good" ruling.

One of the plaintiffs is missing an arm and wants to buy an ambidextrous Glock Gen-4 which doesn't have any of magazine disconnect, LCI or microstamping. The court filings address how studying material for HSC explicitly calls for "not trusting any mechanical device" for safety reasons, while the law forces LCI as a safety device.

It would be very far fetched to expect just microstamping to be stricken down since it wouldn't even alleviate plaintiff's legal injury.

[HowardW56]

One of the plaintiffs is missing an arm and wants to buy an ambidextrous Glock Gen-4 which doesn't have any of magazine disconnect, LCI or microstamping. The court filing address how studying material for HSC explicitly calls for "not trusting any mechanical device" for safety reasons, while the law forces LCI as a safety device.

It would be very far fetched to expect just microstamping to be stricken down since it wouldn't even alleviate plaintiff's legal injury.

I had forgotten that aspect of the case. This will be interesting either way, the disability adds another twist the judge needs to deal with...

[M. D. Van Norman]

[mp9mm]

^^^i did the same today.

[skilletboy]

Any thoughts on if AB 1964 will have any effect on this ruling? I was thinking that possibly the judge might rule against if SSE remained in tact, thinking that plaintiff could just buy via SSE. But now that SSE is gone via Jan 1, then maybe it helps demonstrate the roster really is a de facto handgun ban?

[thayne]

Any thoughts on if AB 1964 will have any effect on this ruling? I was thinking that possibly the judge might rule against if SSE remained in tact, thinking that plaintiff could just buy via SSE. But now that SSE is gone via Jan 1, then maybe it helps demonstrate the roster really is a de facto handgun ban?

Thats what im thinking. Same effect that banning open carry had on Peruta

[ronlglock]

I did my quantum-mechanical part today and bought an off-roster pistol with some of those “large-capacity magazines” for good measure.

Picked up my Glock 42, but it only holds 6 rounds

[Tincon]

Any thoughts on if AB 1964 will have any effect on this ruling? I was thinking that possibly the judge might rule against if SSE remained in tact, thinking that plaintiff could just buy via SSE. But now that SSE is gone via Jan 1, then maybe it helps demonstrate the roster really is a de facto handgun ban?

No, SSE was never really a legit path around the roster. Microstamping on the other hand ultimately turns the roster into a near total ban.

[dantodd]

No, SSE was never really a legit path around the roster. Microstamping on the other hand ultimately turns the roster into a near total ban.

Despite that I would expect to see supplemental briefings if Brown signs the bill killing SSE. Remember that the district judge in Peruta claimed that UNLOADED carry was sufficient to fulfill the 2A right to arms in the case of confrontation. I can certainly see a judge making a similarly bad ruling here.