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

[kcbrown]

Read the briefings. It will have to be a significant stretch to uphold the *complete ban* on a *class of firearms* which are suitable for *self defense in the home*.

Except that, this judge could argue, it's not a complete ban as long as there exists at least one handgun on the roster, and therefore "intermediate scrutiny" (which we know from experience is the same as rational basis when applied to firearms) applies.

It would take a great legal mind even to try to avoid all the landmines from Heller alone, not to mention that the state would have to prove all sorts of claims that they made, yet are directly contradicted by their actions (police exemption, HSC booklet *explicitly* says not to use LCI since it's not safe, no commercial availability of microstamping, etc.)

And all of that is a problem for this particular judge because ... ?

[madoka]

Read the briefings. It will have to be a significant stretch to uphold the *complete ban* on a *class of firearms* which are suitable for *self defense in the home*.

It would take a great legal mind even to try to avoid all the landmines from Heller alone, not to mention that the state would have to prove all sorts of claims that they made, yet are directly contradicted by their actions (police exemption, HSC booklet *explicitly* says not to use LCI since it's not safe, no commercial availability of microstamping, etc.)

[riderr]

Logic sometimes has nothing to do with it.

Have you not learned from the recent Maryland case where a judge upheld the ban again AKs and ARs saying that they “fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual arms.”

The most popular rifles in the country and she considered them "unusual."

I am curious how would she define the term "usual" in plain English.

[wireless]

The Silvester case was a liberal judge.

[sholling]

Logic sometimes has nothing to do with it.

Have you not learned from the recent Maryland case where a judge upheld the ban again AKs and ARs saying that they “fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual arms.”

The most popular rifles in the country and she considered them "unusual."

I doubt that she cared one way or the other if they were particularly dangerous or at all unusual. I suspect that it had far more to do with her not trusting the peasantry with any arms whatsoever and her finding AKs and ARs particularly icky. Perhaps we should refer to a real world fourth standard of review for enumerated constitutional rights - ickiness. If a judge (at any level) finds that AKs and ARs are too icky then they seem to rule that they fall outside any protections within our right to keep and bear arms, just like the right to bear arms in public somehow seems to fall outside the scope of the right to keep and bear arms if the judge believes that public carry by peasants to be too icky to protect. Being honest and up front with what is really happening on the bench is a first step in rubbing their judicial noses in their own egotism and fascism.

[IVC]

Have you not learned from the recent Maryland case where a judge upheld the ban again AKs and ARs saying that they “fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual arms.”

The most popular rifles in the country and she considered them "unusual."

It comes down to the metric the judge used (accepted argument from the defendant) - it was the *proportion* of all firearms, not the current market share. It ended up being a few percent.

Not a good example for Pena. The proportion of handguns in existence that are NOT on the roster is exactly the opposite. The number of semi automatic pistols that qualify for roster is exactly zero. The alleged "safety features" cannot make a gun safe or unsafe based just on when it was rostered.

To lose Pena the decision will have to be mind bogglingly stupid. Not that it won't happen, but there is just so much a district court judge can do and still hope not to be ridiculed by the professional community.

[IVC]

Except that, this judge could argue, it's not a complete ban as long as there exists at least one handgun on the roster,...

There is not a single semi automatic handgun that qualifies for roster (there are grandfathered guns ON the roster, but they don't qualify FOR the roster.)

That's a problem because grandfathered guns do NOT satisfy "safety requirements." Either "safety" matters and all guns are (should be) banned, or the argument that roster is about "safety" is false.

[Tiberius]

I agree. The roster will be a victim of its own success. It was intended to be a gun ban in disguise, and is now an actual and blatant gun ban, and therefore unconstitutional.

[IVC]

And all of that is a problem for this particular judge because ... ?

The ruling has to be at least coherent to have any chance of surviving appeal. I don't know a single judge who wants to be called "stupid."

[advocatusdiaboli]

There is not a single semi automatic handgun that qualifies for roster (there are grandfathered guns ON the roster, but they don't qualify FOR the roster.)

That's a problem because grandfathered guns do NOT satisfy "safety requirements." Either "safety" matters and all guns are (should be) banned, or the argument that roster is about "safety" is false.

You are applying logic as if that is a rule and must hold in judicial decisions. There is ample precedent to show that is not always true.

She can rule that the Roster's requirement for safe testing and safety requirements, while unique among the states, is a thoughtful and legitimate attempt to make pistols safe for Californians regardless of what other states do. And therefore uphold the Roster. Who will stop her? No one. She is Queen in her court.

That is the biggest flaw in the judicial system: judges have absolute power in their court to do as they please. And upper courts rarely over-turn their decision for fear that too many over-turns will degrade confidence in the system.

So we wait and we'll see. But logic may or may not have anything to do with the outcome.

[kcbrown]

The Silvester case was a liberal judge.

Yes.

Some Democrat-appointed judges have treated the right as a right. Some Republican-appointed judges have treated the right as a privilege.

We cannot know how this specific judge will treat the right until a decision is issued. The appointing party is merely an indicator of what is probable, not what is certain.

Regardless, the plain fact of the matter is that no matter what the current jurisprudence is, judges can, have, and will issue decisions that treat the right as a privilege. Hence, to argue that this one will not is to argue on the basis of hope rather than logic.

Hope is good. Hope is necessary. But hope is not informative.

[kcbrown]

There is not a single semi automatic handgun that qualifies for roster (there are grandfathered guns ON the roster, but they don't qualify FOR the roster.)

But that doesn't prevent the judge from using the "logic" that the existence of handguns on the roster means, ipso facto, that there is no infringement going on right now.

If future possible infringement were a standard in use by anti-rights courts, then we wouldn't have had OOIDA v Lindley dropped on the floor by the court due to "lack of standing" as a result of the infringement not being current.

[kcbrown]

The ruling has to be at least coherent to have any chance of surviving appeal.

Says who?

The 9th Circuit is "famous" for having its decisions overturned by SCOTUS. If that is the case, then on what basis do you make this claim?

I don't know a single judge who wants to be called "stupid."

Seeing how the 9th Circuit is populated by a 2/3 majority of Democrat-appointed judges, why would you believe the 9th Circuit would of necessity wind up doing that?

If being called "stupid" were sufficient grounds to materially affect issued decisions, then how do you explain the district court's decision in Peruta, or the more recent "assault weapons ban" decision previously mentioned? Surely both of those decisions incorporate quite a bit of stupidity, no? And yet, there they are.


No, I'm beginning to think you're just an eternal optimist. And that's not a bad thing. We need people like you to balance out people like me.

[RobertMW]

If being called "stupid" were sufficient grounds to materially affect issued decisions, then how do you explain the district court's decision in Peruta, or the more recent "assault weapons ban" decision previously mentioned? Surely both of those decisions incorporate quite a bit of stupidity, no? And yet, there they are.


No, I'm beginning to think you're just an eternal optimist. And that's not a bad thing. We need people like you to balance out people like me.

Unfortunately, I think he sees the progressive judges are wilfully ignoring the constitution, even though they know they are wrong by doing so. Instead, he needs to realize that the progressive judges are wilfully ignoring the constitution because they think they are right to do so.

Pretty sure that most progressive/utopian judges would straight up burn the constitution if given the opportunity. They didn't become judges to uphold anything, they did it so that they can fulfil their dreams of shaping the law to their whim.

[Southwest Chuck]

No, I'm beginning to think you're just an eternal optimist. And that's not a bad thing. We need people like you to balance out people like me.

No, we need a lot of people like him to balance out people like you, lol . On a serious note though, you keep us all on our toes KC, and do a good job of keeping us grounded, even if it's sometimes, 6ft under ...

Also, the farther the judge stretches the bounds of law, precedent, common sense, and logic, the better off we will be on appeal if the decision doesn't go our way. Remember, they're downfall has again and again been predicated on the anti's over-reach and going for broke in their pursuit of depriving us of our Rights.