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

[M. D. Van Norman]

what year did you stop being excited about the thought of this case winning and living without a roster?

When the case remained held pending Nordyke long after McDonald

[sholling]

When the case remained held pending Nordyke long after McDonald was decided, I realized that the opposition would simply delay as long as possible. Now, I also know that the U.S. Supreme Court will decline to review the matter when we ultimately lose on appeal.

But I took the state’s hint and exercised my own workaround.

Nice M&P! Unfortunately, should we lose this case then you can count on our loony Democrats in Sacramento eventually raising the pot by banning possession of any handguns not on the roster. Not all at once of course, they'll start with banning private sales of off-roster (not officially not-unsafe) handguns under Governor Brown, and then follow up by banning possession of off-roster handguns under Governor Gavin Newsom, followed by eliminating grandfathering of existing rostered semiautomatics (for not meeting modern "safety standards") - also under Governor Newsom. It's for the children.

[inalienable]

That is the biggest flaw in the judicial system: judges have absolute power in their court to do as they please.

How would you change the system exactly? Is there another model out there that you think works better?

And upper courts rarely over-turn their decision...

Citation please.

- inalienable

[kcbrown]

How would you change the system exactly? Is there another model out there that you think works better?

Yes, I think there is, but in this case it's a modification of the existing system: a "minority veto" of any civil decision which upholds a law or regulation.

Which is to say, I'd implement a final check against any civil decision upholding a law or regulation (since the vast majority of laws and regulations are restrictions upon the liberty of the people): a popular vote, comprised of those in the affected area, in which, if 10% or more of the people who participate in the vote decide that the decision should be overturned, would, firstly, result in the law or regulation being struck and, secondly, cause a point to be assessed against the judge(s) that upheld the law or regulation. Any judge who accumulates more than some number of points in a given period of time (say, 3 points in 5 years) would be kicked off the bench and forbidden from ever holding a position on any court.

Why 10%? Because it's large enough to ensure that those who side against the law or regulation aren't likely to mostly be scoundrels, but it's small enough to ensure that any significant minority, whether or not it is a special "protected" minority, would be able to ensure that the government is not discriminating against them through the enactment of laws.


Protection of liberty is supposed to be one of the primary purposes of the government to begin with (see the preamble to the Constitution). A government which continuously passes ever more laws is a government which is slowly extinguishing liberty. The above proposal would ensure that the only laws which remain standing are the ones that the people, even minorities, are overwhelmingly comfortable with.

[Tall Tree]

When the roster dwindles down to just one manufacturer, will that create a conflict with our monopoly laws?

[El Toro]

...A government which continuously passes ever more laws is a government which is slowly extinguishing liberty...

Sig-worthy

[riftol]

got a question for you all. what year did you stop being excited about the thought of this case winning and living without a roster?

I have never been of the opinion that the courts will rule that the requirements of California's Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale are an infringement of the Second Amendment's "right of the people to keep and bear Arms."

[riftol]

Alas, we are in agreement.

[riftol]

Either "safety" matters and all guns are (should be) banned, or the argument that roster is about "safety" is false.

As a mechanical device, a firearm's design may include features that make it intrinsically safer than similar firearms.

The microstamping requirement does not enhance the intrinsic, mechanical safety of firearms; any claim to the contrary is demonstrably false.

However, proponents of microstamping will argue that it enhances public safety because microstamped cartridge cases found by police officers at crime scenes will result in quicker identification and apprehension of criminals.

The claim of enhanced public safety pursuant to the states' police power is one that almost all judges find persuasive.

[kemasa]

How would you change the system exactly? Is there another model out there that you think works better?

A simple change would be to allow citizens to challenge a new law and have it reviewed by a panel of judges and have the law held until it can be determined whether it is Constitutional rather than the law getting passed and implemented for years before it gets tossed out.

[Shotgun Man]

A simple change would be to allow citizens to challenge a new law and have it reviewed by a panel of judges and have the law held until it can be determined whether it is Constitutional rather than the law getting passed and implemented for years before it gets tossed out.

Would that be so simple? Federal courts are not allowed to issue advisory opinions under the federal constitution. I think your proposal would require a constitutional amendment.

[kcbrown]

Sig-worthy

You (or anyone else, for that matter) are certainly welcome to use it if you wish!

[kemasa]

Would that be so simple? Federal courts are not allowed to issue advisory opinions under the federal constitution. I think your proposal would require a constitutional amendment.

It would not be an opinion. It would be that the law could not be enforced if someone contested it until it could be ruled that it was Constitutional.

[Drivedabizness]

I think this is being over thought.

The key to this (and any numb rod the other challenges to horsesh*t CA gun laws) is simpler than we make it.

Any cursory examination of the why? (the roster, when compared to the other 49 "laboratories" of democracy) will show not only NO rational basis, but an absolute animus towards the 2A rights of the people.

It's time that CA was challenged on the (very suspect) theorem that "if we build it they will come" approach that CA has used for 40 years.

When they started, we had the best roads, schools, infrastructure & delivery of government services in the US. 40 years later, we have the worst - so the idea that "letting government solve it in CA" has been thoroughly debunked. (so much for rational basis)

[inalienable]

Yes, I think there is, but in this case it's a modification of the existing system: a "minority veto" of any civil decision which upholds a law or regulation.

A simple change would be to allow citizens to challenge a new law and have it reviewed by a panel of judges and have the law held until it can be determined whether it is Constitutional rather than the law getting passed and implemented for years before it gets tossed out.

Interesting ideas. Certainly food for thought.

- inalienable