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

[JAWS]

I have a dream:

That someday I'll see the Pena v. Cid thread at the top because there's been a decision handed down and not because two quasi-legal types are playing one upsmanship over what the court may or may not do.

FYI, you can check the docket at: http://ia801400.us.archive.org/30/it...44.docket.html

Scroll down to the bottom to see the most recent activity. Not sure how quickly it's updated - apparently it's based on a third-party extension that interacts with PACER (the federal e-filing system). So if someone has the extension and accesses PACER, the extension updates it to the link above.

I also recognize the irony that, based on the post I quoted, you may not come back to this thread to see this (hopefully) informative post...

[ronlglock]

Last updated on 10/10 through a filing by Gura:



As part of the ruling, the Court rejected the argument (emphasis is mine):
Some firearms are better suited for particular lawful purposes than others. Defendant has cited no authority that suggests that the Second Amendment only has application to a single firearm.

In other words, Judge Ishii rebuffed the state's argument that the ability to buy any one type of gun satisfies the 2A.

[Bruce]

FYI, you can check the docket at: http://ia801400.us.archive.org/30/it...44.docket.html

Scroll down to the bottom to see the most recent activity. Not sure how quickly it's updated - apparently it's based on a third-party extension that interacts with PACER (the federal e-filing system). So if someone has the extension and accesses PACER, the extension updates it to the link above.

I also recognize the irony that, based on the post I quoted, you may not come back to this thread to see this (hopefully) informative post...

Thank you so much for showing off your lack of reading comprehension.

[JAWS]

Thank you so much for showing off your lack of reading comprehension.

I understand that your "dream" is for a decision to be made in the case, but you also complained about "two quasi-legal types are playing one upsmanship over what the court may or may not do." I pointed you to a resource, if you weren't aware of it already, that would let you check for new developments without having to sort through the posts in this thread. There's no need to meet an attempt at being helpful - even if you weren't specifically asking for any help - with sarcasm.

[umd]

I understand that your "dream" is for a decision to be made in the case, but you also complained about "two quasi-legal types are playing one upsmanship over what the court may or may not do." I pointed you to a resource, if you weren't aware of it already, that would let you check for new developments without having to sort through the posts in this thread. There's no need to meet an attempt at being helpful - even if you weren't specifically asking for any help - with sarcasm.

Dude, his dream is for people to stop posting until something actually happens.

[jnojr]

I have a dream:

That someday I'll see the Pena v. Cid thread at the top because there's been a decision handed down and not because two quasi-legal types are playing one upsmanship over what the court may or may not do.

Amen!

[shark92651]

Could a moderator or the OP please fix the broken docket link on post #1 so we don't have to read through all the off-topic posts to see if anything new has happened?

http://ia801400.us.archive.org/30/items/gov.uscourts.caed.191444/gov.uscourts.caed.191444.docket.html

[Caleb1911]

The docket link is not working. Here is the correct docket link:

http://ia601400.us.archive.org/30/items/gov.uscourts.caed.191444/gov.uscourts.caed.191444.docket.html

[uhlan1]

Geez, I keep coming back to this and the usual nothing.

[jcwatchdog]

I don't understand it either, I wish they would just rule on it and get it over with. It's obvious now this judge is just stupid/bias if they can't see the obvious.

[big103]

Could a moderator or the OP please fix the broken docket link on post #1 so we don't have to read through all the off-topic posts to see if anything new has happened?

http://ia801400.us.archive.org/30/it...44.docket.html

The docket link is not working. Here is the correct docket link:

http://ia601400.us.archive.org/30/it...44.docket.html

Fixed

[California44]

Looks like we won. Why am I waiting?

[antiseen]

Looks like we won. Why am I waiting?

For the judge to come up with a reason to uphold the roster and microstamping.

[ironpegasus]

For the judge to come up with a reason to uphold the roster and microstamping.

And let's assume for a moment that instead the judge is coming up with a brilliantly reasoned and historically rooted decision that withstands all tests of logic like the Peruta decision. It'll still get appealed and then the decision will be stayed, depublished and dumped into the trashbin of history to be replaced by some circular reasoning like the higher courts always do to bypass the rights of the people. And the USSC will accept the higher court's reasoning as good even though the lower one's was what actually comported with their own findings in Heller and McDonald while the higher court's decision is contradictory. We really need to start insisting that the 2nd (and 4th and other) amendments mean what they say by plain reading and have just us much validity as the 1st. And BTW, anyone notice we're losing ground on that too? Pretty soon it really will be "just a piece of paper"

[speedrrracer]

And let's assume for a moment that instead the judge is coming up with a brilliantly reasoned and historically rooted decision that withstands all tests of logic like the Peruta decision. It'll still get appealed and then the decision will be stayed, depublished and dumped into the trashbin of history to be replaced by some circular reasoning like the higher courts always do to bypass the rights of the people. And the USSC will accept the higher court's reasoning as good even though the lower one's was what actually comported with their own findings in Heller and McDonald while the higher court's decision is contradictory. We really need to start insisting that the 2nd (and 4th and other) amendments mean what they say by plain reading and have just us much validity as the 1st. And BTW, anyone notice we're losing ground on that too? Pretty soon it really will be "just a piece of paper"

I get why you're whining, but remember, if what you said were true, we would never have won Heller and McDonald.

So keep repeating to yourself, "I'm wrong because we did win both those cases. There is some other explanation."

What that explanation actually is.....well, that's why these threads are hundreds of pages long