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

[Dhena81]

I'd love to see the floodgates open up and have the freedom to purchase a handgun that can be purchased in the other 49 states.

My hopes are up.

[oc16]

i've been noticing theirs alot of coverage lately on the news but again just because its getting attention it dosen't mean the judge is going to move any fast

[CalAlumnus]

the roster is an entire scam the reasoning behind it is a handgun ban, they cant pass a law banning handguns California woulds trike out in court. but they can pass other laws that make a gun ban based on the features not the gun itself. if she decides micro stamping is out theirs no point to her verdict or the lawsuit because the defendants still cant purchase their firearms because its not on the roster. if she decides the defendants get their firearms and loop around the law and allows the roster to stay the rest of the state still faces the burden of the roster. legislator's can add all the crap they want on their roster but this case would knock it out from the base not just a paragraph.

My unlearned guess: feature requirements go, safety testing requirements stay. And, while not optimal, this would be a very real improvement for us.

[M. D. Van Norman]

[kcbrown]

Reality is setting in. See my signature.



(Sent with Tapatalk, so apologies for the lackluster formatting)

[North86]

My unlearned guess: feature requirements go, safety testing requirements stay. And, while not optimal, this would be a very real improvement for us.

Based on the lack of a severability clause in the law (as discussed above) I have a feeling its an all or nothing deal for us.

I have a feeling that the judge is tying herself into knots, trying to figure out a way to preserve this law in the face of the simple fact that the hand gun that DC was forced to allow from Heller is banned in CA. IANAL, I don't think that those two things can be reconciled without striking the law. We are not talking theory or practical applications of the roster, we are talking about the very specific, same model hand gun that Heller specifically said was allowed, and that DC had to allow. Any ruling that results that doesn't allow that hand gun will fly directly in the face Heller. Then it will be up to SCOTUS to defend their ruling, but that's another matter.

[kcbrown]

Based on the lack of a severability clause in the law (as discussed above) I have a feeling its an all or nothing deal for us.

Nope. Lack of a severability clause does not save us, thanks to how California state law is interpreted in that respect (the federal judiciary defers to the state judiciary on such matters, if I'm not mistaken).

California state law is interpreted as if it has a severability clause unless the legislative intent of the entire statute is called into question in the absence of the struck portion. One would have to be daft to suggest that such is the case here if the microstamping requirement alone is struck (well, yes, the actual legislative intent is to ban handguns, but the courts will never be convinced of that. They will presume the actual intent is "public safety").

This interpretation of California law has been in effect since the early 20th century. The case law on this subject is that old.

I could even quote directly from the decision that outlines the above. I found it easily, but I'd rather the enemy have to work at least a little at this. I'm sure the district judge is familiar with the case I speak of, which is why I have no doubt at least parts of the roster will remain intact.

[JoshuaS]

You DON'T need a "severability" clause in the penal code. It doesn't work that way. The different elements of the Roster were passed by different bills.

Any section could be struck without removing another section, unless they were dependent on each other. The original portions of the penal code concerning the roster do NOT depend on the later provisions and so are "severable".

[dave_cg]

So, you could read the law - http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...r=4.&article=5. - and see if the average legislator is as smart as a 1L.

(Hint: no)

Hmm... well, I admit that it's much easier to get me to read twisted C code than law. But from other posts in this thread it seems that severability is baked into the standards for interpretation, so it seems that average legislators are not required to be smart.

But you knew that.

[North86]

You DON'T need a "severability" clause in the penal code. It doesn't work that way. The different elements of the Roster were passed by different bills.

Any section could be struck without removing another section, unless they were dependent on each other. The original portions of the penal code concerning the roster do NOT depend on the later provisions and so are "severable".

Understood. Thanks for the clarification.

I am still optimistic, but maybe less so.

[Librarian]

Somewhat amusingly, severability (AKA 'saving clause') is a hot topic in Municipal Codes; for example, San Francisco's Code returns over a hundred hits on "severability", 10 for "saving clause".

Article 35 of the Police Code - "FIREARM STRICT LIABILITY ACT"

SEC. 3503. SAVING CLAUSE; INVALIDITY OF PART OF ARTICLE NOT TO AFFECT REMAINDER.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Article is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Article. The Board of Supervisors hereby declares that it would have passed this Article and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.
(Added by Ord. 288-00, File No. 001490, App. 12/22/2000. Former Section 3503 was added by Ord. 311-82, App. 6/28/82; repealed by Ord. 288-00)

[oc16]

so where do we stand in all of this, the judge wants to preserve the roster but fails to allow the same model gun in heller on California soil that should be the turning point. Even if micro stamping were to be removed we would get another idiot law to cover the old one. Well it seems all of the cards are on the table if it fails in court it might take a few years but i do have high hopes for the supreme court to do an entire sweep of California gun control. Unless we all magically become peace officers i doubt anything will be restored or until ***** harris takes boxers spot and realizes how hard it is to pass gun control in congress.

[M. D. Van Norman]

But the state legislature has no problem passing new gun-control laws. Heller and McDonaldnot on our side.

[IVC]

Heller and McDonald

Those laws precede Heller and McDonald so it's not as clear cut that we should get a PI.

However, we DID get a PI, e.g., in AB-962 (which is still being litigated, so we're not out of the woods) based on "vagueness," so all is NOT doom and gloom.

[M. D. Van Norman]

I was referring only to the slew of gun-control laws passed since McDonald.