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

[RobertMW]

Let me know when you see what (or, at least, one thing) you did wrong in your analysis:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Whoops, didn't you know, that s was a typo.

It's keep and bear Arm.

[JAWS]

One thing to consider, while any 'loss' is never fun, the reality is, at this stage even if we won, the state would have sought a stay of the order and given prior history gotten it prior to appeal.

A loss here, while it sucks, doesn't really change anything, even if we had won the roster would likely still be in place upon appeal. Onward and upward.

The legal fights aren't about winning individual battles. They are about winning the war. That's the only goal that matters.

True... although one normally would prefer to be the respondent on appeal and therefore have the benefit of some deference to the trial court's ruling, I doubt it matters in this case. If I remember correctly (and I very well might not), an appeal from the grant of an MSJ is reviewed de novo (meaning the 9th will look at everything and decide whether they agree or disagree with the district court). That is a much better standard than if it had gone to bench trial, in which case the decision would be reviewed for an abuse of discretion.

[rman]

Eh...and so continues ours plans to move out of this state.

Well, get ready for the onslaught of "Sick of this state....I'm moving to XXXX" threads.

we are looking into AZ in 2017. cost of living (single-income family of 6), and sick of paying taxes to support BS. guns is definitely the icing on the cake

It sounds like the classic response here is straight forward. Encourage every manufacturer to stop paying roster renewal fees. At that point there can be no debate if the UHA is a ban.

I would definitely be in to write all manufacturers, urging them to stop supporting CA and succumbing to the regulations /restrictions... providing forecasts of proposed revenue increases sans-roster, etc...

any work-from-home police jobs? heh

sign me up! part time?

is 34 too young for RSVP? are they even exempt lol?

Sent from my Nokia 5160 using Snake

[Daisy'sDad]

I literally can not put into words how I feel about this ruling...

I feel sick to my stomach.

[desrt2]

The ruling is nonsense.
Not really a big surprise though.

My layman interpretation... which may have nothing to do with reality... but please correct me:

(II. STANDING. A. INDIVIDUAL STANDING)
[narrative]

I'm reading this as Judge Mueller saying a person has no fear of prosecution for purchasing an off-list handgun. Only those who sell them to an individual.
“fear arrest, prosecution, fine and incarceration”
You have nothing to fear since you can't buy it legally.
We can't go over to Nevada as CA residents and purchase a handgun, only an FFL can import a firearm. So only an FFL or a member of The Cartel can be busted.
They are stating that the plaintiff must be wearing a tinfoil hat. "...alleged
injury is therefore “imaginary or speculative,”
I take those words to be both academically correct in context and humiliating, discrediting and claiming the plaintiff's view is without merit.
But we all know that just because you're crazy doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
The more I read the judgement, the more their narrative contradicts reality.
Another logical fallacy of "because I said so" therefore it is.

[jebuwh]

Can someone explain to me how i (without family out of state) can go out of state, buy a firearm and bring it back legally?

Has this judge given us a loophole. If i can buy a firearm out of state and bring it back can i use this paragraph when i register it here?

I'd like the judge to try this and tell us how it goes.

Maybe we can use that ruling in Texas that allows us to buy firearms out of state, and her ridiculous opinion together and do it.

When they take their oath or whatever they do, do they solemnly swear to trample on our rights at all times, and in every way possible?

[RobertMW]

Oh, I have a proposal as to why this ruling took so long to create.

Since, on an infinite continuum of random noise, every communicated message will be recreated.

So, this judge felt like she had far to high a workload to write this individual ruling, thus, she created a random number machine that typed up rulings, constantly, preferably using a random generation source such as an alpha decay detector, that had some basic language recognition. When a randomly created ruling came up with enough semblance of sentence structure it would be saved for further review.

Finally, after 5.5 years, the random ruling generator spat this out, and she figured, "Hey, that looks judgy." And the rest was history.

[slayer61]

dammit. just dammit.

[Legasat]

I can't believe this will stand up to an appeal....

[randomBytes]

Until there are consequences for judges who come out with such bull****,
this will continue.

[bruss01]

Ok here's a word on the bright side.

Lower level judges just don't have the ability to write great decisions.

I know it's frustrating but a loss here or a win-but-appealed decision will get us up to the next level - while I'm sorry it took nearly 6 years to get to this point, we are here now.

Look at how well the Peruta decision is written. That thing is a landmark (if the ink ever dries, that is...). The Pena decision as written is ludicrously full of holes that can be exploited. Let's give the 9th a whack at it, and if they fumble the ball too, THEN the Supremes can weigh in on what they really meant in Heller.

It's tough being patient. But ANY decision at this stage of the game is PROGRESS. We're no worse off than we were before, and possibly one step closer to getting what we want.

[Pappagiorgio]

I read this decision on the same day I learned my LA apartment rent is increasing 12% this year.

I can't wait to move to a free state, buy a 4000 square foot house for $225k, legally carry concealed, and shoot suppressed in my backyard.

[JAWS]

Oh, I have a proposal as to why this ruling took so long to create.

Since, on an infinite continuum of random noise, every communicated message will be recreated.

So, this judge felt like she had far to high a workload to write this individual ruling, thus, she created a random number machine that typed up rulings, constantly, preferably using a random generation source such as an alpha decay detector, that had some basic language recognition. When a randomly created ruling came up with enough semblance of sentence structure it would be saved for further review.

Finally, after 5.5 years, the random ruling generator spat this out, and she figured, "Hey, that looks judgy." And the rest was history.

I actually laughed out loud.

[radioburning]

Maybe judging just isn't for her...

[Crom]

Calm down folks. Loosing a case sucks... But remember Peruta lost at district court too; and then it won massively on appeal.

I predict the same here. It will take another 2 years but I do feel that this is a good case!

EDIT: Thread caption should be changed to Pena v. Lindley