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

[CCWFacts]

Like poll taxes, the roster was designed to keep poor minorities from exercising a constitutional right.

Not really. The roster includes the Accu-Tek AT-380 which is an ok stainless steel gun, under $300 out the door. A Hi Point 380 is under $150. And used guns are still available. And long guns are still avaiable, including plenty of inexpensive and used shotgun options under $200. I don't think poor minorities are having any problems affording guns here. I think the roster and restrictions on ammo sales is more about ending gun culture, particularly among whites.

[jj8325]

Let's not jump the gun. First there has to be a decision by the Ninth Circuit, and second, Trump has to be able to replace one of the justices. With Flake blocking hearings on nominees and the democrats out for blood, do not expect a replacement prior to the midterms, and probably not for some time after.

True. But it seems like the 9th has a history of upholding these type of cases, and I'm hopeful that IF a pro 2A replacement for Kennedy gets in before the midterms, then the SCOTUS will be more inclined to hear these type of cases. Perhaps too optimistic, and time will tell, I suppose.

[TruOil]

I wonder how likely the SCOTUS is to hear this now that Kennedy is retiring....

Let's not jump the gun. First there has to be a decision by the Ninth Circuit, and second, Trump has to be able to replace one of the justices. With Flake blocking hearings on nominees and the democrats out for blood, do not expect a replacement prior to the midterms, and probably not for some time after.

[jj8325]

I wonder how likely the SCOTUS is to hear this now that Kennedy is retiring....

[mit31]

Considering SCOTUS has rejected hearing every single gun challenge so far, I doubt that the 9th thinks about them much at all. As a matter of fact, one would argue the opposite; that they would do it SOONER, in case Kennedy retires.

Any chance that they may decide right after the SCOTUS goes on break? Is there a history of that sort of thing out of the 9th? Seems that will maximize the time for SCOTUS to pick it up? I mean after all this time I'm sure they can sit on it forever but if they actually intend to make a ruling it would be right after break right?

[AdamVIP]

Any chance that they may decide right after the SCOTUS goes on break? Is there a history of that sort of thing out of the 9th? Seems that will maximize the time for SCOTUS to pick it up? I mean after all this time I'm sure they can sit on it forever but if they actually intend to make a ruling it would be right after break right?

[mshill]

Any update on the 9th circuit court?

Check back in a year, give or take six months.

[aBrowningfan]

Any update on the 9th circuit court?

See post #2355 above.

[BBot12]

Any update on the 9th circuit court?

[CandG]

When are they going to give a decision?

Two weeks.

[Joejitsu]

Are we still waiting on the 9th? When are they going to give a decision?

[Purple K]

Justice delayed is justice denied.

[Uncivil Engineer]

The common use test would be fine if judges at lower levels weren't tripping over themselves to curb gun rights by assuming the inverse of every SCOTUS statement used to support the second amendment was necessarily true (a logical fallacy.) "Common use" is supposed to be sufficient to overturn a ban, not necessary.

The "longstanding test", which was spun out of the language of Heller, is what is heavily flawed. To treat longevity of a law as either necessary or sufficient to either overturn or uphold a prohibition is absurd. This isn't a driveway that clips the corner of your neighbor's property, these are rights.

Scotus is fond of these common use, prior example tests. Really they are an avoidance of creating a real test. The common use with guns is one. So what about new guns that might be safer, for owners or even possible victims of violence? We can't know because a new gun won't be in common use. Similar to their qualified immunity for police officers. You can hold a police officer responsible only if their is an perfect example of a prior case, so no new cases, to accountability.

It is the ultimate dodge to keep the status quo. While I prefer legislatures to do their job and write good laws that don't require these judicial tests. I would prefer an objective tests. If scotus can't find a good test then make them extremely lacking forcing the legislatures hand. Can't decide what should be legal? Make it all legal and force them to try again.

[champu]

The common use test would be fine if judges at lower levels weren't tripping over themselves to curb gun rights by assuming the inverse of every SCOTUS statement used to support the second amendment was necessarily true (a logical fallacy.) "Common use" is supposed to be sufficient to overturn a ban, not necessary.

The "longstanding test", which was spun out of the language of Heller, is what is heavily flawed. To treat longevity of a law as either necessary or sufficient to either overturn or uphold a prohibition is absurd. This isn't a driveway that clips the corner of your neighbor's property, these are rights.

[GunsInMyEyes]

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.- Thomas Jefferson