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

[Andeh]

Ya that's not really what I meant. The roster was designed to eliminate the sub-$150 "budget" pistols, like the Jennings .25's and such. But since they couldn't eliminate cheap (affordable, for poor minorities) pistols directly, they used the "safety" pretense to mask their intentions.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Gotcha, that makes sense and I understand what you meant now. I'm fairly new to both gun ownership and the US, so thanks!

[CandG]

The roster is a POS, but I don't think that this is correct - anyone can purchase a Gen3 Glock for the same price as anywhere else in the USA. There isn't really a price component for anything that is CA-approved.

Unless you're eluding to something else?

Ya that's not really what I meant. The roster was designed to eliminate the sub-$150 "budget" pistols, like the Jennings .25's and such. But since they couldn't eliminate cheap (affordable, for poor minorities) pistols directly, they used the "safety" pretense to mask their intentions.

The gun grabbers don't like anyone having guns, but they ESPECIALLY don't like low income minorities having guns. Same reason they regularly hold gun buybacks in low income areas. They know damn well nobody with means are turning in any guns, they're only hoping low income people who need the cash will get rid of theirs.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Andeh]

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

The roster is a POS, but I don't think that this is correct - anyone can purchase a Gen3 Glock for the same price as anywhere else in the USA. There isn't really a price component for anything that is CA-approved.

Unless you're eluding to something else?

[kemasa]

The law as originally enacted was an effort to ban "Saturday Nite Specials," guns that did blow up, jam, and fire when dropped. There are guns to this day that have failed the drop test (Sig and one other). So I don't know what you mean when you ask how an officer can deal with a firearm that isn't drop safe. Officers are allowed to buy anything, even firearms that are not approved for duty use. You have to ask the Legislature why they exempted them, but as we have seen with other laws (e.g. CCW laws), it is usually political, i.e., to avoid opposition by departments and the police union(s), etc. so that the law will get passed. It doesn't have to make sense when we are talking politics.

As others have said, the guns this scheme intended to ban passed the tests. Please name some guns which blow up and fire when dropped.

Some might have failed due to a defect, but then it is fixed.

Look at what I was replying to, do you really think that it is a good idea for officers to have firearms which have not been tested by CA to be safe? That seems like a lawsuit, but then again it is hard to sue the state. The concept of the police being allowed to have unsafe firearms is absurd.

I know why they exempted them, it was to get the law passed, but it shows that it is not about safety.

[CandG]

One of the purposes of the Handgun Roster law was to attempt to eliminate economically priced handguns from the firearms market, thereby depriving the lowest income Californians of access to self defense arms.

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

[CaliforniaLiberal]

The law as originally enacted was an effort to ban "Saturday Nite Specials," guns that did blow up, jam, and fire when dropped. There are guns to this day that have failed the drop test (Sig and one other). So I don't know what you mean when you ask how an officer can deal with a firearm that isn't drop safe. Officers are allowed to buy anything, even firearms that are not approved for duty use. You have to ask the Legislature why they exempted them, but as we have seen with other laws (e.g. CCW laws), it is usually political, i.e., to avoid opposition by departments and the police union(s), etc. so that the law will get passed. It doesn't have to make sense when we are talking politics.

As I recall, the phrase "Saturday Night Special" was a term of Anti-Gun propaganda and all of the so-called "Saturday Night Specials" passed all the new drop and other safety tests when they were first implemented without issues. SNS was an Anti-Gun myth, like "Assault Weapons" or "Military Style" firearms.

One of the purposes of the Handgun Roster law was to attempt to eliminate economically priced handguns from the firearms market, thereby depriving the lowest income Californians of access to self defense arms.

[TruOil]

Any manufacturer who produced an unsafe firearm would be sued out of existence, so the state doing what they are is pointless, plus as said, what they are doing shows otherwise.

Please explain how a police officer can deal with a firearm that would fail the drop test.

The features required are stupid as well and there have been officers who have had an unloaded firearm fire.

The bottom line it is about trying to ban guns PERIOD. There is NO reason to drop off a firearm if the manufacturer doesn't pay the next year as the firearm has not changed, it is only about money. There is no reason to charge more for each color version.

Don't fall for the false claims.

The law as originally enacted was an effort to ban "Saturday Nite Specials," guns that did blow up, jam, and fire when dropped. There are guns to this day that have failed the drop test (Sig and one other). So I don't know what you mean when you ask how an officer can deal with a firearm that isn't drop safe. Officers are allowed to buy anything, even firearms that are not approved for duty use. You have to ask the Legislature why they exempted them, but as we have seen with other laws (e.g. CCW laws), it is usually political, i.e., to avoid opposition by departments and the police union(s), etc. so that the law will get passed. It doesn't have to make sense when we are talking politics.

[kemasa]

It is not a "safe handguns roster," it is a Roster of guns that are "Not Unsafe." The color, grips and engraving do not matter. By statute. The LEO are exempt from the Roster because, the Legislature believed, officers receive extensive training with the safe handling of firearms, and theoretically know when their guns are loaded. And between you, me and the lamppost, I am perfectly happy that the State has handguns tested to assure that they will not fire if dropped and that they will not blow up with factory ammo (usually). The rest, not so much. My Kahr has no manual safety, no LCI and no mag disconnect. But it is DAO. In my view, the additional safety features subsequently required by the roster are not to make the guns more safe, they are rather a recognition that there are lots of idiots out there who are unsafe in the use of their firearms. In other words, they are not product safety requirements, they are anti-Darwin laws.

Any manufacturer who produced an unsafe firearm would be sued out of existence, so the state doing what they are is pointless, plus as said, what they are doing shows otherwise.

Please explain how a police officer can deal with a firearm that would fail the drop test.

The features required are stupid as well and there have been officers who have had an unloaded firearm fire.

The bottom line it is about trying to ban guns PERIOD. There is NO reason to drop off a firearm if the manufacturer doesn't pay the next year as the firearm has not changed, it is only about money. There is no reason to charge more for each color version.

Don't fall for the false claims.

[EM2]

It is not a "safe handguns roster," it is a Roster of guns that are "Not Unsafe." The color, grips and engraving do not matter. By statute. The LEO are exempt from the Roster because, the Legislature believed, officers receive extensive training with the safe handling of firearms, and theoretically know when their guns are loaded. And between you, me and the lamppost, I am perfectly happy that the State has handguns tested to assure that they will not fire if dropped and that they will not blow up with factory ammo (usually). The rest, not so much. My Kahr has no manual safety, no LCI and no mag disconnect. But it is DAO. In my view, the additional safety features subsequently required by the roster are not to make the guns more safe, they are rather a recognition that there are lots of idiots out there who are unsafe in the use of their firearms. In other words, they are not product safety requirements, they are anti-Darwin laws.

were it that the gov should regulate keyboards and remove all of the ‘F’ keys so as to save us all from obscene forum posts.

The gov should not be in the business of saving us from ourselves.

[taperxz]

It is not a "safe handguns roster," it is a Roster of guns that are "Not Unsafe." The color, grips and engraving do not matter. By statute. The LEO are exempt from the Roster because, the Legislature believed, officers receive extensive training with the safe handling of firearms, and theoretically know when their guns are loaded. And between you, me and the lamppost, I am perfectly happy that the State has handguns tested to assure that they will not fire if dropped and that they will not blow up with factory ammo (usually). The rest, not so much. My Kahr has no manual safety, no LCI and no mag disconnect. But it is DAO. In my view, the additional safety features subsequently required by the roster are not to make the guns more safe, they are rather a recognition that there are lots of idiots out there who are unsafe in the use of their firearms. In other words, they are not product safety requirements, they are anti-Darwin laws.

Yet the FSC test basically tells you NOT to rely on mechanical safety mechanisms when it comes to firearms.

[TruOil]

This.

If it was really about safety, LE would NOT be exempt, not for their duty gun, not for their personal guns.

Also, once tested, the firearm should forever remain on the list, but instead if the annual payment is not made, the law abiding citizens can no longer buy it.

The color, grips or engraving should not matter either, but it does.

It is not a "safe handguns roster," it is a Roster of guns that are "Not Unsafe." The color, grips and engraving do not matter. By statute. The LEO are exempt from the Roster because, the Legislature believed, officers receive extensive training with the safe handling of firearms, and theoretically know when their guns are loaded. And between you, me and the lamppost, I am perfectly happy that the State has handguns tested to assure that they will not fire if dropped and that they will not blow up with factory ammo (usually). The rest, not so much. My Kahr has no manual safety, no LCI and no mag disconnect. But it is DAO. In my view, the additional safety features subsequently required by the roster are not to make the guns more safe, they are rather a recognition that there are lots of idiots out there who are unsafe in the use of their firearms. In other words, they are not product safety requirements, they are anti-Darwin laws.

[TruOil]

The NSSF vs CA Microstamping doesn't argue on the basis of the constitutionality. Do some research for yourself. NSSF argues that a law that requires something that is impossible to do cannot be enforced. NSSF lost the first case because they admitted that it is possible to place two stamps both on the firing pin. If manufacturers would just comply, then they could sell new guns in CA. If they choose not to comply, then they can continue selling older models. Please people, do some research before you go popping off. I hate this too, but they are the facts and there are sure a lot of uneducated people here. Pena vs Cid, now that is based on the constitutionality of the handgun roster. If the court upholds in the NSSF case that it is possible to place two stamps using the firing pin (one above the other), than how is the handgun roster unconstitutional? All manufacturers have to do is comply with the requirements to sell new guns in CA, just like car manufacturers had to comply with the airbag requirements to sell cars (which they fought bitterly and lost). Also, the state can simply argue that old handguns are exempt for new roster requirements so just keep producing and selling old models.

Where did they argue this and what case did they lose? All that occurred in this case is that the Court denied competing motions for summary judgment. Somewhere during trial court litigation, the State filed a motion contending that the decision of the AG was not subject to judicial review. The trial court denied the motion. The State appealed (because it is patently aware that if the certification can be challenged, it will lose on the merits). The Court of Appeal agreed with the NSSF, and affirmed the trial court order. The State again appealed to the California Supreme Court. The issues to be determined are: 1) whether the certification is subject to judicial review; and assuming that it is, 2) What is the standard of review the trial court should court employ in reviewing the certification determination?

Long ago, in the trial court, the State, conceding that the existing technology stamped the case only on the primer, argued that the conditions for certification were satisfied if that technology stamped two separate identifiers on the primer. The trial court concluded that this was not credible, as the statute requires the the casing be stamped in two separate location on the case, not twice on the primer.
I have read claims that a system of stamping complying with the law could be devised, but I have never seen any proof, no patent, no proof of concept. If you disagree, cite a source. If there were in fact such technology that supports the certification, then the State would win, and all of these appeals are completely meaningless and a waste of time and resources. This certainly has NOT been an issue in this case, and it is not an issue in the Supreme Court hearing next month.

[TruOil]

Um, the Bill of Rights is there to protect God given rights. Not sure this is up for debate here.

\

You miss the pint. The BOR does not GRANT rights, it prevents the Government, in various degrees, from interfering with these PRE-EXISTING rights. The distinction is important: if the right pre-exists the constitution, a repeal of the amendment does not repeal the right, just the protections for the right.

[mshill]

Or carrier pigeon.

[champu]

Let's say I want to practice Christianity but I can't because it's not available. The state is allowing me to practice Judaism because it has the same core ideas but just call God by a different name. What you want is not available but here's a close substitute. Deal with it.