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

[ddestruel]

[wireless]

There is also AWB ban in Maryland and AWB in New York. Hopefully something positive will come there as well.

[ddestruel]

There is also AWB ban in Maryland and AWB in New York. Hopefully something positive will come there as well.

since those Courts have all all chimed in that they need more guidance from SCOTUS regarding even if the right exists outside the home with regard to bear then i would suspect a similar outcome as to woolard, drake and kalchansky (sp) all three ruled in favor of the state/legislatures AWB is a bridge even further than bear.

The audio from friedman is encouraging in the 7th but im not very optimistic in the 2/3/4 CA right now. the 6th,7th and 9th have chimed in more in our favor with more clarity on a couple of recent rulings which sure is encouraging on that front. the 9th i trust only as far as once the ink dries and even then there's no guarantee things wont go all Nordyke

[Rastoff]

I'm not as concerned as you about the slippery slope.

This is probably a good thing. I admit that whenever anyone talks about more control or more laws or more federal intervention, my hackles get raised. Sorry if I came off harsh, but I appreciate your calm, intelligent response.

I may be naive about these things, but I don't think you can argue with the sentiment that California needs a stern rebuke followed by being sent to its room for a timeout on all things related to 2A.

I can't argue with that, but the anti-gun crowd can. In this era we've seen more and more people on the side of the fence opposite our own. Yes, I think and you think the courts in CA are out of control, but there are many out there applauding these rulings.

And yes, the politicians are never far away from these discussions. Remember, the legislature creates the laws, the executive acts on the laws and the judiciary interprets the laws. It's always our hope that the legislature will create laws based on how they believe the judiciary will interpret them.

There is only one new law that I would vote for; a law requiring two old laws to be repealed before any new one is enacted. I want less government, not more.

[Firefox70066]

Could someone explain briefly what this ruling means? Will off rooster handguns currently owned be legal to keep? Thanks

[Crom]

Could someone explain briefly what this ruling means? Will off rooster handguns currently owned be legal to keep? Thanks

lol @ rooster.

Yes. You can keep your off roster guns.

The ruling means that nothing changes for now.

[mshill]

After reading the decision it seems that it was too easy for the judge to dismiss the plaintiffs claims of injury. What I found most disappointing was the judges quote from Heller about "reasonable restrictions" and then the little dance around equal protection.

I had some (little) hope for tis case this case, but since it will be more before we get something out of the 9th CA I'm going to have to take the judge up on the inter familial gift method of acquiring off roster handguns. I have two sons that live in Utah and a daughter in Las Vegas that will be gifting me handguns for my b-day and Christmas until this gets overturned.

[wireless]

This is probably a good thing. I admit that whenever anyone talks about more control or more laws or more federal intervention, my hackles get raised. Sorry if I came off harsh, but I appreciate your calm, intelligent response.

I can't argue with that, but the anti-gun crowd can. In this era we've seen more and more people on the side of the fence opposite our own. Yes, I think and you think the courts in CA are out of control, but there are many out there applauding these rulings.

And yes, the politicians are never far away from these discussions. Remember, the legislature creates the laws, the executive acts on the laws and the judiciary interprets the laws. It's always our hope that the legislature will create laws based on how they believe the judiciary will interpret them.

There is only one new law that I would vote for; a law requiring two old laws to be repealed before any new one is enacted. I want less government, not more.

Yes, but it will hopefully get a case to SCOTUS quick enough to keep Heller 5

[canadagoose]

This is probably a good thing. I admit that whenever anyone talks about more control or more laws or more federal intervention, my hackles get raised. Sorry if I came off harsh, but I appreciate your calm, intelligent response.

No worries. I also lean toward fewer laws and more freedoms. Not every problem needs a law to fix it.

I can't argue with that, but the anti-gun crowd can. In this era we've seen more and more people on the side of the fence opposite our own. Yes, I think and you think the courts in CA are out of control, but there are many out there applauding these rulings.

Agreed.

There is only one new law that I would vote for; a law requiring two old laws to be repealed before any new one is enacted. I want less government, not more.

OMG, we may need to check our family trees to see if we're related. I've been saying this for years. That, and every new law should clearly describe what its desired effect will be and lay out a method to test the hypothesis. If the measurable effect does not occur within 5 years, it comes off the books. And maybe a clawback of salary for the politicians who voted for it, and redistribute it to the those who voted against it. :-)

[Rastoff]

...every new law should clearly describe what its desired effect will be and lay out a method to test the hypothesis. If the measurable effect does not occur within 5 years, it comes off the books.

This is a brilliant plan. It would have removed this stupid "Safe Handgun List" exactly 5 years after it was enacted.

And maybe a clawback of salary for the politicians who voted for it, and redistribute it to the those who voted against it. :-)

I love it, but this is reaching too far. Baby steps. Anything new that has the potential to take money out of their pockets will be ignored and never even get a chance to be heard.

Of course we'd never get the first idea heard either.

[Firefox70066]

Thanks Crom

[M. D. Van Norman]

[RussG1]

EVERY law should have a sunset requirement... and be voted on again before it can roll over and remain on the books. It would require so much time that the Sacramento crazies 'might' not have time to write new ones

[Chewy65]

If you read the brief you'll see that they are specifically mentioned. It upholds their right to ignore the list because they are doing it for their job.

Read the brief! This isn't SGW.

[Chewy65]

She pulled off an "Irma Gonzales" on us by avoiding to discuss the issue at all.

So while you were right about the brazen ignorance of the rules by some of the judges, there is still an issue of "avoiding to answer the question" vs. "ruling against us." In this case we got the "it's not a 2A issue" instead of "it is a 2A issue, but you're wrong."

As many have posted, this is going to the next level and only when we get an actual ruling along these lines from SCOTUS am I willing to convert to the dark side.

In the meantime, all I can say is: "noooooooo...."

The judge didn't fine any burden on one's exercising the right to keep and bear. Assuming she was correct, only for the sake of argument, why would she discuss scrutiny?