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

[moleculo]

Well, I went back and read the original thread on this case: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=428452. FGG and Navyinrwanda predicted exactly how this case was going to turn out and exactly what the issues with the plaintiff's arguments were. If anyone has time, the original thread isn't that long and the banter around predicting the outcome is fairly educational now that we know the result.

[M. D. Van Norman]

To be fair, the rest of us incorrectly believed that U.S. Supreme Court precedent would mean something, but it has consistently failed to override personal political biases.

[kcbrown]

There is a big difference between dodging the issue by saying that it's not a 2A issue (not *enough* of a 2A issue) and finding a way to go against the core of the argument based on any heightened scrutiny.

But she didn't say that it isn't a 2A issue. She said the law doesn't infringe the 2A. That's a different thing.

It's the difference between saying that "plaintiffs are not raising a 2A-based complaint" (they clearly were here) and saying that "plaintiffs 2A-based complaint is baseless" (which is what she said in effect).

[Chewy65]

However since YOU are importing the gun, YOU can be imprisoned in the county jail for not longer than one year if you ever try to sell it.

But perhaps this is the section that the judge read which made her believe that private citizens could import a gun for their own use.

You don't think the offense is committed by importing an off roster handgun to be sold, to offer for sale and etcetera at the time of importation? How do you figure an offense is committed if one only sells, decides to hold to sell, or first offers to sell 10, 20, 30 years after its importation? Again, consider the rule of lenity.

Anyway, I wasn't thinking about selling, but just how to buy and bring a gun into the state. You could be right about being exposed to a charge should you eventually sell. You bought it out of state and should you eventually decide to sell why not sell it out of state if the law hasn't been clarified or overturned so that you have no potential criminal exposure.

[16in50calNavalRifle]

How can the idea that there are *some* rostered handgun choices removes any question of burdening the 2A right be taken seriously? The obvious and instant reductio ad absurdum of this is that if there is a single semi-auto handgun on the roster, there is no burden on the right.

Oh - wait, you say that is *not* a valid reductio ad absurdum? Then at what point does a burden occur? How many other constitutional rights are hemmed in and severely limited without being considered "burdened"?

Separately, but related, can't the roster be challenged on the basis that it achieves no public purpose while progressively (esp. with micro-stamping) burdens the right through baselessly limiting consumer choice?

In their current incarnation as unaccountable super-legislatures for dummies, courts commonly arrogate all kinds of legislative functions, including "balancing" impact on rights vs. public benefit, etc. (a recent fed. district judge somewhere beclowned himself and provided an excellent example when he opined that confirming the plain unambiguous meaning of the O-care federal subsidy provision was unacceptable because it would deny so many people health insurance - it's not his jaw-dropping ludicrous substantive error so much as his adoption of the legislature's role of balancing costs and benefits that I'm talking about).

Now getting a court to put on its (lawless) legislative hat to actually clear away a perverse and pernicious bit of crap like the roster is like expecting ISIS to set up day-care centers for Assyrians, I understand that. But isn't there a way to challenge the roster based on this approach - that it obviously constitutes a growing burden on a right without the slightest argument that it provides any public benefit? Or alternatively, at least challenge the micro-stamping idiocy?

[tankarian]

The bill was SB 15, signed by the Governor in August of 1999.

Gray Davis.

Sorry, it was Arnold. And Bush of course.
Did I mentioned Reagan came with the idea?

[Apocalypsenerd]

Per your suggestion, I went and read through the thread. FGG was proven remarkably prescient in both Nordyke and Pena. It looks like Gene owes him an apology 4 years in the making.

Maybe folks should start listening to FGG a bit more?

Well, I went back and read the original thread on this case: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=428452. FGG and Navyinrwanda predicted exactly now this case was going to turn out and exactly what the issues with the plaintiff's arguments were. If anyone has time, the original thread isn't that long and the banter around predicting the outcome is fairly educational now that we know the result.

[16in50calNavalRifle]

Agree, Apocalypse - re FGG offering good insights.

Problem dealing with the judiciary any more, of course, is that substance, law, and logic are - when expedient - quite irrelevant to rulings and outcomes.

So while I appreciate the substantive insight ..... in the end, the courts are not reliably, for issues like the 2A, places where common sense and law and the constitution really matter any more.

Unfortunately that leaves us with the tea-leaf reading and speculation based on gamesmanship, court personalities, etc.

[Librarian]

Sorry, it was Arnold. And Bush of course.
Did I mentioned Reagan came with the idea?

It's always Arnold - he did, in fact, sign the microstamping amendment.

[kcbrown]

Per your suggestion, I went and read through the thread. FGG was proven remarkably prescient in both Nordyke and Pena. It looks like Gene owes him an apology 4 years in the making.

Maybe folks should start listening to FGG a bit more?

Yep. I have to hand it to FGG. He nailed both.

My arguments with him have been more about what the Supreme Court meant by its words, but it should be clear to everyone by now that with few exceptions, courts in anti-rights areas are going to side against us (unless we get very lucky and draw a favorable, which necessarily requires a Republican-nominated majority, panel).

It's time to start laying the groundwork for an Article V convention. It's the only remaining peaceful way this is going to get done for us, because SCOTUS is finished with us (Jackson will be the litmus test of this. If they take Jackson, then that'll prove me wrong. If they refuse cert to Jackson, then the only reason left to believe that SCOTUS will save the day for us is pure, blind, unjustified faith. And faith alone is worthless in the real world).

[Apocalypsenerd]

Did a search on Jackson and couldn't find it except the win at district. Has it gone to CA yet?

[kcbrown]

Did a search on Jackson and couldn't find it except the win at district. Has it gone to CA yet?

Jackson lost at district and lost at CA. It is now being appealed to the Supreme Court.

Here's the thread on it: http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=813984

And here's the Michel & Associates page on it: http://michellawyers.com/guncasetrac...cksonvsanfran/

[RipVanWinkle]

It's always Arnold - he did, in fact, sign the microstamping amendment.

A sheep in wolf's clothing!

[FNH5-7]

Quote:
However,
13 California residents, including those who have no out-of-state family, are not prevented from possessing unlisted guns, receiving them as intra-family gifts from in-state relatives, or bringing them into the state for noncommercial purposes.

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?

Good luck finding an out of state ffl that will sell you a gun in person based on that paragraph.

[wildhawker]

I'll be on with Ethan Bearman in 5 minutes (6:05pm) at https://bnc.lt/l/3YdcNHE-93