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

[Rastoff]

I just looked and found that 11 guns were added to the roster. The list of guns removed is 56 pages long. How is this NOT restricting our ability to buy a gun?

[RipVanWinkle]

I just looked and found that 11 guns were added to the roster. The list of guns removed is 56 pages long. How is this NOT restricting our ability to buy a gun?

Only one that was "added" was a semiauto center fire, and it isn't really "new". It's probably just a grandfathered model where they paid the $200 to keep it on the list for another year.

[command_liner]

This ruling is a political dance. Saying that "you can still buy guns" because there are some on the list, is exactly the same as saying it's legal to limit ammunition sales because the second amendment doesn't specifically mention ammo. The courts have already ruled that limiting ammo is unconstitutional because it is a fundamental aspect of the gun.

I'm going to stop here because I'm just becoming more angry and I'll get banned.

Although I have not read the ruling in fine detail, I read enough to recognize the train of though. It is like reading some Jim Crow era rulings on the black codes. Separate is equal... that bathroom over there is for colored. It is in the interest of the state to discriminate, blah blah blah blah.

How appropriate that the Pena case is about one black gun (lefty Glock), one mixed race gun (nickle and silver XD45) and some other gun that I cannot remember.

Can't these people come up with less obvious nonsense?

[bandook]

All we need is a friendly assemblyman to remove the grandfather clause from dealer sales. That will bring this issue to a head.

Basically, the judge is saying that as long as you have a sufficient choice of handguns, your rights are somewhat intact.

Don't like it, but I see the point.

[advocatusdiaboli]

All we need is a friendly assemblyman to remove the grandfather clause from dealer sales. That will bring this issue to a head.

Basically, the judge is saying that as long as you have a sufficient choice of handguns, your rights are somewhat intact.

Don't like it, but I see the point.

No, you don't see a point, you are pretending you do...
It is a right like voting or free speech.
What if they restricted free speech only to email: "Hey, you still have a free speech outlet!" they'd say.
What if they only let you vote in local elections: "Hey, you still have a vote!" they'd say.
And you would agree with them? Think again.
repeat after me "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" repeat over and over until you finally understand the phrase.

[advocatusdiaboli]

Can't these people come up with less obvious nonsense?

They need only come up with necessary and sufficient nonsense to justify the ruling they made BEFORE even hearing the case. Activist ant-gun jurisprudence at its worst. Maybe it will be overturned or at least go to the SCOTUS after another 6 years in limbo. And people wonder why I am going to leave (face palm0: it is because our activism is useless in the face of such anti-gun bias and corruption.

[advocatusdiaboli]

How is this NOT restricting our ability to buy a gun?

You have to understand the elitist leftist communist mentality: Mao thought people could wear any color clothing as long as it was gray. Bloomberg thought you can buy any soda as long as it is under 16oz. they believe they know better than you do what is right for you. It is a sickness that pervades lists California and it is not going away.

[bandook]

No, you don't see a point, you are pretending you do...

It is a right like voting or free speech.

What if they restricted free speech only to email: "Hey, you still have a free speech outlet!" they'd say.

What if they only let you vote in local elections: "Hey, you still have a vote!" they'd say.

And you would agree with them? Think again.

repeat after me "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" repeat over and over until you finally understand the phrase.

Can you no longer buy firearms in California?

Please read the complaint and order. Basically, it says that your right isn't infringed because a specific color is not available for sale in California.

Also, as the roster is a restriction on dealer sales, wouldn't it have been a good idea to have a dealer in on the case?

I am not suggesting that the roster is valid (it is not). But it surely isn't going to fall in California based on some contrived issues around specific models and colors.

[vintage rider]

How about a micro-stamp so small, nothing or no one can see it? The bill doesn't specify how big or small it has to be...

Now all guns can return to California. ..its on there, really it is.

[advocatusdiaboli]

Can you no longer buy firearms in California?

Please read the complaint and order. Basically, it says that your right isn't infringed because a specific color is not available for sale in California.

Also, as the roster is a restriction on dealer sales, wouldn't it have been a good idea to have a dealer in on the case?

I am not suggesting that the roster is valid (it is not). But it surely isn't going to fall in California based on some contrived issues around specific models and colors.

Don't be disingenuous to a fault. You know it is about model not just finish. Pena wanted a Gen 4 Glock. that is a model, not a finish issue. the judge herself is satisfied the right is not infringed because we can till buy revolvers but semi-autos are dwindling. Spoon fed by Harris on that one no doubt (revolvers are slower to reload and few take more than 6 shots. It's all part of a plan. And you seem to be part of it too, wittingly or otherwise.

[paultakeda]

Don't be disingenuous to a fault. You know it is about model not just finish. Pena wanted a Gen 4 Glock. that is a model, not a finish issue. the judge herself is satisfied the right is not infringed because we can till buy revolvers but semi-autos are dwindling. Spoon fed by Harris on that one no doubt (revolvers are slower to reload and few take more than 6 shots. It's all part of a plan. And you seem to be part of it too, wittingly or otherwise.

The problem is that it is the availability of a class of weapon, in this case a semiautomatic pistol. Heller and McDonald were about explicit bans on handguns. California's roster is not an explicit ban. It is, however, an implicit ban and in the long run can be proven to be such, but in the meantime, the decision in Pena is sadly valid given the argument of the Plaintiffs because semiautomatic pistols remain available for purchase on the roster.

I found the sophistry around why LEOs get to have "unsafe handguns" because of their job amusing. This, best of all, reveals the mindlessness of the roster implementation.

I also don't buy the idea that outside the roster these pistols are widely available as argued by the judge; that's thin. Of course, her statements actually benefit us as without the interstate transfer ban as decided in Mance we do have a wide availability of handguns to purchase by going out of state.

Meanwhile, on appeal with the 9th Circuit (that's where this is headed now, right?), it might be best that it happen next year (later rather than sooner). By then a two year timeline can be shown of the effect of the microstamp requirement: a severe drop in availability and secondarily, the irony of old models on the roster when the manufacturer has issued a new version with better safety features except the unavailable, impractical microstamp technology.

I think this was questioned and answered earlier in this thread but this thread is long so I'll ask again: can Pena have parts of it denied and other parts approved? Can the microstamp requirement be removed but the roster remain in place?

I can see the 9th deciding that the implicit ban on semiautomatics is only due to the microstamp and so they just remove that piece. But if they have to deny or approve the suit in its entirety then there is the possibility of removing the roster. Either way, I'm not sure how Pena will go on appeal; it may very well depend on the roster dwindling to nothing to disabuse Meuller's claim of availability.

I also can see a suit brought by the CA FFLs, especially if Mance is upheld on appeal, that the roster is unfair for commerce given a CA resident can simply buy out of state and register ownership without using their services: that's a double whammy since 1) they can only sell roster handguns and so cannot compete with their dwindling inventory and 2) they no longer get to collect a service fee for interstate transfers. Even if Pena fails so long as the Mance decision is upheld I can see this case coming up.

[Rastoff]

Yes, it's specifically a model issue. For example, I would love to buy one of these:


Because of the roster, this gun is essentially banned. The argument that other revolvers are available doesn't hold water. This is a unique tool and as such should be allowed. Further, the state should simply accept that the gun is safe because the manufacturer says so. We don't require state specific testing on TVs to ensure they're safe.

Further, what if I own one of these:


If the frame is damaged and needs to be replaced, the owner is screwed. It wouldn't be able to be fixed because the manufacturer wouldn't be able to send a technically new gun because it's not on the roster.

So, the affect of the roster on free trade is obvious and egregious yet, they continue to tell us it's a good thing.

[paultakeda]

Yes, it's specifically a model issue. For example, I would love to buy one of these:


Because of the roster, this gun is essentially banned. The argument that other revolvers are available doesn't hold water. This is a unique tool and as such should be allowed. Further, the state should simply accept that the gun is safe because the manufacturer says so. We don't require state specific testing on TVs to ensure they're safe.

So would I (like a Rhino, that is), but the thing is the argument does hold water if the court decides that it is the class of weapon and not the specific model that counts. Heller and McDonald attacked explicit bans on an entire superclass of firearm: handguns. The roster, unfortunately, is not an explicit ban so the gray area can be argued by either side with equal validity as long as the roster has "options". That's why I think it'd be better for the appeal to take some time so the roster empties out and makes it obvious that it is effectively a ban (rather than now, where one can still argue that it is not).

Further, what if I own one of these:


If the frame is damaged and needs to be replaced, the owner is screwed. It wouldn't be able to be fixed because the manufacturer wouldn't be able to send a technically new gun because it's not on the roster.

So, the affect of the roster on free trade is obvious and egregious yet, they continue to tell us it's a good thing.

Yeah, but I don't think this was part of Pena?

[kcbrown]

So would I (like a Rhino, that is), but the thing is the argument does hold water if the court decides that it is the class of weapon and not the specific model that counts. Heller and McDonald attacked explicit bans on an entire superclass of firearm: handguns. The roster, unfortunately, is not an explicit ban so the gray area can be argued by either side with equal validity as long as the roster has "options". That's why I think it'd be better for the appeal to take some time so the roster empties out and makes it obvious that it is effectively a ban (rather than now, where one can still argue that it is not).

It will never be regarded by Democrat-controlled courts as a ban as long as even one firearm remains on the roster. Indeed, even if the roster had no firearms on it, those courts would still regard it as "Constitutional" because those courts will insist that:

• Whether or not a manufacturer makes firearms which conform to the rules of the roster is a decision of the manufacturer, not of the government, and therefore it is not a ban.
• People can still acquire non-rostered handguns through interfamilial transfer, as well as through PPT from, e.g., LEOs.
• As long as there remains even one method of acquiring handguns, even if not everyone can use it, what is in existence is not a ban, and is therefore "Constitutional".

That is the logical outcome of the "reasoning" used by the court.


Of course, no other right is treated in that fashion, but to these courts, this isn't a real right, but is rather an annoyance to be dealt with in the most hostile way possible. And because courts are political entities, and not objective ones, they will issue continue to issue decisions such as this one as long as they please.

That's what happens when there are no real-world consequences to those who issue incorrect (and especially blatantly incorrect) decisions.

[IVC]

As long as there remains even one method of acquiring handguns, even if not everyone can use it, what is in existence is not a ban, and is therefore "Constitutional".

This was one of the methods some courts tried to use to validate "may issue" carry schemes, but eventually things moved our way.

The true test will be whether "a gun is like any other gun" concept is allowed to stand. I'd say that it's not consistent with Heller, but that hasn't stopped lower courts thus far. So, to find out, much like with the "bear" part of "keep and bear," we have to wait for SCOTUS to take a case and make a ruling.