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

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Teixeira plus a couple more. ; )

[BobB35]

The funniest part of the DOJ's motion is the "substantial burden" precedent cited at page 15 of its points and authorities.

Ah the beauty of Circular logic. We ruled something one way therefore we need to be consistent with our ruling and use that as precedent.

Isn't the point to try to get a definitive ruling on this issue not these multiple circle jerks from all the circuit courts?

This is the ultimate problem with ambiguous laws and Lawyers...at some point they have to be rest with the only method that has been used for years. Complete clean slate.....

[chainsaw]

Can someone update the state of Teixeira, if there are any updates? Supposedly, there was a hearing in early September, on the MTD. Somehow, I seem to have missed the discussion on Calguns about the outcome of that case. The CGN thread about Teixeira seems to have turned into the usual disruption of discussion. If there is another thread about it, please point me to it.

[SOAR79]

tagged

[REH]

The funniest part of the DOJ's motion is the "substantial burden" precedent cited at page 15 of its points and authorities.

I read this document and did not see or missed it, the question as to why the handgun is not safe for some people, non LE and safe for others, LE, living in the ]same state. Also how will micro stamping increase the safety of the firearm? The roster is called, safe hand gun, so the added requirement of micro stamping, has nothing to do with safety.

Can someone help me with this one?

[fizux]

Can someone update the state of Teixeira, if there are any updates? Supposedly, there was a hearing in early September, on the MTD. Somehow, I seem to have missed the discussion on Calguns about the outcome of that case. The CGN thread about Teixeira seems to have turned into the usual disruption of discussion. If there is another thread about it, please point me to it.

I've updated my OP in Teixeira.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Can someone update the state of Teixeira, if there are any updates?

Case was tossed out by the district court and CGF has appealed to 9th circuit lol.

[Bhobbs]

I wouldn't hold my breath on Pena going anywhere, anytime soon. Best to just forget about it for now.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Ah the beauty of Circular logic. We ruled something one way therefore we need to be consistent with our ruling and use that as precedent.

What is happening here is (1) CGF is filing cases with weak facts where there is little or no burden on the exercise of the right (2) CGF is losing these cases, and (3) the decisions in these losing cases are being used against them in other cases that also have weak facts/no burden. This is not in the least bit surprising.

[Librarian]

Not sure what docket you're looking at but the motions have been filed already and November 22nd is the hearing.

Here's my summary:

DOJ says "no substantial burden".

CGF lazily recycles 2009 MSJ and makes no attempt to argue substantial burden.

See my years-old posts on this stinker of a case for predictions how these arguments will play out.

Anyone think the 9th Circuit will not adopt a substantial burden test?

Perhaps there is a subtlety I am overlooking, but the language of the submission is

TO DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 22, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard, [the Plaintiffs]
...
will move this Honorable Court to enter a summary judgment
in their favor and against Defendant

I do see that, as is customary, the parties have offered their preferred text for the outcome.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Perhaps there is a subtlety I am overlooking, but the language of the submission is I do see that, as is customary, the parties have offered their preferred text for the outcome.

Each motion has been filed and docketed as a "motion for summary judgment" and all of the moving and opposing and reply papers are filed before the hearing. No motion will be filed on the hearing date (which has been continued from Nov. 22nd to mid-December) as your post suggested. See local rule 230(b) (click here for local rules).

[mag360]

Well this is sad and frustrating. I can't see how it IS NOT a substantial burden and the damn judges are bought and paid for by the gun banners. Elections have consequences. These fools get appointed by our elected officials or voted in by us.

[OleCuss]

Well this is sad and frustrating. I can't see how it IS NOT a substantial burden and the damn judges are bought and paid for by the gun banners. Elections have consequences. These fools get appointed by our elected officials or voted in by us.

To begin to understand this it is important to understand two things:

1. In a court of law, plain and simple language doesn't work the same as it does for us. So what some words mean to you and me - doesn't mean the same thing to lawyers and courts.

2. To a significant degree, the meaning of the words in courts/laws are shaped by various court cases. And that is being pointed out by FGG. If you file lousy cases, the resulting lousy opinions change what the words used (in the statutes and in the courts) to mean something (more) injurious to our rights.

If you aren't an expert in RKBA legislation you shouldn't be filing cases - and especially not strategic cases which are likely be precedential or persuasive. Doing so is bad for our rights.

[Librarian]

Each motion has been filed and docketed as a "motion for summary judgment" and all of the moving and opposing and reply papers are filed before the hearing. No motion will be filed on the hearing date (which has been continued from Nov. 22nd to mid-December) as your post suggested. See local rule 230(b) (click here for local rules).

Ah. Thanks.

It appears, then, that the language of the notice does not quite mean what the usual English usage would suggest. Not an unexpected condition, just a bit surprising it might apply in that document.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

I can't see how it IS NOT a substantial burden...

Well, all you need to do is make a comparison to Heller 1. In Heller 1, you could not possess a handgun in your home. Any firearm in the home must be disassembled or bound with a trigger lock at all times, with no self-defense exception. Obviously this is a substantial burden because you are unable to defend yourself with any firearm. Can you argue any of this in Pena? No.