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

[kemasa]

No, you are wrong. The CA government has never had a problem finding a way to make money. (are you going to dispute that?) Its a money generating control issue. Why do you think Jason Davis became a gun law attorney?

It is not about the money. Sorry you don't get that.

So, am i to assume that a CA compliant hand gun doesn't cost more in this state than a neighboring state? A higher retail purchase due to the roster requirements and recovered by the manufacturer creates a higher tax collected rate for the state. NO?

You are incorrect. Firearms on the certified list are sold by distributors for the same price to any FFL in any state. CA FFLs have a high cost of doing business, so they might sell it for more, but that has nothing to do with the certified list.

Few firearms on the list are CA only, which makes it impossible to recover the cost to only CA sales. Specific CA models can also be sold outside of CA as well.

CA has always been about nickles and dimes to collect. It all adds up.

Again, it is not about the money, it is about limiting firearms in CA.

Now with micro stamping requirements, the roster is now being used to push a political agenda. How wrong am I?

You just don't make sense. You say that it is NOW being used to push a political agenda, but the reality is that it has ALWAYS been used to push a political agenda. You said it was about the money, now you are saying it is about a political agenda? Which is it? I say nothing has changed, it was not about the money, it was about the agenda.

[Librarian]

it was not about the money, it was about the agenda.

Quite true.

It's about getting the proletariat accustomed to the government classifying guns as 'good' and 'bad'. It's about reducing the number of guns available to buy.

The money is $200 per year per model listed.

Today, the Roster page says "There are 1094 models in the database." That would be $218,800.

The Budget for DOJ for this 2013-2014 fiscal year is $758,831,000

[fizux]

Today, the Roster page says "There are 1094 models in the database."

Note this is down from 1,273 about 75 days ago.

[wireless]

I honestly don't see this holding up in court. Even in California. AW have a lot of politics behind them, but this ban specifically targets handguns. Side arms were the main focus of the Heller case. I'm sure there is plenty I don't understand about court politics, but this one I think we have a real chance at winning.

[9M62]

Someone just needs to go and try to buy the exact gun that Heller won his case with.

"Oh, I can't? Well, Heller says I can."

[mrdd]

Your statement is wrong on so many levels and even more so today than say last year. The Roster is a tool to collect a tax. Thats it! Its also a tool to have their way on what they want us to have or not have in this state. You should notice how they are using the roster for force micro stamping which is now a part of Pena. What in Gods green earth does micro stamping have to do with the safe use of a hand gun???

So now we have drop testing and micro stamping? In todays world i find it hard to believe that an unsafe hand gun would even make it to a retail outlet. Manufacturers want no part of firearm malfunctions. It kills their brand.

Its extortion on the lawmakers part. They are collecting a tax from the manufacturers to sell a gun in CA.

The roster is about control. It is the tool the state uses to control access to concealable firearms.

The AW laws are how they control access to everything else they do not like.

[taperxz]

Your statement is wrong on so many levels and even more so today than say last year. The Roster is a tool to collect a tax. Thats it! Its also a tool to have their way on what they want us to have or not have in this state. You should notice how they are using the roster for force micro stamping which is now a part of Pena. What in Gods green earth does micro stamping have to do with the safe use of a hand gun???

So now we have drop testing and micro stamping? In todays world i find it hard to believe that an unsafe hand gun would even make it to a retail outlet. Manufacturers want no part of firearm malfunctions. It kills their brand.

Its extortion on the lawmakers part. They are collecting a tax from the manufacturers to sell a gun in CA.

It is not about the money. Sorry you don't get that.



You are incorrect. Firearms on the certified list are sold by distributors for the same price to any FFL in any state. CA FFLs have a high cost of doing business, so they might sell it for more, but that has nothing to do with the certified list.

Few firearms on the list are CA only, which makes it impossible to recover the cost to only CA sales. Specific CA models can also be sold outside of CA as well.



Again, it is not about the money, it is about limiting firearms in CA.



You just don't make sense. You say that it is NOW being used to push a political agenda, but the reality is that it has ALWAYS been used to push a political agenda. You said it was about the money, now you are saying it is about a political agenda? Which is it? I say nothing has changed, it was not about the money, it was about the agenda.

I guess you don't read entire paragraphs?

[advocatusdiaboli]

The roster is about control. It is the tool the state uses to control access to concealable firearms.

The AW laws are how they control access to everything else they do not like.

I agree. They already collect tax on firearms from us when we buy them, dealer FFL fees, etc. If they really used it for monetary gain, then they'd make it easy to get as many guns on the Roster as they could to maximize revenue. But they don't.

Instead, they are making it more and more costly and so the number is dwindling. If the policy results in less legal access to fewer guns, then the goal must be gun control and an effective limited ban. And so it is.

Taperxz didn't think his theory through enough.

[taperxz]

I guess you don't read entire paragraphs?

I agree. They already collect tax on firearms from us when we buy them, dealer FFL fees, etc. If they really used it for monetary gain, then they'd make it easy to get as many guns on the Roster as they could to maximize revenue. But they don't.

Instead, they are making it more and more costly and so the number is dwindling. If the policy results in less legal access to fewer guns, then the goal must be gun control and an effective limited ban. And so it is.

Taperxz didn't think his theory through enough.

You too?

[advocatusdiaboli]

You too?

I just used his quote of you. I found "The Roster is a tool to collect a tax. Thats it! " pretty clear and definitive sentences. If you make a broad assertion like that and then retract and back-pedal later in your prose but then blame us because each of your declarative sentences cannot stand on it's own, perhaps you might consider a course in effective communications? If you had modified "is" with some adverbs like "mainly", "mostly", or "largely" , for example, and left off the "That's it!" implying you believe it the _only_ reason, then maybe you would have expressed your opinion more clearly. As it is, the words you used leave us little doubt as to the meaning of your opinion in writing.

[wildhawker]

Note this is down from 1,273 about 75 days ago.

Tracking projections, though it's certainly possible the rate of loss could increase w DOJ's affidavit enforcement: http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/roster/.

[taperxz]

I just used his quote of you. I found "The Roster is a tool to collect a tax. Thats it! " pretty clear and definitive sentences. If you make a broad assertion like that and then retract and back-pedal later in your prose but then blame us because each of your declarative sentences cannot stand on it's own, perhaps you might consider a course in effective communications? If you had modified "is" with some adverbs like "mainly", "mostly", or "largely" , for example, and left off the "that's it" meaning that is the only reason, then maybe you would have expressed your opinion more clearly As it is, the words you used leave us little doubt as to the meaning you expressing in writing.

The roster was "originally" designed to outlaw "very cheap guns" and simply only required a "drop test" There was also a personal agenda to put certain local companies who made these inexpensive guns, out of business.

At the time of implementation, i don't think anyone would have dreamed that the roster would have turned into what it is today. (which is what some of you are hung up on) I still do believe it's intent was two fold. Get cheap guns off the market and collect a tax at the same time for revenue.

As the DOJ upped the ante on requirements for roster acceptance, the roster turned more into a control issue. When you look at the roster today, its all about control. I don't believe that was the "original" and 'only reason for the roster.

NOW, its all about control. If you eliminate all the guns from the roster, there will be no generation of revenue. They don't allow enough guns to get that revenue. My statement was based on the "original idea and intent".

[cjc16]

so if the original intent was about protecting the general public from guns that could detonate in your hand, why did they exempt law enforcement? Maybe the Cal Legislature just hates cops? It has always been about gun control.

[fizux]

Tracking projections, though it's certainly possible the rate of loss could increase w DOJ's affidavit enforcement: http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/roster/.

Librarian's number was based upon the current number on DOJ's website; mine was based upon the Court's 12/18/2013 order.

Unfortunately, reality is tracking the CGN projection's yellow dashed line.

In the interest of public safety, your 5A right against self-incrimination has been "reasonably regulated" to only apply in cases of suspected traffic infractions. Beyond infractions, the public safety interest outweighs your civil rights, so waterboarding interrogations shall commence on 1/1/2015 for misdemeanor and higher level offenses. After all, felonies are "so dangerous" and we want to protect our kids. Why would you want to hurt little kids just to honor some anachronistic piece of paper?

[RobertMW]

so if the original intent was about protecting the general public from guns that could detonate in your hand, why did they exempt law enforcement? Maybe the Cal Legislature just hates cops? It has always been about gun control.

I know we are on the same side, I'm just using your comment to make my own.


If the original intent of the roster was to protect the general public, all it would have said was...

"In order to protect the general public from an accidental discharge in a public place, any firearm model that is to be carried in public for the purpose of self defence must have passed a state drop test."

^ THAT is something that could be said is for public safety. If you have a CCL or you were OC your carry gun can't go off if it is accidentally bumped out of your holster. The idea of "common sense" is obviously a difficult concept to grasp for grabbers.

All the roster does is keep new designs out, while letting the old ones fall away.