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

[wildhawker]

This is just wrong. Yes, Courts can eliminate some paragraphs and not others. This is known as "severability." Happens all the time.

My guess is that microstamping goes and LCIs and magazine safeties stay, as a "rational basis" or "intermediate scrutiny" governmental interest.

I hope that the deal where even the most trivial changes to a gun require re-rosterization also goes, as I do not believe that this withstands constitutional scrutiny.

You're not entirely consistent here. If microstamping were to be held unconstitutional as a violation of the Second Amendment, it would presumably be due to its burden on the right under intermediate or strict scrutiny (though it's possible for it to be held categorically unconstitutional); in any case, if there's a burden at all, rational basis is out. The state carries the burden of showing evidence and appropriate tailoring.

[GM4spd]

If microstamping goes, the roster goes.

And this is coming from where? Pete

[wireless]

You're not entirely consistent here. If microstamping were to be held unconstitutional as a violation of the Second Amendment, it would presumably be due to its burden on the right under intermediate or strict scrutiny (though it's possible for it to be held categorically unconstitutional); in any case, if there's a burden at all, rational basis is out. The state carries the burden of showing evidence and appropriate tailoring.

You're underestimating the political views of all the progressive judges who sit in the 9th circuit.

[rogervzv]

You're not entirely consistent here. If microstamping were to be held unconstitutional as a violation of the Second Amendment, it would presumably be due to its burden on the right under intermediate or strict scrutiny (though it's possible for it to be held categorically unconstitutional); in any case, if there's a burden at all, rational basis is out. The state carries the burden of showing evidence and appropriate tailoring.

Yes, I think that you are correct. The issue is that microstamping is heavily burdening an actual Constitutional right, i.e. the Second Amendment's guarantees. Thus rational basis will/should not be the standard and I was incorrect to mention it.

I do not think that the microstamping requirement will survive Court scrutiny and I look for it to go, and for many semi-auto handguns to return to California.

[Seniex]

Sorry i don't want to read through 27 pages of people mostly arguing and throwing legal jargon back and forth. I was able to find this docket http://ia801400.us.archive.org/30/it...44.docket.html, but was wondering if there is anything more up to date or are we just waiting on the courts decision? Thanks in advance.

[IVC]

We are just waiting. And chewing fat.

[Librarian]

Sorry i don't want to read through 27 pages of people mostly arguing and throwing legal jargon back and forth. I was able to find this docket http://ia801400.us.archive.org/30/it...44.docket.html, but was wondering if there is anything more up to date or are we just waiting on the courts decision? Thanks in advance.

The court docket is up to date within a few hours. (Might be a bit more if something were to happen on a Friday.)

[JackRydden224]

Wait a second...Ivan Pena.

Is Ivanimal the plaintiff???

[Seniex]

Okay kool thanks Librarian and IVC for the reply.

[Librarian]

Wait a second...Ivan Pena.

Is Ivanimal the plaintiff???

Just read the complaint, eh?

Yes, unless something has changed I have not seen.

[JackRydden224]

Just read the complaint, eh?

Yes, unless something has changed I have not seen.

Yes, this is first time I read the complaint and this morning I stumbled upon an Ivan Pena on facebook so I put two and two together. I would not have think it's Ivanimal without that facebook find.

[bruss01]

Yes, I think that you are correct. The issue is that microstamping is heavily burdening an actual Constitutional right, i.e. the Second Amendment's guarantees. Thus rational basis will/should not be the standard and I was incorrect to mention it.

I do not think that the microstamping requirement will survive Court scrutiny and I look for it to go, and for many semi-auto handguns to return to California.

In my take, after having read the Peruta decision, is that microstamping does not heavily burden the RKBA, but rather it DESTROYS it by eliminating ALL handguns from qualifying, since microstamping has been shown to be technically infeasible. As such, again citing Peruta, it would not be upheld under ANY standard of scrutiny. Think about it... given time, EVERY handgun now on the list will have to be upgraded, improved, altered... and that means eventually there will be no handguns left, i.e. the right is completely destroyed.

The roster itself HEAVILY BURDENS the right by limiting a buyer's right to purchase whatever handgun they deem best suited to their needs, for whatever reason. I do believe the roster will be struck down as unconstitutional because it heavily burdens your right to acquire the firearm you choose as best suiting your needs.

[Maestro Pistolero]

When Glock, Smith and Wesson, and Ruger in response to the California handgun roster, have withdrawn from a handgun market (completely or partially) it is going to be a tough argument to make that the roster doesn't run afoul of the 2nd amendment which protects, among other things, weapons that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.


If there are three more common firearms in the country than the handguns sold by those three manufacturers, it is the best kept secret in the history of humanity.

Heller vs DC

The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster.

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

[OleCuss]

Unfortunately, I consider it possible that the courts will decide that as long as you can purchase a semi-auto pistol of some type and brand that you're OK.

It would come out as the court saying that common use refers to a general type rather than to a broad availability of examples of a type. IOW, one semi-auto being available means that semi-autos are available and there is no problem - even if the one available semi-auto has a 45 pound trigger pull, a muzzle-velocity which is measured in inches per hour, is guaranteed to misfire 90% of the time, and ammo costs $5,000 per round. Oh, and the pistol weighs 827 pounds and barely fits into the trailer/van of a semi.

Maybe I'm being overly cynical, but I'm worried that I may not be by a whole lot.

So far as I know, Mr. Heller still cannot purchase the pistol at question in the victory which bears his name.

[speedrrracer]

Probably unimportant, but a federal judge struck down a CA law banning foie gras, in part because it interfered with commerce. Admittedly, it was a Federal law on poultry, but hey, I'll take any good news at this point.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-judge-strikes-down-californias-foie-gras-ban-1420673027