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

[Apocalypsenerd]

So the district court says on page 26, lines 12-15:

"However,
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."

Does this mean that if I establish residency in say TX, I can buy an off-roster gun and bring it into CA at some point?

[thayne]

So the district court says on page 26, lines 12-15:

"However,
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."

Does this mean that if I establish residency in say TX, I can buy an off-roster gun and bring it into CA at some point?

Does this mean I can go to NV and buy a handgun and legally bring it back????

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-rules-federal-interstate-handgun-transfer-ban-unconstitutional-005354669.html

[Sputnik]

Its been said many times so far but I add my voice: This is very disappointing. Perhaps not entirely surprising but the leaps over, around and behind logic and the actual subject of the case seem quite elaborate.

[Chewy65]

So the district court says on page 26, lines 12-15:

"However,
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."

Does this mean that if I establish residency in say TX, I can buy an off-roster gun and bring it into CA at some point?

I wish someone would explain what the judge meant by that. Note she is talking about "California residents . . . bringing them into the state ofr noncommercial purposes." If you establish residence in TX, then you are no longer a CA resident. Yes, if you leave CA, move to TX and buy an off roster gun, you can then bring it to CA if you move back to CA. I believe Librarian once or more explained that CA does not accept dual residency. Somewhere on CG there is a discussion of CA residents trying to do this if they have a weekend home in AZ. My recollection is it works for the ATF, but not for CA law.

What I said about Librarian explained may not be what he said about dual residency.

[Sputnik]

Does this mean I can go to NV and buy a handgun and legally bring it back????

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-rules-fe...005354669.html

Federal law says No You Can't.
This is just some of the judges twisted logic and selective reasoning.

[kemasa]

A dual resident can bring firearms in, but that means that you have to have enough money to own a place in another state and be able to spend time there. This also means that the law is a bad joke.

Why should LEOs be able to buy firearms for their own personal use that others can not? Don't we want tested firearms for LEOs?

You can ask the CA DOJ how a dual resident can bring a firearm into CA and they will tell you.

[thayne]

Federal law says No You Can't.
This is just some of the judges twisted logic and selective reasoning.

Federal law was ruled unconstitutional. see the link .

[IVC]

The judge didn't fine any burden on one's exercising the right to keep and bear. Assuming she was correct, only for the sake of argument, why would she discuss scrutiny?

She wouldn't and she didn't.

The point is that she didn't say "this is a 2A issue, but here is why this regulation passes elevated scrutiny." Instead, she said "this is not a 2A issue so rational basis applies."

We are all still waiting on SCOTUS to confirm the framework.

[thayne]

Not sure why the link isnt working http://news.yahoo.com/judge-rules-fe...005354669.html

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

The point is that she didn't say "this is a 2A issue, but here is why this regulation passes elevated scrutiny." Instead, she said "this is not a 2A issue so rational basis applies."

You might want to take another look at the opinion, I think you're misstating the analysis.

[Sputnik]

Federal law was ruled unconstitutional. see the link .

I read through the Mance v Holder thread and while I feel that the GCA, in part and parcel, is wrong and hope it can be eliminated I don't think the law, as enforced at this time, will suffer our importation to this state of "off roster" handguns.
Perhaps in the future? Then again we still have the chance to have the roster struck. I'll just be old and grey by then.

[thayne]

I read through the Mance v Holder thread and while I feel that the GCA, in part and parcel, is wrong and hope it can be eliminated I don't think the law, as enforced at this time, will suffer our importation to this state of "off roster" handguns.
Perhaps in the future? Then again we still have the chance to have the roster struck. I'll just be old and grey by then.

hopefully not that long! Im already old and gray LOL

[Apocalypsenerd]

My wife and I are considering a move to TX anyways. So if I got a home there and kept one here, I could bring an off-roster gun in if I moved back? That sounds OK.

[Apocalypsenerd]

So what if we bought a community property there? Could people buy a % of say a furnished property and use it as a 2nd home?

[IVC]

You might want to take another look at the opinion, I think you're misstating the analysis.

Slightly, but it's a fair assessment.

She is applying the "two step process:" (1) determine whether there is a burden, then if there is, (2) determine whether it's constitutional.

Failing the first test is equivalent to saying that it's not a 2A issue (that the 2A right is not burdened.) Upholding the regulation as "presumptively lawful" is indeed "rational basis" even if the distinction was never made because the analysis stopped at step (1).