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

[MJB]

This.

If it was really about safety, LE would NOT be exempt, not for their duty gun, not for their personal guns.

Also, once tested, the firearm should forever remain on the list, but instead if the annual payment is not made, the law abiding citizens can no longer buy it.

The color, grips or engraving should not matter either, but it does.

Why haven't they gone this direction in lawsuits?

[taperxz]

Agreed, had nothing to do with safety. In the Pena case the state has expanded the definition of safety to include public saftey to explain the microstamping requirement. Obviously its total BS and a defacto ban on semi auto handguns. Sooner or later manufacturers will all stop making their older models. This is what CA is banking on, but they will argue that that is up to the manufacturers. Also they will argue that they can comply with the roster and make both stamps with the firing pin.

[kemasa]

Agreed, had nothing to do with safety. In the Pena case the state has expanded the definition of safety to include public saftey to explain the microstamping requirement. Obviously its total BS and a defacto ban on semi auto handguns. Sooner or later manufacturers will all stop making their older models. This is what CA is banking on, but they will argue that that is up to the manufacturers. Also they will argue that they can comply with the roster and make both stamps with the firing pin.

It won't matter much unless people get a Real ID when your CA ID/DL renews, otherwise you will get the illegal alien version, which can't be used for firearms.

[lawj11]

This.

If it was really about safety, LE would NOT be exempt, not for their duty gun, not for their personal guns.

Also, once tested, the firearm should forever remain on the list, but instead if the annual payment is not made, the law abiding citizens can no longer buy it.

The color, grips or engraving should not matter either, but it does.

Agreed, had nothing to do with safety. In the Pena case the state has expanded the definition of safety to include public saftey to explain the microstamping requirement. Obviously its total BS and a defacto ban on semi auto handguns. Sooner or later manufacturers will all stop making their older models. This is what CA is banking on, but they will argue that that is up to the manufacturers. Also they will argue that they can comply with the roster and make both stamps with the firing pin.

[kemasa]

They are not safety features.

We know this because LE are allowed to purchase and use 'unsafe handguns', endangering the public and their own families.

This.

If it was really about safety, LE would NOT be exempt, not for their duty gun, not for their personal guns.

Also, once tested, the firearm should forever remain on the list, but instead if the annual payment is not made, the law abiding citizens can no longer buy it.

The color, grips or engraving should not matter either, but it does.

[lawj11]

How does this make it more or less unconstitutional?

The NSSF vs CA Microstamping doesn't argue on the basis of the constitutionality. Do some research for yourself. NSSF argues that a law that requires something that is impossible to do cannot be enforced. NSSF lost the first case because they admitted that it is possible to place two stamps both on the firing pin. If manufacturers would just comply, then they could sell new guns in CA. If they choose not to comply, then they can continue selling older models. Please people, do some research before you go popping off. I hate this too, but they are the facts and there are sure a lot of uneducated people here. Pena vs Cid, now that is based on the constitutionality of the handgun roster. If the court upholds in the NSSF case that it is possible to place two stamps using the firing pin (one above the other), than how is the handgun roster unconstitutional? All manufacturers have to do is comply with the requirements to sell new guns in CA, just like car manufacturers had to comply with the airbag requirements to sell cars (which they fought bitterly and lost). Also, the state can simply argue that old handguns are exempt for new roster requirements so just keep producing and selling old models.

[Librarian]

1. They are safety features. How many times have you heard of an idiot who dropped the mag, and after shooting someone declared "I thought the gun wa unloaded?" You have no idea how many lives are saved by these safety features, and you cannot extrapolate from the number of "successful" negligent discharges to someone who realized before pulling the trigger that the gun was loaded? It is like DGUs: there is no way to acscertain the effectiveness of the law.

They are not safety features.

We know this because LE are allowed to purchase and use 'unsafe handguns', endangering the public and their own families.

[nick]

How does this make it more or less unconstitutional?

[lawj11]

[lawj11]

[TruOil]

I would disagree that it's hard to criticize the safety features.. What the roster mandates to safety features that are suppose to prevent negligent discharges, absent proof they actually do that. The vast majority of guns don't have these features.

In California you have 30-60 people who die from negligent discharges per year. In contrast you have about 3000 vehicle fatalities in California. So between the two you have much more motivation to regulate cars.

If you extend the same regulatory scheme to the first amendment, then people who read Nietzsche are much more likely to commit suicide, some small number of people a year commit suicide as a result of Nietzsche , hence we must censor books. You could also say kids watch movies, then try to do what they saw in the movie, and end up dead so we have to censor movies, etc..

Guru argued the points pretty well, IMO. The roster is a straight gun ban, nothing more nothing less.

1. They are safety features. How many times have you heard of an idiot who dropped the mag, and after shooting someone declared "I thought the gun wa unloaded?" You have no idea how many lives are saved by these safety features, and you cannot extrapolate from the number of "successful" negligent discharges to someone who realized before pulling the trigger that the gun was loaded? It is like DGUs: there is no way to acscertain the effectiveness of the law.
2. Cars ARE heavily regulated. That is why we have seat belts (I am old enough to remember when cares did not even have them), air bags, DRLs, airbags, crush zones, etc. etc. etc. I don't perceive that any manufacturer thinks of these safety features being a "car ban." There would be well over 1000 handguns on the roster but for the microstamping rule, and while we may argue as to the efficacy of any particular measure, would you rather have handguns that are or are not drop safe and won't blow up in your hand under normal circumstances? This is what the original roster law was intended to accomplish and it did. In fact, drop safe features are incorporated in most new handguns 9except Series 70 Colt 1911s).

3. The microstamping rule is NOT and was never intended to be a safety feature. It is supposed to be a feature that assists law enforcement in solving crime. As such it diverges greatly from the safety aspects of the original roster law. And this, plus the lack of proof that the staute's requirements have been met, make it the most vulnerable of the roster requirements.

4. The analogy to the First Amendment is inapt. You can still have guns, and as many guns as you like, as long as they are on the Roster. Your right to keep and bear them is unaffected. The original intent, and the purpose of its requirements, is top prevent you from shooting dangerous guns. And as I said, the later requirements were to protect people from their own stupidity and/or lack of training.

[TruOil]

Ummm, have you even watched the oral arguments from Pena? They use the airbag analogy, not seatbelts. Also, the NSSF lawsuit claims microstamping is impossible, which it is not. It does exist, the technology sucks and is stupid, but it exists. Why does everyone refuse to be realistic around here???

I did not watch the Pena oral arguments, but what difference does it make if the analogy is seat belts or airbags? The only difference between them is that one is passive (the passive motorized seat belts having bit the dust). The analogy is apt either way.

The technology that exists is (a) experimental, and (b) stamps the "case" only in one place (on the primer). This is the onlytechnology the State relied upon in support of the certification. However, the statute requires that the case be stamped in two separate locations, and thus the existing technology does not comply with the statutory requirements. And THIS is what NSSF is arguing. Is this realistic enough for you?

[lawj11]

There shouldn't be enough evidence to support microstamping. Further adding requirements for features that aren't available in the market can't stand.

Courts like to look at the seat belt law. But seatbelts were generally available in the market before they were required. Second there was hard data much of which produced by the government proving seat belts were cost effective and increased safety.

So far there isn't general scientific evidence that microstamping is possible nor any that is is cost effective or achieves any safety at all.

Had they offered incentives not requirements I think the government would be in a better place. A tax , deeper back ground checks, storage requirements or even training requirements for all to buy off roaster would have greatly improved the governments case this isn't just a slow motion ban.
If the roaster cases is a loss for the government expect all those and all the AW restrictions to be on your first off roaster sale from an FFL.

Ummm, have you even watched the oral arguments from Pena? They use the airbag analogy, not seatbelts. Also, the NSSF lawsuit claims microstamping is impossible, which it is not. It does exist, the technology sucks and is stupid, but it exists. Why does everyone refuse to be realistic around here???

[Uncivil Engineer]

It is definitely a slow motion semi-auto handgun ban. The problem is that if the courts rule microstamping is possible (doesn't need to be perfect), than the onus is on the manufacturers to play ball. Sucks, but that's what I think it boils down to.

There shouldn't be enough evidence to support microstamping. Further adding requirements for features that aren't available in the market can't stand.

Courts like to look at the seat belt law. But seatbelts were generally available in the market before they were required. Second there was hard data much of which produced by the government proving seat belts were cost effective and increased safety.

So far there isn't general scientific evidence that microstamping is possible nor any that is is cost effective or achieves any safety at all.

Had they offered incentives not requirements I think the government would be in a better place. A tax , deeper back ground checks, storage requirements or even training requirements for all to buy off roaster would have greatly improved the governments case this isn't just a slow motion ban.
If the roaster cases is a loss for the government expect all those and all the AW restrictions to be on your first off roaster sale from an FFL.

[lawj11]

The real issue is they have changed the meaning of safety. To get the roster established safety was defined as operating as the user intended. This is how most gun owners define and expect safety. If they was the case why would anyone need to be exempt? Shouldn't government issued weapons be safe under this definition?

Over time safety with regards to the roster was redefined to be "safety from guns". One might make the argument this was the long game all along. With this new definition of safety the intent is a ban and has worked like that in slow motion.

The courts should give California the ultimatum. If this is truly safety then there should be no exceptions. California should stop issuing off roster guns and stop allowing anyone to buy them. If it is just a slow motion ban then it must be unconstitutional.

It is definitely a slow motion semi-auto handgun ban. The problem is that if the courts rule microstamping is possible (doesn't need to be perfect), than the onus is on the manufacturers to play ball. Sucks, but that's what I think it boils down to.