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

[epilepticninja]

I'd like to thank Arnold for signing this POS into law in the first place.

[IVC]

Yep. This argument is the centerpiece of Pena and it will go nowhere, the courts are and will continue to be concerned with how the regulation affects your exercise of the right, and Pena does a lousy job of dealing with that.

Here is a serious question.

The judge said in this case: "A gun is a gun, so if you can get a gun you've got a gun." This reasoning wouldn't fly with the books if the state had a list of approved books, e.g., "a book is a book, so if you can get an approved book it doesn't matter that you cannot get the one you want because you've got a book."

How would one convince an unwilling judge that guns are different? In this case, one of the plaintiffs is very specific about needing an ambidextrous Glock because of physical disability and not having *a single* ambidextrous Glock on the roster. Why is that a lousy job?

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

That plaintiff can use his index finger to drop the mag and an ambidextrous mag release isn't going to help all that much with what needs to be done after the mag is dropped, if he needs to reload he's already hosed. Or the plaintiff can install an aftermarket ambidextrous mag release. Or buy some other gun; by the way he and all the other defendants admitted they could purchase other handguns suitable for self-defense which is not what I'd call a strong showing of burden. And to be really specific about how lousy this particular plaintiff's argument was presented, the original iteration of the MSJ included the claim that the plaintiff "cannot operate" a standard Glock, which was flat out false. The next iteration included a conclusory declaration that the ambidextrous model was "superior" without bothering to explain why. Not that it would have mattered but they didn't even try.

Anyway, I tend to agree with wolfwood about intermediate scrutiny on appeal, that was what I was expecting here.

[Librarian]

I'd like to thank Arnold for signing this POS into law in the first place.

The bill was SB 15, signed by the Governor in August of 1999.

Gray Davis.

[kcbrown]

She pulled off an "Irma Gonzales" on us by avoiding to discuss the issue at all.

So while you were right about the brazen ignorance of the rules by some of the judges, there is still an issue of "avoiding to answer the question" vs. "ruling against us." In this case we got the "it's not a 2A issue" instead of "it is a 2A issue, but you're wrong."

No, she answered the 2A question. She said it isn't a 2A infringement, and therefore there is no need to go to heightened scrutiny.

That is different from saying that it's not a 2A issue at all.

As many have posted, this is going to the next level and only when we get an actual ruling along these lines from SCOTUS am I willing to convert to the dark side.

In the meantime, all I can say is: "noooooooo...."

Yes, well, the point here is that I saw this coming and you didn't, because you adhere to the view that the courts are judging cases objectively, while I have essentially disposed of that notion.

[kcbrown]

On a more serious note, this is the pattern that we've seen on "carry" from CA-2/3/4 and even in dissent in Peruta - not ruling against us based on *you are wrong*, but based on *we need more guidance from SCOTUS."

"We need more guidance from SCOTUS" can come in either form, either in a manner that sides with the right or a manner that sides against it. Here, the courts are generally siding against it. That is much more than merely "we need more guidance".

[IVC]

...because you adhere to the view that the courts are judging cases objectively, while I have essentially disposed of that notion.

There is a big difference between dodging the issue by saying that it's not a 2A issue (not *enough* of a 2A issue) and finding a way to go against the core of the argument based on any heightened scrutiny.

What we have here is one step above "no standing" ruling.

[OleCuss]

Here is a serious question.

The judge said in this case: "A gun is a gun, so if you can get a gun you've got a gun." This reasoning wouldn't fly with the books if the state had a list of approved books, e.g., "a book is a book, so if you can get an approved book it doesn't matter that you cannot get the one you want because you've got a book."

How would one convince an unwilling judge that guns are different? In this case, one of the plaintiffs is very specific about needing an ambidextrous Glock because of physical disability and not having *a single* ambidextrous Glock on the roster. Why is that a lousy job?

This isn't necessarily an "unwilling judge".

My personal (and admittedly inexpert) opinion is that the case is flawed and that it may be flawed just because it turned out to be premature (I'm making no judgment regarding other potential flaws). The current jurisprudence in 2A cases seems to dictate the ruling by this judge rather than a particular bias. The judge may be biased but this ruling does not (IMHO) show this.

I fully agree that the logic being used is fundamentally flawed from my perspective. But the District judge is bound to follow precedents and such - and that appears to have dictated this outcome.

The Circuit level is not nearly as bound to follow authorities which are not SCOTUS and the Constitution (and apparently sometimes not even bound by those authorities. . .). To me this means you could get a different outcome at the appellate level - but I don't expect that at either Circuit or at the SCOTUS level. I'd expect that appeal to the Circuit to fail unless you get an extraordinary panel and if there is a subsequent appeal for cert I would expect SCOTUS to turn that down.

What I would really like is if someone would come up with a handgun developed for the blind. Set it up so that there is a camera or other system which will reliably detect and aim at a standard target on an appropriately designed range. Don't bother with meeting the roster standards for California.

Suddenly you'd have a case where the only reasonable firearm which a blind person could use would be unrostered. Then bring suit.

The obvious thing is that you could develop the system independently of the particular firearm. But the proper way to develop the firearm would be to lock out the trigger unless and until the target is properly sighted. This would require a level of integration which would best be built into the firearm from the design stage.

I'd probably contribute to an attempt to develop that firearm. I'd love to have blind folk able to enjoy shooting on the range (a system which provided accuracy feedback would make it more enjoyable) and at the same time destroy an onerous law.

Oh, and the software might not have to be developed de novo. Software such as a stripped down version of UFOCapture might be adapted to work with an attached video camera to do the trick.

I'm tired and may not be making as much sense as I should. I'll quit my rant and go to bed.

[Dwight K. Schrute]

What a gut punch. Hopefully it makes it to scotus. This has to be struck down.

[Chewy65]

I thought the roster rules recently changed to prevent a CA resident from bringing off roster guns back to CA that were legally acquired outside of CA (for example a dual resident).

Librarian knows the answer....

I don't "know" the answer, but I think the judge is correct in so far that a CA resident can legally buy an off roster gun out of state as long as it is not imported for sale (commercial purposes). You can't "bring them back" but must import them by sending them to a CA dealer. See PC 27585

27585. (a) Commencing January 1, 2015, a resident of this state shall not import into this state, bring into this state, or transport into this state, any firearm that he or she purchased or otherwise obtained on or after January 1, 2015, from outside of this state unless he or she first has that firearm delivered to a dealer in this state for delivery to that resident pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 27540 and Article 1 (commencing with Section 26700) and Article 2 (commencing with Section 26800) of Chapter 2.

For now forget about the Texas USDC injunction against enforcing the ban on dealers selling to out of state residents as it will certainly be appealed and stayed. Get one from a private party and have it imported into CA by shipment to dealer for DROS and delivery to you.

[Micro48]

I thought a CA FFL couldn't release an off roster handgun to you?

[Rastoff]

I thought a CA FFL couldn't release an off roster handgun to you?

Most of the time this is correct. However, the only reasonably short answer is; it depends.

[Chewy65]

It depends is an excellent short answer. A longer but imperfect answer might consider some things I have noted to help me make some personal decisions. You may not and should not rely on my ramblings.

Where does the so called Safe Handgun Law prohibit an FFL from receiving an off roster handgun from out of state or delivering it to you.

32000. (a) Commencing January 1, 2001, any person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state
for sale, keeps for sale, offers or exposes for sale, gives, or lends any unsafe handgun shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year.

Does the CA dealer . . .

1. Manufacturer or cause to be manufactured the unsafe handgun? Nol
2. Import it into the state for sale? No. It is being imported by you after being sold by an out of state person.
3. Offer or expose it for sale? No.
4. Give you the firearm? My not fully reasoned/researched thoughts are it does not, but see below.
5. Lend it? The FFL isn’t lending anything.

The meaning of “gives” as used in PC 32000 is anything but unambiguous. If it means to transfer possession there may be a problem, but in many scenarios to give is to transfer ownership and to do so without compensation, as in making a gift. In this case, the FFL is certainly not the donor of a gift, as it never even owns the gun and is merely handling its receipt and delivery or compensation. True, giving is often used in the sense of delivering without change of ownership, as when the mechanic gives you your car keys after a tuneup, but where does the code say that this is the sense PC 32000 uses the term “gives”. Ask a competent criminal attorney about the rule of lenity.

Now ask why PC 27500 uses the words “give possession or control” when prohibiting transfers to prohibited classes, but only says “gives” in 32000. The use of different language suggests an intent to prohibit different conduct.

27500. (a) No person, corporation, or firm shall knowingly sell, supply, deliver, or give possession or control of a firearm to any person within any of the classes prohibited by Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 29800) or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 29900) of Division 9.

The useage of "supply" and " deliver" suggests those acts are something different than giving possession else their inclusion is surplusage as the code does not indicate that such conduct is the synonymous.

Does anybody know of anything such as case law, legislative intent, or anything else clarifying the meaning of “gives” in this context? Regardless, I do not see where PC 32000 imposes any liability on the buyer who imports through a CA dealer. Still, it may be difficult to find one that will transfer the off roster handgun and I would recommend entering into an agreement, including fees, with an FFL before buying out of state.

Note that this is not a legal opinion and it has not been properly researched and evaluated. None here are clients of mine, I am not licensed to practice law in California, and you should not rely on anything I say but should get an opinion from a California attorney. This is merely offered for purposes of discussion and to suggest issues you may wish to discuss with a practicing California attorney.

I would add that my thinking conflicts with that of a calgunsfoundation wiki stating that:

The Roster is a restriction on CA FFLs; they may not transfer off-Roster handguns to non-exempt buyers.

I caution you against relying on my thoughts over those of the foundation.

[ronlglock]

Note that this is not a legal opinion and it has not been properly researched and evaluated. None here are clients of mine, I am not licensed to practice law in California, and you should not rely on anything I say but should get an opinion from a California attorney. This is merely offered for purposes of discussion and to suggest issues you may wish to discuss with a practicing California attorney.

However since YOU are importing the gun, YOU can be imprisoned in the county jail for not longer than one year if you ever try to sell it.

But perhaps this is the section that the judge read which made her believe that private citizens could import a gun for their own use.

[jebuwh]

However since YOU are importing the gun, YOU can be imprisoned in the county jail for not longer than one year if you ever try to sell it. I guess that means that you own it forever?

Where do I sign up to be the first test case? Any FFL willing to transfer a privately sold out of state off roster gun to me?