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

[Librarian]

Forgive me for my lack of roster knowledge and my general naiveness, but my understanding is that firearms can "roll off" the roster, that they can expire and simply because the firearm manufacturer decides to no longer pay the state of California a fee to keep it on the roster.
Is that correct?
If so, that in itself should be enough to prove that the roster is total BS.

I just checked the roster for Glocks. Per the roster, the Glock G17 3rd gen is set to "roll off" on January 1, 2019 unless Glock pays them a fee to keep it on the list. How can a Glock G17 3rd gen pistol be safe on December 31, 2018 but potentially not safe the following day?
How can safety be dependent upon simply whether a gun maker pays a state a fee?

Sound observations.

Add to those the exemptions for law enforcement put the families of those officers who choose off-Roster handguns at risk, and of course should they carry them on duty, that puts the public at risk from these 'unsafe' guns.

That should lead you to conclude the Roster has nothing at all to do with safety.

[Ultralight]

Roster roll offs

Forgive me for my lack of roster knowledge and my general naiveness, but my understanding is that firearms can "roll off" the roster, that they can expire and simply because the firearm manufacturer decides to no longer pay the state of California a fee to keep it on the roster.
Is that correct?
If so, that in itself should be enough to prove that the roster is total BS.

I just checked the roster for Glocks. Per the roster, the Glock G17 3rd gen is set to "roll off" on January 1, 2019 unless Glock pays them a fee to keep it on the list. How can a Glock G17 3rd gen pistol be safe on December 31, 2018 but potentially not safe the following day?
How can safety be dependent upon simply whether a gun maker pays a state a fee?

[CandG]

This is absolutely true, however, when the right does it (eg. #ReleaseTheMemo) even the right itself says it hurts the cause to conflate the evidence or cherry pick statistics. Its a complete double standard when Feinstein says "people will die because of the shutdown" and Pelosi says the tax cuts will cause "armagedon" and yet the Republicans write a memo that "might" indicate that the DOJ went soft on Hillary and its "overstating the facts".
/rant

Ya, I think that's largely due to the mainstream media liberal bias - unfortunately there's not much we can do about that, other than trying to discredit them, which fortunately has been one of Trump's top priorities since taking office. With any luck, hopefully he'll make a dent in it.

[mshill]

It's indeed a common propaganda technique, to subtly make those opposed to an idea sound evil and/or ignorant. ....
They know exactly what to say to get people riled up against what we believe in, and frankly they've been better at it than us for a long time, which is why we are where we are.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

This is absolutely true, however, when the right does it (eg. #ReleaseTheMemo) even the right itself says it hurts the cause to conflate the evidence or cherry pick statistics. Its a complete double standard when Feinstein says "people will die because of the shutdown" and Pelosi says the tax cuts will cause "armagedon" and yet the Republicans write a memo that "might" indicate that the DOJ went soft on Hillary and its "overstating the facts".
/rant

[CandG]

It's indeed a common propaganda technique, to subtly make those opposed to an idea sound evil and/or ignorant. The more subtle, the better. Saying a bill is common sense, is a subtle way of calling opponents imbeciles. Black Lives Matter is another excellent example of this - it makes anyone who doesn't support their cause sound like they think black lives don't matter, when in fact that is largely not the case. The mistake that most of us make, is in underestimating the creativity of our opponents. They know exactly what to say to get people riled up against what we believe in, and frankly they've been better at it than us for a long time, which is why we are where we are.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[champu]

And therein lies the problem. Not only do most voters lack common sense, but most of them don't even understand what the term means. Their propaganda regularly attaches the phrase to just about everything that is, in fact, not common sense at all.

[Paladin]

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/v...vid=0000011228


Case Panel:
WALLACE (Nixon), McKEOWN (Clinton), BYBEE (Bush)

Thanks, Librarian.

Hmm. Some of Nixon's were good, some bad. It wasn't until Bork that the Right realized how the Left had weaponized the federal courts.

Bybee was a GWB appointee, so that's one likely anti (McKeown) and one likely pro (Bybee), so I won't even guess if we'll win or not with Wallace.

ETA: Watched (rewatched?) the oral arguments. I am more optimistic. From 30:00 onward is the meat. Wallace cuts to the core re. microstamping not being a safety per se issue, but an aid to LE investigators. So I'm putting him on our side.

Depending upon how the court chooses to approach the case (42:25 and following), I could see microstamping shot down (not consumer safety of gun, but public safety of aiding LE), CLI upheld (via "evolving" standards of safety), but not sure which way they (the majority?) will go on MDM.

[abinsinia]

And therein lies the problem. Not only do most voters lack common sense, but most of them don't even understand what the term means. Their propaganda regularly attaches the phrase to just about everything that is, in fact, not common sense at all.

See this 2007 huffpo Microstamping article that says California needs "to take a common-sense step toward ending gun violence and illegal gun trafficking." Yes, they really think that microstamping is common sense... Because they don't think.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/its-time-to-pass-microsta_b_61407.html

We're the only ones that read HuffPo, your idea of "common sense" is more of a caricature than anything real. The vast majority of people don't follow these issue closely at all. Most people (even in California) do think that U.S. citizens should be able to own guns, if the list is so limited that you can't get one I think people might be willing to change the law.

[Librarian]

56 pages of posts...

Does anyone remember the composition of the panel hearing this? Dem:Repub nominated judges? Our odds of winning/losing?

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video.php?pk_vid=0000011228

Case Panel:
WALLACE (Nixon), McKEOWN (Clinton), BYBEE (Bush)

[Paladin]

56 pages of posts...

Does anyone remember the composition of the panel hearing this? Dem:Repub nominated judges? Our odds of winning/losing?

[CandG]

It seems like it would be common sense to people.

And therein lies the problem. Not only do most voters lack common sense, but most of them don't even understand what the term means. Their propaganda regularly attaches the phrase to just about everything that is, in fact, not common sense at all.

See this 2007 huffpo Microstamping article that says California needs "to take a common-sense step toward ending gun violence and illegal gun trafficking." Yes, they really think that microstamping is common sense... Because they don't think.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/its-time-to-pass-microsta_b_61407.html

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Ultralight]

The consensus seems to be that this is a great idea if it passes the voters but a lousy idea if it fails. A failure is an endorsement of the Anti-Second Amendment position by the voters.

It seems that CA voters are inclined in favor of Gun Control.

Also you would need, wise CalGuns heads say, a couple of million bucks to get an effective signature gathering campaign started, more money to finish it, and more money still to run advertising in support of the Gun Rights Proposition.

Money is the fuel for the political process.

True.
Having millions of people like my mother-in-law (anti-2nd Amendment) voting on this matter would probably be a bad thing.

[abinsinia]

I think an initiative could work if you took the stance that the roster is limiting because people can't find a gun to fit their hand, or recoil sensitivity. Also if you keep the roster, but allow off roster gun sales, except the FFL has to explain to the person buying an off roster gun that the safety features aren't part of the gun. It seems like it would be common sense to people.

[CaliforniaLiberal]

Would it be possible to gather signatures for a proposition to simply ban the roster? Similar to the current movement to repeal the recent gas tax increases?

You are not the first to suggest countering CA Legislature gun control laws with the Proposition process. This has been discussed fairly regularly on CalGuns for the 10 years I have been here.

The consensus seems to be that this is a great idea if it passes the voters but a lousy idea if it fails. A failure is an endorsement of the Anti-Second Amendment position by the voters.

It seems that CA voters are inclined in favor of Gun Control.

Also you would need, wise CalGuns heads say, a couple of million bucks to get an effective signature gathering campaign started, more money to finish it, and more money still to run advertising in support of the Gun Rights Proposition.

Money is the fuel for the political process.


I searched Calguns Custom Search:

https://cse.google.com/cse/home?cx=0...78:pzxbzjzh1zk

with the following

"gather signatures for propositions"

and got lots of hits.

Here's a thread from 2013 for example:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a.../t-821797.html

[Ultralight]

Proposition to remove the roster

Would it be possible to gather signatures for a proposition to simply ban the roster? Similar to the current movement to repeal the recent gas tax increases?
Then it could get on the ballot for voters to decide.