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

[AKSOG]

Hopefully this getting dragged out for what seems like forever shoots the liberals in the foot and we get a conservative replacement for Ginsberg in the meantime.

[stlegion4]

Q: Is our side putting all our eggs in the Pena basket, or are there other attacks (legal or political) on the roster that I don't know about?

There's NSSF V. State of California, but i think that one is just primarily going after Microstamping.

[thorium]

Q: Is our side putting all our eggs in the Pena basket, or are there other attacks (legal or political) on the roster that I don't know about?

[Paladin]

Q: Is our side putting all our eggs in the Pena basket, or are there other attacks (legal or political) on the roster that I don't know about?

[IVC]

That logic only works if you believe that the government gives us our Rights.
If you believe that Rights are inherent in being a Human and totally unrelated to government, than it is easy to understand that they have been abridged regardless of what the courts say.

Regardless of how/when/where/why we have rights, when there is a disagreement with respect to what a right really means, that disagreement must be resolved. Remember, one side says "our rights are infringed," but the other side says "no, your rights are fine." Someone has to determine who is correct.

Until that determination is made, you cannot claim that our rights are infringed because you are still in the process of *determining* whether you're right or wrong. If/when our side wins, of course we will say "our rights HAVE BEEN infringed all this time," but it's a moot point since the courts will reverse the law at that time anyways.

However, if we lose, then the other side says: "see, we told you so. You were fine all along."

[IVC]

Orals are recorded. There is most likely a transcript of the oral arguments that can be referred to.

Sure. What I meant was that the orals are more of a formality where judges clarify any issues they might personally have. Most of the case is decided based on references and legal arguments in briefs.

[kemasa]

It also only works if you assume that the politicians are ethical and honest, that they don't pass laws that they want to see enforced for decades and will pass more laws when those previous laws have been tossed out in court. Sadly, it is a bad assumption to believe that.

Take a look at the CA smog impact fee and how that was handled. It shows that the government did not care about what was right, just what they could get away with. They don't face the fear of jail for their theft of money and fraudulent acts. The same law was tossed in FL, but continued to be enforced in CA until years later it was tossed. Then they had a form that could be filled out to get a refund, but they did not send notice to those who they had collected the fee from.

[EM2]

True, but the rights are NOT abridged until the court determines they are, so, as we are waiting, our rights are technically intact because the court says so. That's the catch. A circular argument with no easy way around it.

It's like online shopping using overnight shipping. It's only "overnight" from the point the shipment is ready, so you end up with multiple days waiting for it. In the roster case, our item "hasn't shipped yet."

That logic only works if you believe that the government gives us our Rights.
If you believe that Rights are inherent in being a Human and totally unrelated to government, than it is easy to understand that they have been abridged regardless of what the courts say.

[Drivedabizness]

You are correct. However, there IS precedent for government NOT having a blanket presumption of constitutionality. One example that comes to mind is the Voting Rights Act - where States found to have a history or rights suppression had to get pre-approval from DOJ before making new laws affecting voting rights.
This is exactly what I would like to see for the relatively few States that continue to treat 2A rights as privileges. Politically, given that 40+ States already treat those rights appropriately, I would think it would be an easy (er) political lift.
Another from here in CA is the prison system, which was put under Federal receivership. I'd like to see the same kind of thing done to the gun unit at DOJ - which would help address the under the table regs, Rube Goldberg background check system designed to prevent instant approvals and require maximum human intervention (cost) and an organization dedicated to doing the Legislatures dirty work.

[aBrowningfan]

True, but the rights are NOT abridged until the court determines they are, so, as we are waiting, our rights are technically intact because the court says so. That's the catch. A circular argument with no easy way around it.

It's like online shopping using overnight shipping. It's only "overnight" from the point the shipment is ready, so you end up with multiple days waiting for it. In the roster case, our item "hasn't shipped yet."

Probably hasn't even had a shipping label prepared for it.

[aBrowningfan]

They have all the documents and they also wrote down anything from the orals they were interested in. Orals were only to ask questions and get clarifications anyway. The legal arguments are written down by each side.

Orals are recorded. There is most likely a transcript of the oral arguments that can be referred to.

[speedrrracer]

In my opinion all cases with abridgment of Rights at issue the law should be suspended until resolved.

Patience is not an option when it comes to government interference with our Rights.

Cute, but you're not thinking. Remember, all laws are presumed Constitutional, so until a court makes the determination, they are, by default, NOT infringing on your rights.

Plus, what happens when some idiot says every single law in existence infringes on his rights? In your nightmare system, we then suspend every law, and live in the Wild West as the judicial system is forced to iterate through every law on the books, taking centuries to resolve? Yeah, bad idea and then some.

[IVC]

They cant possibly remember anything besides the gist of the case at this point.

They have all the documents and they also wrote down anything from the orals they were interested in. Orals were only to ask questions and get clarifications anyway. The legal arguments are written down by each side.

[IVC]

In my opinion all cases with abridgment of Rights at issue the law should be suspended until resolved.

Patience is not an option when it comes to government interference with our Rights.

True, but the rights are NOT abridged until the court determines they are, so, as we are waiting, our rights are technically intact because the court says so. That's the catch. A circular argument with no easy way around it.

It's like online shopping using overnight shipping. It's only "overnight" from the point the shipment is ready, so you end up with multiple days waiting for it. In the roster case, our item "hasn't shipped yet."

[AdamVIP]

So do you think the judges heard the case in March and wrote their decisions and are sitting on them, or do you think they heard the case, sat around for now going on 8 months and will whip something up later when they get around to it?

They cant possibly remember anything besides the gist of the case at this point.