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

[Oxnard_Montalvo]

It's hard to convince the courts that our rights are infringed upon when a record number of handguns were sold in Calif last year, 510,000 according to the Sacramento Bee. The previous high was over 400,000 in 1993

So what if car manufacturers had a roster and a requirement that couldn't be met, all hell would break lose

Just sayin
Rick

The quoted number (MUCH higher because of SSE) is DESPITE the roster not BECAUSE it's so good for the average handgun purchaser.

But it would be a difficult thing to explain in court to say the least.

[wildhawker]

But it would be a difficult thing to explain in court to say the least.

Safe, modern handguns -- the majority of which are not on the [quickly diminishing] Roster, and therefore inaccessible to law-abiding people for the exercise of their fundamental, individual rights -- are protected under the Second Amendment.

It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of [some weapons in common use for lawful purposes] so long as the possession of other [such weapons] is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon.

-BC

[Oxnard_Montalvo]

Safe, modern handguns -- the majority of which are not on the [quickly diminishing] Roster, and therefore inaccessible to law-abiding people for the exercise of their fundamental, individual rights -- are protected under the Second Amendment.



-BC

Sounds fine to me here but in a court of law in California....

Prob won't sell NEARLY as well.

Don't get me wrong but when they are shuffling the deck that can stack it anyway they want to and if there's any doubt remember what happened to Prop 8.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

The list of guns removed is 56 pages long. How is this NOT restricting our ability to buy a gun?

I noticed that the Colt "Centennial Anniversary America Remembers" 1911 was removed from the roster recently. That was the one I wanted. None of the Colt 1911s still on the roster are going to cut it, especially not the Audie Murphy Tribute, Brothers Forever Vietnam Tribute, D Day Tribute, Elvis Presley, Fearless Defenders of Freedom, George S. Patton Tribute, John Wayne Tribute, Rampant Colt Tribute, Saluting America's Armed Forces, Samuel Colt 200th Anniversary, Texas Rangers Tribute, Vietnam War Tribute, or the We the People models.

[Rastoff]

I noticed that the Colt "Centennial Anniversary America Remembers" 1911 was removed from the roster recently. That was the one I wanted. None of the Colt 1911s still on the roster are going to cut it, especially not the Audie Murphy Tribute, Brothers Forever Vietnam Tribute, D Day Tribute, Elvis Presley, Fearless Defenders of Freedom, George S. Patton Tribute, John Wayne Tribute, Rampant Colt Tribute, Saluting America's Armed Forces, Samuel Colt 200th Anniversary, Texas Rangers Tribute, Vietnam War Tribute, or the We the People models.

You joke, but this is exactly the problem. It doesn't matter why I want a particular gun. All that matters is that I want that particular gun. Regardless of why I want it or what I want it for, I should be able to buy it.

Prosecute those that use it in a crime, not those who use them without doing anything illegal.

[JDay]

I think her speech needs to be restricted to a quill and parchment. Maybe she'll do less damage to the country then.

It should be restricted to a list of approved words. A small list that is shrinking daily and no new words can be added.

[RipVanWinkle]

I noticed that the Colt "Centennial Anniversary America Remembers" 1911 was removed from the roster recently. That was the one I wanted. None of the Colt 1911s still on the roster are going to cut it, especially not the Audie Murphy Tribute, Brothers Forever Vietnam Tribute, D Day Tribute, Elvis Presley, Fearless Defenders of Freedom, George S. Patton Tribute, John Wayne Tribute, Rampant Colt Tribute, Saluting America's Armed Forces, Samuel Colt 200th Anniversary, Texas Rangers Tribute, Vietnam War Tribute, or the We the People models.

I feel your pain! The entire limited edition of 500 Centennial Anniversary models has sold out, no more will be made, ever. But don't despair, you can still get one through a PPT, I think.

It also came with a lockable display case, so it's probably San Francisco compliant. Just add a sticker that says, "In case of emergency break glass".

http://www.americaremembers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/1911-Colt-Centennial-Left-1024x656.jpg

[kalapa]

My question is why are our police and LEO's still approved to use "unsafe" handguns? Isn't safety a top priority? Why are they above the law?

If law enforcement had to abide by the roster, I think we'd see faster results in getting this thing eliminated.

[bandook]

You joke, but this is exactly the problem. It doesn't matter why I want a particular gun. All that matters is that I want that particular gun. Regardless of why I want it or what I want it for, I should be able to buy it.

Yes you 'should', but just because you can't buy a particular model from a dealer doesn't raise it to a civil rights issue.

The right to self preservation is protected, but you have no right to defend yourself with ONLY a particular model of a specific color.

Also, I think people are confusing 'arms in common usage' with 'models in common usage'. The former would mean semi-auto handguns, the latter would mean Gen4 Glocks etc.

A stronger case can be made for the former than the latter. The current opinion is that the first is not banned (yet. Come back when it actually happens) and the latter is not worthy of heightened scrutiny.

[Rastoff]

Yes you 'should', but just because you can't buy a particular model from a dealer doesn't raise it to a civil rights issue.

You are correct friend and thanks for the lucid and well thought out response. Of course my comments were just the rantings of an angry citizen of the US who feels his freedoms are being trampled upon.

Your reasoning is why this particular case is being fought from a free trade perspective. The plaintiff is saying that the roster is limiting free trade because it limits specific manufacturers from selling in CA.

[Southwest Chuck]

Yes you 'should', but just because you can't buy a particular model from a dealer doesn't raise it to a civil rights issue.

The right to self preservation is protected, but you have no right to defend yourself with ONLY a particular model of a specific color.

Also, I think people are confusing 'arms in common usage' with 'models in common usage'. The former would mean semi-auto handguns, the latter would mean Gen4 Glocks etc.

A stronger case can be made for the former than the latter. The current opinion is that the first is not banned (yet. Come back when it actually happens) and the latter is not worthy of heightened scrutiny.

Seems the State takes a different view. The Roster in effect is an affirmation that your rights are protected but is limited to ONLY a "set" of particular models consisting (among other features), of a specific color. They demand an extortion fee annually paid by the manufacturers to be maintained on that list. Micro stamping aside, why the annual renewal? The gun is either not unsafe or it not, not unsafe. Once certified, that status never changes, unless of course, the fees aren't paid.

I always thought there was a 1st A. aspect to the roster. Here's an analogy, if you will. Say there are 10 history books on the market. Well, the State has a preference that the must have either black or dark grey book cover and bans any history book that doesn't comply (freedom of choice). Also, the State regulates content (gun features). They ban any history book that: denies the Holocaust ever happened, historically portrays races or ethnic minorities as inferior to white european races, etc. etc. etc.

However, the State will issue an exemption for the importation and sale of these books to the publisher as long as factual disclaimer is issued at the beginning of the book and the cover is candy-cain stripped so it can be distinguished from State approved, "sanctioned" books, AND paid a fee to the State for it's initial review, and a fee again, annually to confirm no changes have been made to the content of the book to keep it on the approved list.

I know the analogy isn't perfect, but as I said, I always thought that there was an inkling of 1A concepts in the Roster's restrictions. Maybe I'm way off base though ....

[RipVanWinkle]

I know the analogy isn't perfect, but as I said, I always thought that there was an inkling of 1A concepts in the Roster's restrictions. Maybe I'm way off base though ....

You're right that some of the 1A concepts are analogous to some of the issues about the roster, although I think the analogy is stronger with "bear arms" cases than it is with "keep arms" cases, or in this case an "acquire arms" case. It seems to be generally conceded that this case is going to proceed to intermediate scrutiny on appeal to the 9th Circuit.

Intermediate scrutiny is a test used in some contexts to determine a law's constitutionality. To pass intermediate scrutiny, the challenged law must further an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest.

Based on the court's previous rulings it will find that the roster regulations further the important government interest of promoting public safety. The microstamping requirement is more of a wild card. The government will argue that it will aid law enforcement in identifying suspects in violent crimes involving firearms, an important government interest. I think the court will go along with this also, even though the public safety benefit is indirect. On the question of whether the means in the roster are substantially related to those interests only the microstamping provision has a chance of derailing the governments case, and it's a long shot but you never know.

In 1A cases intermediate scrutiny is mostly about "time, place, and manner" restrictions. The issues revolve around large gatherings that could disrupt other business, restricting sale of certain types of publications to zones in cities, etc. While "public safety" concerns are sometimes an issue in the 1A context, in the 2A context they are salient because firearms are perceived as inherently dangerous based on the numbers of accidental, suicidal, and criminal shootings.

The content of speech is more tangentially related to public safety until it gets into things like urging the violent overthrow of the elected government, advocating the assassination of government officials, divulging classified government secrets, and conspiring to commit crimes. So the courts have been generally deferential to speech that may be counter factual or just plain nuts, because it can be countered by arguments and is not necessarily dangerous in and of itself.

[Drivedabizness]

Other rulings confirm that government actors may not simply assert that measures promote public safety (although I'd agree that's exactly what they've been getting away with). They have to offer some proof.

What is beyond question is that CA (and various local) "regulations" impact only law abiding citizens who exercise their rights in the vast majority of the other States in this Circuit with no resulting negative societal impacts. Even under intermediate scrutiny the burden is on them to show "how" the regulations actually achieve an important government objective. They can not and will not ever meet that burden. (except of course that the Courts are giving them the win without having met it).

I'm also interested to see what happens when counsels bring it to the Courts attention that at the same time States like CN, NY, CO and CA are infringing on more rights, other States are taking concrete action to expand them. We all know that expansion of the exercise helps lower crime. Some stats in that regard might be helpful (maybe not in the 9th though)

[advocatusdiaboli]

Yes you 'should', but just because you can't buy a particular model from a dealer doesn't raise it to a civil rights issue.

But, as you point out further in your response, the Roster isn't just limiting models and colors, it is effectively eliminating an entire class of firearms: semi-automatic pistols from retail sale in California. Their motivation isn't on trial, their actions and results are. Judges who justify infringement and Harris herself in her arguments, always start with their responsibility form public safety as if that end justifies any means they choose while the connection between the end and the means is weak and not based in fact. Let's hope we over turn this but it will take another half decade for the next move and by then I may no longer care as my California residency will be history.

[Rastoff]

Their motivation isn't on trial, their actions and results are.

This is an oxymoron.

They claim that their motivation is safety, but it's really gun control.
Their actions and results have been proven to do nothing for safety and a lot for gun control.

In essence, their motivation really is what's on trial. We just aren't allowed to say it that way even though everyone on both sides knows what this is about. That's what really bothers me more than anything else. This is what our world has become, a dance. We can't just tell the truth. Everything has to be couched in some alternate verbiage.

Technically, their goal is noble. They want to reduce violent crime. That's a good cause. Unfortunately, it has been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that gun control, like the safe handgun roster, registration and waiting periods, doesn't work to reduce crime. So, why are they so vehement about this stuff? It has to be an attempt to justify their jobs.