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

[kemasa]

Ummm. It stopped being about gun safety when the drop testing requirement was supplemented with the latest editions of 'requirements'. The money being charged for listing probably doesn't cover the cost of the personnel doing the administration of the list.

It was never about gun safety.

[kemasa]

LOL I believe you, but what PC section is it?

That is your homework assignment. You know that after the testing, the manufacturer has to pay each year in order to keep it on the list. That is your hint.

[aBrowningfan]

Yes, I am sure. The CA PC section you posted is in regards to the testing and exempting it from that, not the cost for having it on the list. You need to look at ALL of the CA PC.

It is about money, as well as limiting the options. If it wasn't, then once it was tested, it should always be listed and it should not be taken off the list when it is not paid for. ALL the versions should be able to be listed, not a charge for each one.

Ummm. It stopped being about gun safety when the drop testing requirement was supplemented with the latest editions of 'requirements'. The money being charged for listing probably doesn't cover the cost of the personnel doing the administration of the list.

[Tincon]

Yes, I am sure. The CA PC section you posted is in regards to the testing and exempting it from that, not the cost for having it on the list. You need to look at ALL of the CA PC.

LOL I believe you, but what PC section is it?

[kemasa]

Yes, I am sure. The CA PC section you posted is in regards to the testing and exempting it from that, not the cost for having it on the list. You need to look at ALL of the CA PC.

It is about money, as well as limiting the options. If it wasn't, then once it was tested, it should always be listed and it should not be taken off the list when it is not paid for. ALL the versions should be able to be listed, not a charge for each one.

[Tincon]

They don't need to pay for testing, but they have to pay to have it on the list, which they might not do and there are MANY examples of that.

Are you sure? Here is the code:

32030.
(a) A firearm shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of subdivision (a) of Section 32015 if another firearm made by the same manufacturer is already listed and the unlisted firearm differs from the listed firearm only in one or more of the following features:
(1) Finish, including, but not limited to, bluing, chrome-plating, oiling, or engraving.
(2) The material from which the grips are made.
(3) The shape or texture of the grips, so long as the difference in grip shape or texture does not in any way alter the dimensions, material, linkage, or functioning of the magazine well, the barrel, the chamber, or any of the components of the firing mechanism of the firearm.
(4) Any other purely cosmetic feature that does not in any way alter the dimensions, material, linkage, or functioning of the magazine well, the barrel, the chamber, or any of the components of the firing mechanism of the firearm.
(b) Any manufacturer seeking to have a firearm listed under this section shall provide to the Department of Justice all of the following:
(1) The model designation of the listed firearm.
(2) The model designation of each firearm that the manufacturer seeks to have listed under this section.
(3) A statement, under oath, that each unlisted firearm for which listing is sought differs from the listed firearm only in one or more of the ways identified in subdivision (a) and is in all other respects identical to the listed firearm.
(c) The department may, in its discretion and at any time, require a manufacturer to provide to the department any model for which listing is sought under this section, to determine whether the model complies with the requirements of this section.

I don't see anything about payment. So it seems to me that if they are paying to keep the original model on the list all they need is the affidavit to keep the cosmetically different model listed. If it falls off they could just submit the affidavit again.

As far as other modifications taking guns off the roster and limiting transfer, yes it's a stupid part of the law, but it doesn't show that it's all "about money and getting the manufacturer to put it on the list (ie. Sig Mosquito in Pink)."

[kemasa]

They don't need to pay for testing, but they have to pay to have it on the list, which they might not do and there are MANY examples of that.

That does not address the issue of a firearm which the grips or color which were changed by the owner or ALL of the different colored versions, which limits the sale in CA to PPTs or those who are exempt (ie. LEO). An engraving takes that specific firearm off the rosters, unless the manufacturer pays to have it on the list, but that would not happen for a firearm that is engraved and given as a gift. There are those in the military who have the firearms engraved and remember the military is not exempt as LEOs are.

[Tincon]

One thing which seems to be missing is the discussion of slight changes which takes a firearm on the roster to be consider no longer on the roster, such as a change in color, different grips or even engraving anything on it, such as "Happy Birthday". What different does it make to the color of the firearm with respect to safety? It is about money and getting the manufacturer to put it on the list (ie. Sig Mosquito in Pink).

Manufacturers can add models to the list which are only cosmetically different from a listed model by submitting a sworn affidavit, they don't need to pay and go through all the usual procedures to add such a gun separately to the list.

[kemasa]

One thing which seems to be missing is the discussion of slight changes which takes a firearm on the roster to be consider no longer on the roster, such as a change in color, different grips or even engraving anything on it, such as "Happy Birthday". What different does it make to the color of the firearm with respect to safety? It is about money and getting the manufacturer to put it on the list (ie. Sig Mosquito in Pink).

[RobertMW]

The Introduction is a little garbled, maybe lacks some editing.
mandates alleged "safety" features that California instructs consumers to ignore as unreliable

Sorry, I haven't read the brief yet, I'll do that right now. But does the brief provide the information, hopefully before this statement, about how the handgun safety certificate test (now the firearm safety certificate) instructs people to always follow the rules "assume the gun is loaded" and "The manual safety is secondary to treating the gun as loaded and ready to fire" (paraphrased that one, but it's basically there)

[JAWS]

That section of the brief is about the enforcement of the roster against Plaintiffs. That particular paragraph is giving the background of the Glock 21SF (i.e., it's on roster with the standard mag release, but not the ambidextrous version).

That's important because Plaintiff Roy Vargas, who has no right hand, wants to buy one with the ambidextrous release. It also hints at the absurdity of the fact that he can't buy the ambidextrous version (because it's "unsafe"), yet he can buy the standard version and send it to Glock to be retrofitted (which is NOT "unsafe," despite being exactly the same thing).

Edit: I do agree that it's a bit awkward, since the reader isn't told the significance of that paragraph until the next paragraph.

[North86]

On the page numbered 15 (page 27 in the pdf file), there is a paragraph about a glock 21sf, but I can't tell what the purpose of that paragraph is. Am I missing something?

[JAWS]

Yes, it is too late to revise the Opening Brief. In my opinion, it's very well written - keep in mind that the audience is the appellate court, not the general public (although I do not hold out much hope that the 9th Circuit will be convinced). In any case, the answering brief is currently due 8/19, then the optional reply brief is due two weeks after that. I would not be surprised to see those dates postponed though.

[CaliforniaLiberal]

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...ning-Brief.pdf

this is the opening brief

Thanks for the link.


The Introduction is a little garbled, maybe lacks some editing.

Page 2, in the Introduction

Nobody disputes that California can ban particular handguns on product safety rationales, but California's prohibition has nothing to do with consumer safety. [Good so far] The law exempts specially-favored individuals whose safety is no less important, mandates alleged "safety" features that California instructs consumers to ignore as unreliable, [incomprehensible,needs revision] and demands unproven features having nothing to do with safety at all. With the mandates now entering the realm of science fiction, obliterating the handgun market by commanding the use of non-existent technology, [damn awkward] the state's conflict with the People's fundamental right to keep guns of the kind in common use for traditional lawful purposes requires judicial intervention.

Is it to late to make changes?

[wolfwood]

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Pena_Appellants-Opening-Brief.pdf

this is the opening brief