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

[Librarian]

I like my Glocks having one, personally. NOT for checking to see if the chamber is empty (that's what eyes and fingers are for), but rather for checking to make sure the chamber is loaded, before I put it in my holster. My chamber is nearly always loaded, but it's nice to be able to see at a glance that I haven't unloaded it at some point and forgotten.

In that regard, it's more of a "chamber is empty" warning

For that, we have the 'press check' - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU68wjU5b80

[Citizen One]

https://youtu.be/m-B_ZY9AwDs?t=25m11s

ADA: Unlike Heller, it's not a categorical ban on an entire class..

Judge (right): Isn't it a categorical ban on any guns NOT containing the kinds of security devices that you now want, the MDM the CLI? The microstamping?

ADA: [Audibly flustered] It's not your honor. The Unsafe Handgun Act is focused on... in laymen's terms bringing new handguns to market.

Do they actually seriously believe this? Is that their official justification for passing these laws?

I have formal quotes from news interviews with some politicians who "wrote" (rather, had ghost-written) the legislation. They explicitly said it was to 'get rid of guns from our state'. If there is one thing I can not tolerate, it is blatant hypocrisy. It is fine if they have a belief in something and follow their convictions. It is another when they are in a willful state of cognitive dissonance.

I hate to make the analogy as it appears to cheapen the message, but Orwell discussed exactly this idea when he described "doublethink". I sincerely hope (and expect) these judges are at least aware of the obviousness of this from the ADA's responses. They are well read, well educated individuals. If they turn a blind eye to this it would throw any semblance of their impartiality out the window.

As a quote I heard once said, "I can live with being a pawn if the game makes sense!"

[thorium]

All the LCIs need to go - as has been often advised, an LCI must be replaced by training: 'don't point guns at people'. (or at most other stuff)

Agreed.

But as a practical matter, the after market will largely step in to take care of our desire to remove LCI and MDM, no such possibilities with microstamping which is not commercially available.

Example of after market LCI 'upgrade' for SW Shield -- https://www.apextactical.com/blog/in...ld-sd-pistols/

[IVC]

But as a practical matter, the after market will largely step in to take care of our desire to remove LCI and MDM, no such possibilities with microstamping which is not commercially available.

The real problem is that LCI and MDS severely limit availability in the first place.

Remove *just* microstamping from the roster requirements and we still cannot have A SINGLE (non-grandfathered) Glock, HK, S&W semi-auto, Springfield, FNH, Beretta, etc. Not a single one!

It's similar to how the magazine capacity affects availability - it's not just that we have to have no more than 10, but there are MANY guns that don't come in restricted versions and aftermarket magazines are all but impossible to find. Akin to forcing "cars with 10 gallon or smaller tanks" - sure it would reduce bank robberies by forcing fleeing robbers to fill up more often (sarcasm), but it would also significantly limit car availability since very few have such tanks.

If we just lose the microstamping, we lost in practical terms.

[Untamed1972]

https://youtu.be/m-B_ZY9AwDs?t=25m11s



Do they actually seriously believe this? Is that their official justification for passing these laws?

I have formal quotes from news interviews with some politicans who "wrote" (rather, had ghost-written) the legislation. They explicitly said it was to 'get rid of guns from our state'. If there is one thing I can not tolerate, it is blatant hypocrisy. It is fine if they have a belief in something and follow their convictions. It is another when they are in a willful state of cognitive dissonance.

I hate to make the analogy as it appears to cheapen the message, but Orwell discussed exactly this idea when he described "doublethink". I sincerely hope (and expect) these judges are at least aware of the obviousness of this from the ADA's responses. They are well read, well educated individuals. If they turn a blind eye to this it would throw any semblance of their impartiality out the window.

As a quote I heard once said, "I can live with being a pawn if the game makes sense!"

I was thinking this when I heard some things about the 2nd version of the Trump travel ban where the judge basically said: "Yes you addressed the previous issues, but because of what you said before about wanting a Muslim ban, I'm ruling against it anyway because that is your true intent...to ban Muslims."

Well if that's how judges are going to rule now, it shouldn't be too hard to find plenty of quotes from politicians stating what their real desire is....which is to ban guns entirely....and say in court "Here is the record of their true intentions your honor."

I loved the part in the video where it is state that even the states own safety manual says not to rely on the LCI. Not to mention the laundry list of people who are exempt from it.....if these things truly make guns safer why wouldn't everyone be required to use only guns on the roster? Answer....because doing so would remove viable options of LE and they don't like that.....so clearly the intent of the roster is to remove options from the general public, nothing more, nothing less. And that was the real intent of microstamping....eliminate options by mandating something that doesn't exist.

I think it should be illegal for the Gov't to be able to mandate the use of non-existent technology. Heck....why don't they just mandate the use of Star Trek phasers if they can mandate stuff that doesn't exist?

At least the one judge noted that microstamping does not improve firearm safety, its merely an investigative tool for the police in the event of a crime.

[Ubermcoupe]

The real problem is that LCI and MDS severely limit availability in the first place.

Remove *just* microstamping from the roster requirements and we still cannot have A SINGLE (non-grandfathered) Glock, HK, S&W semi-auto, Springfield, FNH, Beretta, etc. Not a single one!

It's similar to how the magazine capacity affects availability - it's not just that we have to have no more than 10, but there are MANY guns that don't come in restricted versions and aftermarket magazines are all but impossible to find. Akin to forcing "cars with 10 gallon or smaller tanks" - sure it would reduce bank robberies by forcing fleeing robbers to fill up more often (sarcasm), but it would also significantly limit car availability since very few have such tanks.

If we just lose the microstamping, we lost in practical terms.

[GunsInMyEyes]

Actually it was a easy answer about 1 year....then the long winded blow bags came after that clogging up the feed, which is why no one looks in back pages trying to search through all the bs👍 But thankyou to the non windbags who answered question quickly and shortly

[champu]

Judge on the right seemed to know his way around firearms.

That said, his comparison of the LCI to a seatbelt warning light is pretty reasonable. You always check to make sure your belt is on, the seatbelt light is just a reminder.

Only to the extent that your seatbelt light has a mechanical linkage into the vehicle, say with an extra wheel for your serpentine belt, and presents as a large metal, bright orange fin sticking out of your hood and large letters that explain to you and anyone that might be unfamiliar with cars that your seatbelt isn't on when the fin is up.

[Metal God]

Adding to ruling based on what someone says prior to a bill . The anti's or SJW ( social just warriors) never play there wants out to the end and see what the results actually will produce . I like that idea of allowing past statements of politicians claiming they would like to see all guns banned brought up in court . The problem is those same judges that think it's ok to use it in one instance will not allow it in another completey innoring there own president .

[Untamed1972]

Adding to ruling based on what someone says prior to a bill . The anti's or SJW ( social just warriors) never play there wants out to the end and see what the results actually will produce . I like that idea of allowing past statements of politicians claiming they would like to see all guns banned brought up in court . The problem is those same judges that think it's ok to use it in one instance will not allow it in another completey innoring there own president .

It was just wishful thinking that the 2A would ever get that kinda extralegal considering by the courts. But it was the first thought that when thru my head when I heard that about the travel ban.

It would be nice if there was a way to attack the whole CA regulatory scheme as whole to show that when all of it is put together, the intent and application thereof is nearly a complete nullification of the 2A.

[IVC]

It was just wishful thinking that the 2A would ever get that kinda extralegal considering by the courts. But it was the first thought that when thru my head when I heard that about the travel ban.

You were far from alone in noticing it...

What's more interesting is that with polarization of the judicial system, this method can be used against any *national* AW. In 1994 it was completely different landscape, but imagine Democrats being able to force another national AWB only to have a judge in Texas pull the "political intent" card on them by playing Feinstein's infamous "turn them all in" statement from the early 90's.

[CandG]

Adding to ruling based on what someone says prior to a bill . The anti's or SJW ( social just warriors) never play there wants out to the end and see what the results actually will produce . I like that idea of allowing past statements of politicians claiming they would like to see all guns banned brought up in court . The problem is those same judges that think it's ok to use it in one instance will not allow it in another completey innoring there own president .

Unfortunately, only quotes attributed to those who authored or signed the bills (Pete Wilson & Schwarzenegger, and whoever the roster & microstamping bill authors were) would be relevant. A quote about Feinswine wanting to "round em all up" would be awesome, except she had nothing to do with the roster or microstamping, so it would be slightly irrelevant to this particular case.

After around 20 minutes of searching, I couldn't find any particularly interesting 2a quotes by any of those involved in the roster bills. We all *know* the bill authors want to ban all guns, but sadly I just can't find any concrete evidence to prove it.

[kemasa]

We all *know* the bill authors want to ban all guns, but sadly I just can't find any concrete evidence to prove it.

If it is really about safe firearms, then why in the world is Law Enforcement exempted?

[pacrat]

If it is really about safe firearms, then why in the world is Law Enforcement exempted?

We all know that, that is a rhetorical question, that we already know the answer to. But I will answer it anyway.

[1] Money...............that is filtered through LE Unions to Dem campaign donations to pay for quid pro quo legislation.

[2] PR.............Having several "Defenders of Justice" and "Protectors of Citizens" wearing starched uniforms and shiny badges. Standing like stooges on a podium, with solemn looks and timely nods of the head, behind leftist politicos that they pimp for, telling lies to the sheeple.

That's why? It's never been about "Safety" or "Denying criminals arms".

JM2c

[happy.thoughts]

If it is really about safe firearms, then why in the world is Law Enforcement exempted?

Or more illogical, widows of LE.