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

[abinsinia]

I hope that the two conservative judges finished the majority opinion a long time ago, then they gave it to the one liberal judge so she can write her dissent, and she's dragging her feat and doesn't know what to write ..

[TruOil]

10 months really isn't that long for the Ninth. Give it another 6.

[DaMeMe]

Its seriously been nearly a year since orals and no decision reached or movement made?

To be honest it's going to take years before we can have that unlawful roster list removed even after the ninth circuit court decision. Think about what happened with the conceal carry case in CA. It has been years since that lawsuit was announced and we've yet to receive a conclusion. Let say we are lucky enough to get the 3 panel judge in the ninth circuit court to say the roster list is unlawful. Politicians in CA would most likely say that decision was wrong which would then lead the ninth circuit court to reevaluate the case but this time with more judges that are most likely say the roster list is lawful. We would then have to take this lawsuit to the supreme court and we all know how long that's going to take especially since the supreme court isn't taking any 2nd amendment related cases right now.

[Califpatriot]

Think about what happened with the conceal carry case in CA. It has been years since that lawsuit was announced and we've yet to receive a conclusion.

Who's going to break the news to him?

[champu]

To be honest it's going to take years before we can have that unlawful roster list removed even after the ninth circuit court decision.

[Ubermcoupe]

To be honest it's going to take years before we can have that unlawful roster list removed even after the ninth circuit court decision. ...

"years" ... try decades - if at all (i.e. Peruta)

4/30/2009 - Complaint.

Trial Court: E.D. Cal.
Case No.: 2:09-cv-01185
Docket: http://ia801400.us.archive.org/30/it...44.docket.html

...

[TruOil]

To be honest it's going to take years before we can have that unlawful roster list removed even after the ninth circuit court decision.

The microstamping rule is one thing--since there is no technology that complies with the statutory mandate (and separately that it has nothing to do with safety)--while the rest of the roster requirements another thing all together. The initial requirements--drop safety and reliability--were a consumer safety regulation, and the add-ons (LCI, manual safety and mag disconnect) protections against consumer stupidity ("I didn't know the gun was loaded, and I'm so sorry my friend...") Do you really think any court is going to find that "safety" requirements with which pretty much all manufacturers can comply are "illegal"? Sorry, I really don't see it happen, especially when compared to the regulatory framework that applies to a plethora of consumer products on the market right now.

[pistol3]

The microstamping rule is one thing--since there is no technology that complies with the statutory mandate (and separately that it has nothing to do with safety)--while the rest of the roster requirements another thing all together. The initial requirements--drop safety and reliability--were a consumer safety regulation, and the add-ons (LCI, manual safety and mag disconnect) protections against consumer stupidity ("I didn't know the gun was loaded, and I'm so sorry my friend...") Do you really think any court is going to find that "safety" requirements with which pretty much all manufacturers can comply are "illegal"? Sorry, I really don't see it happen, especially when compared to the regulatory framework that applies to a plethora of consumer products on the market right now.

I think it would be entirely possible for a court (not the 9th, obviously) to rule that guns in common use for lawful purposes cannot be banned for sale because they do not have a certain safety feature desired by a state government.

[Saym14]

I think it would be entirely possible for a court (not the 9th, obviously) to rule that guns in common use for lawful purposes cannot be banned for sale because they do not have a certain safety feature desired by a state government.

the problem is

I think

the california law makers dont care what you think

[BAJ475]

the problem is

the California law makers don't care what you think

And in all but a couple of states there is no roster, so no likelihood of a challenge being raised outside of the 9th.

[TruOil]

And in all but a couple of states there is no roster, so no likelihood of a challenge being raised outside of the 9th.

Isn't Massachusetts the only other one? No hope there.

[Drivedabizness]

While there may be/is a distinction nothing unconstitutional is ever legal.

[Paladin]

Its seriously been nearly a year since orals and no decision reached or movement made?

I won't start getting antsy until Oct 01 rolls around without a decision.

Until then, just relax, enjoy your lives, and let those "wheels of justice" quietly grind away....

[Rastoff]

I won't start getting antsy until Oct 01 rolls around without a decision.

Until then, just relax, enjoy your lives, and let those "wheels of justice" quietly grind away....

I think this is one of the great failings of the populace in the 21st century; letting the wheels of justice grind away.

The founding fathers understood the value of a speedy trial to the accused. This is necessary because their life is passing by and we have limited time on this earth. Time is the one commodity that can never be traded and never increases. So, a long trial or wait for a trial is tantamount to being found guilty right away.

The right to a speedy trial doesn't apply to matters of legislation. They always go against us because they go into affect immediately and then take decades to overturn NO MATTER HOW UNCONSTITUTIONAL THEY ARE.

Look at the microstamping issue. We held it off for a few years, but its enactment is a 100% gun ban which is 100% unconstitutional both in the concept of fair trade and the 2A.

No, I don't agree with being patient. It is our right and our duty to show the powers-that-be that we're fed up with their condescending attitude toward our rights. We need to force them to do their jobs. Stop taking vacations every other week and just get it done. I don't know how to do it, but the time for patiently waiting is past.

[Librarian]

There's no leverage to compel changes.

Judges have a lifetime appointment; I don't see SCOTUS issuing a mandamus, 'get off the dime' order.