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

[FortCourageArmory]

Judge obviously loves Glocks, Gen3 Glocks for everybody! It'll be one of the last ones left and the official 2A firearm of CA.

And lets not forget single-action revolvers. Ruger Vaqueros and Gen3 Glocks for ebpveryone.

[RipVanWinkle]

I think you're missing here that it was the plaintiffs who wanted rational basis, if the judge performed rational basis she would have had to reckon with the various roster law anomalies head-on. Rational basis would actually have helped here. She cites Heller but in doing so kind of turns its rationale for rejecting rational basis on its head. It really is a chickensh*t opinion in that regard, but that is not to say that the result is going to change on appeal, or that Pena isn't a candiate for the all time stinker award. My opinion on that score hasn't changed since this thread from 2011 (I know there's more stuff from earlier but for the life of me I can't find the threads), on all of the case themes: burden, regulation vs. prohibition of an entire class of arms, common use, wide variety of handgun models on roster, desire to purchase particular handguns ("I want two-tone"), etc. Even if there were some radical diminution in the number of handguns on the roster, there would be a huge cause and effect problem; if manufacturers stop selling in california en masse it wouldn't be a matter of "can't comply with the roster law" but "don't want to comply." Whatever points might be scored on anomolaies/irrationalities in the law can be fixed by legislation. There will not be any knockout punch.

I certainly wouldn't bet against you on any of this. However, navyinrwanda makes some worthwhile points in the thread that you linked:

Again, if the roster banned the commercial sale of a substantial portion of an entire class of otherwise protected firearms, wouldn't it be a substantial burden? Or if the manner of banning those firearms was demonstrably irrational (i.e., either served no valid purpose, or actually made firearms more dangerous, e.g. magazine disconnect), or if it was applied in a arbitrary and capricious manner that banned virtually every firearm in a class (e.g., chamber load indicator), then wouldn't wouldn't the roster fail?

[moleculo]

Just heard Gene on Tom's program.

Best guess another year to 15 months before a panel of the 9th. He also brought up the possibility of going to SCOTUS. (Another year for that IMO.)
Left unmentioned was a possible rehearing by the panel and/or it going en banc (at least another year for that).

To paraphrase and take out of context an old political saying, "A year here, a year there -- before you know it, you're talking a lot of time...."

It doesn't help with their arguments in this case are weak, at best. Honestly, this judge wasn't given a lot of reason to rule in our favor, as has been pointed out a few times by those who predicted the outcome of this case years ago. Unless something changes dramatically, this case will lose on appeal and SCOTUS won't have any reason to pick it up.

[9M62]

None of the litigation is moving fast, never does.....

It does if you're gay.

[dfletcher]

It may or may not. Here's a 1st Amendment flowchart:

( I'd embed it, but it's too big. )

http://faculty.lls.edu/manheim/charts/speech1.gif

My guess is that the 2nd Amendment flowchart from 50 years hence will be similarly complex.

-- Michael

Interesting chart - too bad we don't have more Justice Blacks in the world, for the 1st and for the 2nd.

[Scythe]

I think I am going to move out of this liberal lunatic asylum as soon as I can.

[kemasa]

There is no penalty for the politicians to pass unConstitutional laws and those laws get enforced for years with nothing being really done about correcting the harm that is caused. When the law gets tossed out in court, then they can pass another law and have that in effect for years, so why not?

Until laws can be stopped from being enforced until it can be shown that it is Constitutional, then this same game will continue again and again and allow the politicians to do what they want.

[Paladin]

Just heard Gene on Tom's program.

Best guess another year to 15 months before a panel of the 9th. He also brought up the possibility of going to SCOTUS. (Another year for that IMO.)
Left unmentioned was a possible rehearing by the panel and/or it going en banc (at least another year for that).

To paraphrase and take out of context an old political saying, "A year here, a year there -- before you know it, you're talking a lot of time...."

[paultakeda]

What about the LGS selling a dwindling inventory that would put them out of business or the inability for interstate commerce? Or with the micro stamp act there is now an effective ban that eliminates any new handgun that may have better safety features?

The argument for removing the roster in the original case reads weak to me after gong through that thread mentioned earlier. Wouldn't arguing that the way the roster works actually prevents the registration of newer, safer handguns and that if there must be a roster, it should be a roster of unsafe SKUs barred from sale due to being proven unsafe, where unsafe is a demonstration of safety features that actually exist?

I'm starting to think this case is not very strong with regards to the 2A but may have a shot at removing the micro stamp requirement due to its commercial feasibility and its extreme effect on the roster inventory. Can the case appealed to the 9th be refocused to address specific models that are new and therefore automatically barred because of the microstamp requirement but are otherwise equipped with superior safety features than an older model SKU? Can that then be used not only to remove the microstamp requirement but also translate to a problem with the way the roster is implemented if it is purportedly about keeping saleable handguns safe according to the UHA?

I'm not a lawyer and I also haven't read through all of the discussions, so pardon if all this is written in ignorance.

[antiseen]

None of the litigation is moving fast, never does.....

I don't expect it to move fast, but at the same time I'm not thrilled that it moves at a pace slower than a snail lapping the world. This, for a constitutionally guaranteed right. Shall not be infringed.

I know people will say big deal you can still buy guns in California but that doesn't make it any easier to lie down and take it up the bum.

I'm pretty sure when the second amendment was written it wasn't just for flintlock pistols, for sporting purposes, because what person would ever need a military grade rifle? And the pistol has to be approved by the government, and only capable of firing light charges with wooden ammo, because no common person needed led projectiles for any legitimate purpose. Just ridiculous.

[ronlglock]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apocalypsenerd View Post
So the district court says on page 26, lines 12-15:

"However, California residents, including those who have no out-of-state family, are not prevented from possessing unlisted guns, receiving them as intra-family gifts from in-state relatives, or bringing them into the state for noncommercial purposes."

Huhh?? I certainly don't see anything that says the judge is making any change to any current law/regulation. Judge is more or less just saying 'shut up and be happy with what you have'.

You are correct that she is not making a change to the law, she just pointed out that the law states that we can, "bring them into the state for noncommercial purposes."

So let's follow her suggestion to bring them in...

[HowardW56]

The sad thing is that even if this judge had ruled in our favor and struck down the roster completely, we'd still be in exact same position. Stayed pending appeal. So while I'm bummed about this decision, I'm so disillusioned I don't really care.

If I ever want gun rights I will have to leave California.

None of the litigation is moving fast, never does.....

[antiseen]

The sad thing is that even if this judge had ruled in our favor and struck down the roster completely, we'd still be in exact same position. Stayed pending appeal. So while I'm bummed about this decision, I'm so disillusioned I don't really care.

If I ever want gun rights I will have to leave California.

[ElDub1950]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apocalypsenerd View Post
So the district court says on page 26, lines 12-15:

"However, California residents, including those who have no out-of-state family, are not prevented from possessing unlisted guns, receiving them as intra-family gifts from in-state relatives, or bringing them into the state for noncommercial purposes."

Has the judge just given us permission to receive a gun from a friend in another state without PPT background checks and then bring it back into California to register as long as it's for personal use?

Huhh?? I certainly don't see anything that says the judge is making any change to any current law/regulation. Judge is more or less just saying 'shut up and be happy with what you have'.

[Noble Cause]

Interesting the first major media to cover this online
so far is Bloomberg ....(the OC Register article is just
a reprint of the Bloomberg article)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-27/california-gun-microstamping-law-is-upheld-by-federal-judge

Which leads to the question...
How can you tell when a Gun Control Advocate is lying ?

Answer...
Whenever their lips are moving....


Noble