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

[champu]

And therein lies the problem. Not only do most voters lack common sense, but most of them don't even understand what the term means. Their propaganda regularly attaches the phrase to just about everything that is, in fact, not common sense at all.

[CandG]

It's indeed a common propaganda technique, to subtly make those opposed to an idea sound evil and/or ignorant. The more subtle, the better. Saying a bill is common sense, is a subtle way of calling opponents imbeciles. Black Lives Matter is another excellent example of this - it makes anyone who doesn't support their cause sound like they think black lives don't matter, when in fact that is largely not the case. The mistake that most of us make, is in underestimating the creativity of our opponents. They know exactly what to say to get people riled up against what we believe in, and frankly they've been better at it than us for a long time, which is why we are where we are.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[mshill]

It's indeed a common propaganda technique, to subtly make those opposed to an idea sound evil and/or ignorant. ....
They know exactly what to say to get people riled up against what we believe in, and frankly they've been better at it than us for a long time, which is why we are where we are.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

This is absolutely true, however, when the right does it (eg. #ReleaseTheMemo) even the right itself says it hurts the cause to conflate the evidence or cherry pick statistics. Its a complete double standard when Feinstein says "people will die because of the shutdown" and Pelosi says the tax cuts will cause "armagedon" and yet the Republicans write a memo that "might" indicate that the DOJ went soft on Hillary and its "overstating the facts".
/rant

[CandG]

This is absolutely true, however, when the right does it (eg. #ReleaseTheMemo) even the right itself says it hurts the cause to conflate the evidence or cherry pick statistics. Its a complete double standard when Feinstein says "people will die because of the shutdown" and Pelosi says the tax cuts will cause "armagedon" and yet the Republicans write a memo that "might" indicate that the DOJ went soft on Hillary and its "overstating the facts".
/rant

Ya, I think that's largely due to the mainstream media liberal bias - unfortunately there's not much we can do about that, other than trying to discredit them, which fortunately has been one of Trump's top priorities since taking office. With any luck, hopefully he'll make a dent in it.

[Ultralight]

Roster roll offs

Forgive me for my lack of roster knowledge and my general naiveness, but my understanding is that firearms can "roll off" the roster, that they can expire and simply because the firearm manufacturer decides to no longer pay the state of California a fee to keep it on the roster.
Is that correct?
If so, that in itself should be enough to prove that the roster is total BS.

I just checked the roster for Glocks. Per the roster, the Glock G17 3rd gen is set to "roll off" on January 1, 2019 unless Glock pays them a fee to keep it on the list. How can a Glock G17 3rd gen pistol be safe on December 31, 2018 but potentially not safe the following day?
How can safety be dependent upon simply whether a gun maker pays a state a fee?

[Librarian]

Forgive me for my lack of roster knowledge and my general naiveness, but my understanding is that firearms can "roll off" the roster, that they can expire and simply because the firearm manufacturer decides to no longer pay the state of California a fee to keep it on the roster.
Is that correct?
If so, that in itself should be enough to prove that the roster is total BS.

I just checked the roster for Glocks. Per the roster, the Glock G17 3rd gen is set to "roll off" on January 1, 2019 unless Glock pays them a fee to keep it on the list. How can a Glock G17 3rd gen pistol be safe on December 31, 2018 but potentially not safe the following day?
How can safety be dependent upon simply whether a gun maker pays a state a fee?

Sound observations.

Add to those the exemptions for law enforcement put the families of those officers who choose off-Roster handguns at risk, and of course should they carry them on duty, that puts the public at risk from these 'unsafe' guns.

That should lead you to conclude the Roster has nothing at all to do with safety.

[Ultralight]

I love cops. I know how hard their jobs can be (especially with those unsafe off roster handguns), and how at times they can be severely underappreciated. I have several friends who come from LEO families. I support LEOs all the way.
But I've never understood how LEOs and their ability to buy off roster firearms and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds passes the Equal Protection test. Or at least my basic understanding of it.

Merriam Websters defines Equal Protection as:
"a guarantee under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that a state must treat an individual or class of individuals the same as it treats other individuals or classes in like circumstances"

All I know is I really dislike this roster BS.

[mshill]

I love cops. I know how hard their jobs can be (especially with those unsafe off roster handguns), and how at times they can be severely underappreciated. I have several friends who come from LEO families. I support LEOs all the way.
But I've never understood how LEOs and their ability to buy off roster firearms and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds passes the Equal Protection test. Or at least my basic understanding of it.

Merriam Websters defines Equal Protection as:
"a guarantee under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that a state must treat an individual or class of individuals the same as it treats other individuals or classes in like circumstances"

All I know is I really dislike this roster BS.

"classes in like circumstances" - that right there allows those in charge to define, and redefine, the term "like circumstances". To some it means we are all "alive and living in the state of California", to others it means a "level of (perceived) risk".

[EM2]

I love cops. I know how hard their jobs can be (especially with those unsafe off roster handguns), and how at times they can be severely underappreciated. I have several friends who come from LEO families. I support LEOs all the way.
But I've never understood how LEOs and their ability to buy off roster firearms and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds passes the Equal Protection test. Or at least my basic understanding of it.

Merriam Websters defines Equal Protection as:
"a guarantee under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that a state must treat an individual or class of individuals the same as it treats other individuals or classes in like circumstances"

All I know is I really dislike this roster BS.

Its easy to understand when you realize that we are living under Tyranny by Law under a bureaucratic state.
Typically Tyranny is recognized by violent acts to keep people in line.
However, since we are a "civilized" society of law abiding people they are able to practice Tyranny by Law without resorting to as much violence as would be needed otherwise.

You, and most of us here, discuss using sound logic and reason, but these are not relevant in this discussion because those in power are rationalizing to get the result they want.
People like us bang our heads in disbelief because we do not suffer from a mental disorder.

[aBrowningfan]

"classes in like circumstances" - that right there allows those in charge to define, and redefine, the term "like circumstances". To some it means we are all "alive and living in the state of California", to others it means a "level of (perceived) risk".

^^^This. If you are a LEO, you get to buy off roster and high-cap mags. The rest of the un-washed masses have to make do with whatever the roster permits and absolutely not any high-cap mags.

[CandG]

But I've never understood how LEOs and their ability to buy off roster firearms and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds passes the Equal Protection test. Or at least my basic understanding of it.

All animals deserve equal protection. But some animals deserve more equal protection than others.

[justwanaride]

Yet the day an officer retires they are no longer able to purchase either off roster handguns or standard capacity magazines. Nothing to do with safety just extortion and control.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Paladin]

Bybee was a GWB appointee, so that's one likely anti (McKeown) and one likely pro (Bybee), so I won't even guess if we'll win or not with Wallace.

ETA: Watched (rewatched?) the oral arguments. I am more optimistic. From 30:00 onward is the meat. Wallace cuts to the core re. microstamping not being a safety per se issue, but an aid to LE investigators. So I'm putting him on our side.

Depending upon how the court chooses to approach the case (42:25 and following), I could see microstamping shot down (not consumer safety of gun, but public safety of aiding LE), CLI upheld (via "evolving" standards of safety), but not sure which way they (the majority?) will go on MDM.

I have a question for anyone who's up-to-speed on our side's briefs.

I was thinking about how they'd rule on the MDM when I realized that if they uphold the CLI (which I think they will), that makes the need even less for the MDM, because anyone will be easily able to know if the chamber is loaded or not, whether the magazine is inserted or not. Not knowing/realizing that a semi's chamber is still loaded after the magazine is removed is the whole of the MDM.

Does anyone know if Gura/others pointed that out in the briefing? I did not hear Gura point that out during oral arguments.

[TruOil]

Forgive me for my lack of roster knowledge and my general naiveness, but my understanding is that firearms can "roll off" the roster, that they can expire and simply because the firearm manufacturer decides to no longer pay the state of California a fee to keep it on the roster.
Is that correct?
If so, that in itself should be enough to prove that the roster is total BS.

I just checked the roster for Glocks. Per the roster, the Glock G17 3rd gen is set to "roll off" on January 1, 2019 unless Glock pays them a fee to keep it on the list. How can a Glock G17 3rd gen pistol be safe on December 31, 2018 but potentially not safe the following day?
How can safety be dependent upon simply whether a gun maker pays a state a fee?

It is called grandfathering. Once on the roster, a gun stays on the roster as long as the manufacturer continues to pay the annual fee, and as long as there are no material changes to the firearm. My Kahr does not have an LCI, a manual safety or a magazine disconnect, but as long as Kahr continues to make the same model, it stays on the list because it was on the list before those requirements were imposed. Glock can sell Gen 3s for the same reason, but cannot sell Gen 4s (or later) because they do not comply with Roster requirements in existence at the time it was brought to market.

The "material change" deal can be a pitfall. Ruger changed a takedown pin from forged to MIM, and Kamala said that this was a material change and the pistol could not be sold without including microstamping. Colt went from an old production facility to a new CNC facility--and that is why it sells no pistols in this state, because that was a "material change."

[TruOil]

I have a question for anyone who's up-to-speed on our side's briefs.

I was thinking about how they'd rule on the MDM when I realized that if they uphold the CLI (which I think they will), that makes the need even less for the MDM, because anyone will be easily able to know if the chamber is loaded or not. Not knowing/realizing that a semi's chamber is still loaded after the magazine is removed is the whole of the MDM.

Does anyone know if Gura/others pointed that out in the briefing? I did not hear Gura point that out during oral arguments.

The flaw in your argument, if my recollection is correct, is that the mag disconnect requirement was imposed AFTER the LCI requirement. Because people are stupid, and the Legislature has deemed it in the public interest to stop Darwinism in its tracks. Go figure. It is the same reason so many products and hot food items have all those warnings plastered all over them. And why we have the FSC.

Personally, I think the safety aspects of the Roster aren't going anywhere, any more than seat belts and airbags aren't going anywhere. But the microstamping rule is likely on the rocks.