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

[taperxz]

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.

One judge actually mentioned that the mag disconnect actually takes the 2A from the user in the name of safety.

He deemed this safety feature as a way to remove ones 2A rights.

[CandG]

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."

I agree with what you are saying, but I think the point Ultralight was trying to make was that the DOJ using the payment of their annual fee as their SOLE criteria to decide if an otherwise-unchanged pistol is still safe or not, is absolute evidence that the roster has zero to do with actual safety.

[ojisan]

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.

Initially it was the manufacturer's choice between LCI (Loaded Chamber Indicator, all types accepted) or a MDS (Magazine Disconnect Safety).

Then it was changed to both being required, with the LCI now changed to a much bigger and larger CLI (Chamber Loaded Indicator).

Then after Kamala made her decision that microstamping was available; CLI, MDS and microstamp are all required.

[Librarian]

The flaw in your argument, if my recollection is correct, is that the mag disconnect requirement was imposed AFTER the LCI requirement.

Nope - 31910(b)

(4) Commencing January 1, 2006, for a center fire semiautomatic pistol that is not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015, it does not have either a chamber load indicator, or a magazine disconnect mechanism.

(5) Commencing January 1, 2007, for all center fire semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015, it does not have both a chamber load indicator and if it has a detachable magazine, a magazine disconnect mechanism.

(6) Commencing January 1, 2006, for all rimfire semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015, it does not have a magazine disconnect mechanism, if it has a detachable magazine.

[TruOil]

Nope - 31910(b)

So I WAS right. Kinda. Although the statute was enacted at one time, the mag disconnect was mandated a year later. It seems to me manufacturers chose the LCI over a mag disconnect first, and then both a year later.

[JackRydden224]

It's almost 1 year after the oral arguments made last year so I'm hoping we get a conclusion pretty soon.

[TruOil]

It's almost 1 year after the oral arguments made last year so I'm hoping we get a conclusion pretty soon.

Give it another six months to a year. Personally, I think the Ninth will wait to see what the California Supreme court does in the NSSF v. Becerra case before issuing its decision. I believe that the Ninth is bound by the decisions of the state's highest court on issues of interpretation and application of state law.

[BrotherSharp]

(Crap, I originally posted it the wrong place I think. This is a repost)

I was just wondering how long is the court going to take to make a decision on the most recent hearing concerning the microstamping law.

I figured we must be coming up on some sort of time limit.

According to the 9th circuit lawyers guide...page 17

G. HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE FROM THE TIME OF ARGUMENT TO THE TIME OF DECISION The Court has no time limit, but most cases are decided within 3 months to a year.

I am sad.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/guides/AppellatePracticeGuide.pdf

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TruOil]

(Crap, I originally posted it the wrong place I think. This is a repost)

I was just wondering how long is the court going to take to make a decision on the most recent hearing concerning the microstamping law.

I figured we must be coming up on some sort of time limit.

According to the 9th circuit lawyers guide...page 17

G. HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE FROM THE TIME OF ARGUMENT TO THE TIME OF DECISION The Court has no time limit, but most cases are decided within 3 months to a year.

I am sad.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/guides/AppellatePracticeGuide.pdf

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You did. As to this case, I suspect the Ninth will wait to see the outcome in the NSSF case before issuing a decision, since they cover some of the same ground, and the Ninth will be bound by the California Supreme Court's decision as it respects California law.

[wolfwood]

You did. As to this case, I suspect the Ninth will wait to see the outcome in the NSSF case before issuing a decision, since they cover some of the same ground, and the Ninth will be bound by the California Supreme Court's decision as it respects California law.

What state law claim were raised in Pena? It been a long time since I reviewed the briefs.

I think that we are going to get something from Pena. Maybe not a lot but something. It was a GOP majority panel and this has been taking a long time. That makes me at least want to believe they are trying to write a comprehensive opinion that won't get overturned. Its either that or there are two judges who have made up there mind and one judge in the middle who can't decide.

Isn't there one guy who is left handed that can't get a gun that he can hold right?

[command_liner]

What state law claim were raised in Pena? It been a long time since I reviewed the briefs.

I think that we are going to get something from Pena. Maybe not a lot but something. It was a GOP majority panel and this has been taking a long time. That makes me at least want to believe they are trying to write a comprehensive opinion that won't get overturned. Its either that or there are two judges who have made up there mind and one judge in the middle who can't decide.

Isn't there one guy who is left handed that can't get a gun that he can hold right?

Dona took my argument about 2-colored XD45s, the gent I only recall as "Gimp" (sorry) took the left-hand argument, and Ivan took some other part of the argument.

Nowhere is there a compelling state argument about the unsafe-ness of left handed models of a firearm. Neither is there a compelling argument about the color of a firearm making for unsafe-ness. {Perhaps this is why the CA DOJ is arguing both sides of the color issue! It is 'not unsafe' if the color of the serialized part changes -- the frame -- but it is 'not not unsafe' if the color of the slide changes. For the same same model of the same firearm. At least the state will always be right with this argument?}

Perhaps a left-handed, two-colored version of the XD45 would be not-not-not unsafe, making it safe for sale to non LEO in CA? Perhaps we can ask Gavin for clarity.

[TruOil]

What state law claim were raised in Pena? It been a long time since I reviewed the briefs.

I think that we are going to get something from Pena. Maybe not a lot but something. It was a GOP majority panel and this has been taking a long time. That makes me at least want to believe they are trying to write a comprehensive opinion that won't get overturned. Its either that or there are two judges who have made up there mind and one judge in the middle who can't decide.

Isn't there one guy who is left handed that can't get a gun that he can hold right?

It has been a long time for me as well. As I recall, without going back to look, is that Pena was an attack on the entire Roster and all of its requirements for safety features, while the NSSF case focused on the certification of the microstamping requirement. Further, I think that the defendant was having a hard time justifying to the panel the microstamping requirement as it really has nothing at all to do with safety.
I think Pena has some hard ground that it will not be able to overcome, but that is just my opinion. As originally cast, the Roster was for drop safety, which is hard to criticize. The subsequent amendments to the law were imposed to protect people from their own stupidity, and in that sense, are not any different than all of the safety requirements the Fed imposes on car manufacturers. Again, these are easily justified unless you believe that the State has no justifiable interest in preventing the operation of Darwin's Law.

[TruOil]

What state law claim were raised in Pena? It been a long time since I reviewed the briefs.

I think that we are going to get something from Pena. Maybe not a lot but something. It was a GOP majority panel and this has been taking a long time. That makes me at least want to believe they are trying to write a comprehensive opinion that won't get overturned. Its either that or there are two judges who have made up there mind and one judge in the middle who can't decide.

Isn't there one guy who is left handed that can't get a gun that he can hold right?

It has been a long time for me as well. As I recall, without going back to look, is that Pena was an attack on the entire Roster and all of its requirements for safety features, while the NSSF case focused on the certification of the microstamping requirement. Further, I think that the defendant was having a hard time justifying to the panel the microstamping requirement as it really has nothing at all to do with safety.
I think Pena has some hard ground that it will not be able to overcome, but that is just my opinion. As originally cast, the Roster was for drop safety, which is hard to criticize. The subsequent amendments to the law were imposed to protect people from their own stupidity, and in that sense, are not any different than all of the safety requirements the Fed imposes on car manufacturers. Again, these are easily justified unless you believe that the State has no justifiable interest in preventing the operation of Darwin's Law.

[TruOil]

P.S.: In case you hadn't noticed, the NSSF case is scheduled for hearing April 4. If the Supreme Court agrees with the state that the DOJ's certification is not subject to judicial review (unlikely as that seems), then the winning issue in Pena will be moot. Hence, and given that the Supreme Court's ruling on issues of state law is binding on federal courts, the delay in Pena is to be expected.

[Phalanx20mm]

Isn't the roster and the associated fees violating the ruling in Brown v. Maryland. The State isn't allowed to charge a tariff (roster fee) restricting Interstate Commerce.

Nothing the Leftist say has anything to do with the real issue. Their agenda is always to gain control by any means necessary. That's why none of the Leftist ideals have ever worked anywhere other than to enslave the non-elites.