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

[lawj11]

How does this make it more or less unconstitutional?

The NSSF vs CA Microstamping doesn't argue on the basis of the constitutionality. Do some research for yourself. NSSF argues that a law that requires something that is impossible to do cannot be enforced. NSSF lost the first case because they admitted that it is possible to place two stamps both on the firing pin. If manufacturers would just comply, then they could sell new guns in CA. If they choose not to comply, then they can continue selling older models. Please people, do some research before you go popping off. I hate this too, but they are the facts and there are sure a lot of uneducated people here. Pena vs Cid, now that is based on the constitutionality of the handgun roster. If the court upholds in the NSSF case that it is possible to place two stamps using the firing pin (one above the other), than how is the handgun roster unconstitutional? All manufacturers have to do is comply with the requirements to sell new guns in CA, just like car manufacturers had to comply with the airbag requirements to sell cars (which they fought bitterly and lost). Also, the state can simply argue that old handguns are exempt for new roster requirements so just keep producing and selling old models.

[kemasa]

They are not safety features.

We know this because LE are allowed to purchase and use 'unsafe handguns', endangering the public and their own families.

This.

If it was really about safety, LE would NOT be exempt, not for their duty gun, not for their personal guns.

Also, once tested, the firearm should forever remain on the list, but instead if the annual payment is not made, the law abiding citizens can no longer buy it.

The color, grips or engraving should not matter either, but it does.

[lawj11]

This.

If it was really about safety, LE would NOT be exempt, not for their duty gun, not for their personal guns.

Also, once tested, the firearm should forever remain on the list, but instead if the annual payment is not made, the law abiding citizens can no longer buy it.

The color, grips or engraving should not matter either, but it does.

Agreed, had nothing to do with safety. In the Pena case the state has expanded the definition of safety to include public saftey to explain the microstamping requirement. Obviously its total BS and a defacto ban on semi auto handguns. Sooner or later manufacturers will all stop making their older models. This is what CA is banking on, but they will argue that that is up to the manufacturers. Also they will argue that they can comply with the roster and make both stamps with the firing pin.

[kemasa]

Agreed, had nothing to do with safety. In the Pena case the state has expanded the definition of safety to include public saftey to explain the microstamping requirement. Obviously its total BS and a defacto ban on semi auto handguns. Sooner or later manufacturers will all stop making their older models. This is what CA is banking on, but they will argue that that is up to the manufacturers. Also they will argue that they can comply with the roster and make both stamps with the firing pin.

It won't matter much unless people get a Real ID when your CA ID/DL renews, otherwise you will get the illegal alien version, which can't be used for firearms.

[taperxz]

Agreed, had nothing to do with safety. In the Pena case the state has expanded the definition of safety to include public saftey to explain the microstamping requirement. Obviously its total BS and a defacto ban on semi auto handguns. Sooner or later manufacturers will all stop making their older models. This is what CA is banking on, but they will argue that that is up to the manufacturers. Also they will argue that they can comply with the roster and make both stamps with the firing pin.

[MJB]

This.

If it was really about safety, LE would NOT be exempt, not for their duty gun, not for their personal guns.

Also, once tested, the firearm should forever remain on the list, but instead if the annual payment is not made, the law abiding citizens can no longer buy it.

The color, grips or engraving should not matter either, but it does.

Why haven't they gone this direction in lawsuits?

[kemasa]

Why haven't they gone this direction in lawsuits?

You would have to ask the lawyers. I don't know.

[lawj11]

That’s a good point, I hope they were genuine in using the church analogy and not just playing devil’s advocate.

[abinsinia]

1. They are safety features. How many times have you heard of an idiot who dropped the mag, and after shooting someone declared "I thought the gun wa unloaded?" You have no idea how many lives are saved by these safety features, and you cannot extrapolate from the number of "successful" negligent discharges to someone who realized before pulling the trigger that the gun was loaded? It is like DGUs: there is no way to acscertain the effectiveness of the law.

I don't know how many have been saved or not, but most of the country doesn't have these laws and the number of deaths is very low. Even if the law was effective, it doesn't effect enough people to be be a legitimate government interest. Certainly not enough to remove people's civil rights.

2. Cars ARE heavily regulated. That is why we have seat belts (I am old enough to remember when cares did not even have them), air bags, DRLs, airbags, crush zones, etc. etc. etc. I don't perceive that any manufacturer thinks of these safety features being a "car ban." There would be well over 1000 handguns on the roster but for the microstamping rule, and while we may argue as to the efficacy of any particular measure, would you rather have handguns that are or are not drop safe and won't blow up in your hand under normal circumstances? This is what the original roster law was intended to accomplish and it did. In fact, drop safe features are incorporated in most new handguns 9except Series 70 Colt 1911s).

You can still buy an old car out of state and bring it into California. I would bet there are exemptions (available to more than just LEO) even for reproduction old cars without seat belts.

No one would suggest it's a car ban because it isn't a car ban in the way the roster is a gun ban.

4. The analogy to the First Amendment is inapt. You can still have guns, and as many guns as you like, as long as they are on the Roster. Your right to keep and bear them is unaffected. The original intent, and the purpose of its requirements, is top prevent you from shooting dangerous guns. And as I said, the later requirements were to protect people from their own stupidity and/or lack of training.

[FlyingShooter]

Honest question from the uneducated here: how come the NRA is not more involved with CA’s unconstitutional and restrictive gun laws, like the lawsuit they they just filed in Florida? Or did they in the case of the CA roster or microstamping?

[lawj11]

Honest question from the uneducated here: how come the NRA is not more involved with CA’s unconstitutional and restrictive gun laws, like the lawsuit they they just filed in Florida? Or did they in the case of the CA roster or microstamping?

They’re involved throught the Californa Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA).

[jwissick]

You can still buy an old car out of state and bring it into California.

This is not entirely accurate. I know people that have tried to bring in smart cars that run on diesel and they are turned away when they try to register the car.

[Ford8N]

This is not entirely accurate. I know people that have tried to bring in smart cars that run on diesel and they are turned away when they try to register the car.

Very true. Also certain car part manufactures will not ship performance parts to California because they are illegal, just like firearms.


California is a S**THOLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[kemasa]

Very true. Also certain car part manufactures will not ship performance parts to California because they are illegal, just like firearms.

It is worst than just that, consider a cat. converter, if it is not registered as tested for CA you can't use it, which greatly increases the cost to replace it. It has to be marked with some number.

Also, the firearms which are not on the certified list are NOT illegal, the ability to transfer them is just limited, which is a big difference.

[abinsinia]

It is worst than just that, consider a cat. converter, if it is not registered as tested for CA you can't use it, which greatly increases the cost to replace it. It has to be marked with some number.

Also, the firearms which are not on the certified list are NOT illegal, the ability to transfer them is just limited, which is a big difference.

I would have guessed cars would be less regulated , not sure now with all the comments.

When I wrote that you could buy a car outside California, I was thinking more like a Model T, or a 57 Chevy , not something too new. I would assume California would have exemption for that. Compared to guns you can't transfer an older gun which was privately owned into California ownership, no matter how much work you have done on it, unless you have special rights or a special situation.