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

[Sousuke]

You have to admit the microstamping requirement is pretty crazy though. It appears impossible to comply with. The 51 page disent lays out why it is unconstitutional better than I ever can.

But california is saying it will only cost 10 per gun and can be done. They sided with their evidence apparently.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

You have to admit the microstamping requirement is pretty crazy though. It appears impossible to comply with. The 51 page disent lays out why it is unconstitutional better than I ever can.

The evidence of "impossibility" fell short, it was essentially a litigation posture and the majority saw through that and was generally not impressed by the manufacturers' deliberate non-compliance with the roster. (I made similar observations here and here.)

[cire raeb]

Let SCOTUS settle it once for all with a 6-3 ruling. I see Ginburgs or one of the fat girls leaving for a health reason.

[AdamVIP]

Sigh.

[Sousuke]

Hmm... Do you think SCOTUS would take this case? Being a pretty CA-specific law, I'm concerned that they'd pass.

What's next, en banc?

Its going to be interesting isn't it. If SCOTUS passes, I would assume more states start to pick this law up. If more states pick this law up, do manufacturers blink first and start implementing?

(I'll mention that my view is it probably is feasible to implement)

[kcbrown]

The proof is in the pudding lol.



It would be nice to go on a trip down memory lane to read my original criticisms of this massive turd of a case, but they seem to have vanished into the ether unfortunately. This was a textbook example of what not to do, you could not have crafted this any more carefully to ensure a loss even if you tried.

Oh I quite agree, the approach is lacking.

But let me put it this way: if the court will uphold a law on an as-applied basis even though it fails rational basis in that circumstance, how can you possibly expect to win under ANY circumstances?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kcbrown]

The evidence of "impossibility" fell short, it was essentially a litigation posture and the majority saw through that and was generally not impressed by the manufacturers' deliberate non-compliance with the roster. (I made similar observations here and here.)

Then explain how the dissent is incorrect as a matter of law.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Uncivil Engineer]

So you think it is possible to stamp make model and serial number in two places at the time of firing a cartridge? And further you think it is possible for a handgun to do this reliably how many times it for how long?

Then when someone replaces a slide, barrel, firing pin, this will continue to work?

I'm calling bs. This is more magical thinking from the anti gun folks.

Its going to be interesting isn't it. If SCOTUS passes, I would assume more states start to pick this law up. If more states pick this law up, do manufacturers blink first and start implementing?

(I'll mention that my view is it probably is feasible to implement)

[Sousuke]

So you think it is possible to stamp make model and serial number in two places at the time of firing a cartridge? And further you think it is possible for a handgun to do this reliably how many times it for how long?

Then when someone replaces a slide, barrel, firing pin, this will continue to work?

I'm calling bs. This is more magical thinking from the anti gun folks.

Its possible to do...badly.

The firing pin stamp would be pretty consistent. Probably 98% of the time.

The headstamp would be inconsistent. If you look at the samples they always stamp in a clear spot away from the ammo manufacturer label. Real world situations you'd hit the label and mess up the print. Steel cases would be another common failure. (And yes, we all know this could be bypassed easily...just like now where you can remove a magazine disconnect etc.)


Hindsight is 20/20, but this case may have been stronger had a few manufacturers submitted inconsistent guns to california for approval and they fail. Over and Over. Then you have solid evidence.

[command_liner]

Call me "Mr. Two Tone".

The state's position is that when *some* people buy the two-tone version, the firearm is "not unsafe". Further, the state's position is that it is OK to buy the two-tone variant, as long as you do so making two separate purchases. The state agrees that slide of another color is not the firearm, and thus that the firearm has not changed, and agrees that the statute requires the state to approve the sale of the gun. But the state refuses to do so. Even worse, when the actual firearm changed, from black to green, the state contradicted itself and approved the sale.

Exactly how does the method of purchase change the unsafe-ness of a handgun? Or one's vocational background?

Talk about inconsistent and irrational.... it is hard to imagine a less rational argument from a state actor. Yet the court see this as proper behavior?

[abinsinia]

... the substantial problem of untraceable bullets at crime scenes ...

It's clear these are not gun owning judges.

... the statute limits commercial sales of new models of semiautomatic pistols ...

They refer a few times to how the law doesn't stop possession only commercial sales. Again they don't own guns because if they did they would know that the law regulates commercial sales, and possession. I can't just buy a gun on the used market if it's not commercially available inside California. Maybe they think you can just buy the gun out of state, or import it, which of course they would know you can't if they owned guns.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Where the rubber hits the road is how the regulations affect one's exercise of the right to self-defense and the "it's irrational because it's the same firearm just a different color" etc. arguments are precisely why this turd was doomed to be flushed into oblivion. It is by far the worst argument that could possibly have been made under the circumstances lol. "I want two-tone" who gives a sh*t?!

[abinsinia]

Nor are out-of-state sales regulated.

Now I'm really wondering, do they really think we can buy out of state ?

[abinsinia]

Where the rubber hits the road is how the regulations affect one's exercise of the right to self-defense and the "it's irrational because it's the same firearm just a different color" etc. arguments are precisely why this turd was doomed to be flushed into oblivion. It is by far the worst argument that could possibly have been made under the circumstances lol. "I want two-tone" who gives a sh*t?!

I mean these judges think there is only one gun. You go down to the store and you buy THE gun, the only one that exists. So if you say "Two-tone" to them it's like greek to them, they have no idea what your saying.

Under judges like that there is no way to argue even with a better argument.

[DolphinFan]

Well you can serialize a firearm but you can NOT serialize a bullet casing in 2 places. It is IMPOSSIBLE to serialize the inside of a barrel chamber, and it is IMPOSSIBLE to leave a microstamp from the firing pin because it doesn't hit the casing it hits the primer.

Either complete ignorance or an agenda to violate the 2A. While it is specific to California I hope the SCOTUS would take the case. My guess is that since no firearm exists they are NOT in common use and therefore NOT covered under the Second Amendment, and ALL OTHER firearms ARE.