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

[wireless]

Re-listed is a good sign. They typically do not take a case without relisting it first.

[zuverza]

So this is definitely good news!

[ZNiner]

So this is definitely good news!

I hope this is good news. Getting tired of reading about SCOTUS taking cases involving wedding cakes while dodging anything related to the 2A.

[canopis]

I hope this is good news. Getting tired of reading about SCOTUS taking cases involving wedding cakes while dodging anything related to the 2A.

I get you, but I would not want them to take any 2A case unless they were pretty sure they had 5 votes in our favor.

[scootle]

[busa]

Hope we win. then I can laugh at people who trying to sell G19 for 1000++

[ronlglock]

Hope we win. then I can laugh at people who trying to sell G19 for 1000++

Does the G19 have an LCI and mag disconnect? Remember that the lawsuit right now only addresses microstamping — unless the justices decide to throw the whole thing out, you won’t see anything past Gen3.

Never mind - taperxz corrected me that it's the entire scheme, not just micro stamping.

[taperxz]

[ronlglock]

You are correct and I shall update my OP.

[taperxz]

You are correct and I shall update my OP.

You may have confused this with the NSSF suit about micro stamping in the California court system

[divert_fuse]

Yes and no. The lawsuit may challenge the entire roster, but the grounds for challenging it might not implicate the entire roster, but only the microstamping requirement.

A key point Pena raises in the cert petition is that no new guns are being added to the roster. Pena notes the shrinking roster size from 2013 (when microstamping came into effect). But what about the period from 2006-2013, when the requirement for LCI/MDM was in effect, but microstamping was not? Pena doesn't mention it. I can't find any actual data, but I did find a graph prepared by CGF in this article, which appears to show the number of guns on the roster going up at the beginning of that period. The roster doesn't start to shrink until 2009. Or at least that's what it looks like. Maybe somebody more familiar with the actual data can comment. As I say, I'm working with what I have here.

If the MDM requirement was accompanied by a rise in the number of guns on the roster, then Pena can't argue that it's a de-facto new handgun ban. He would have to argue that guns without them are the overwhelming choice of other Americans. This might or might not be persuasive.

In my view, the reason this rises to level of being worth SCOTUS's time is that it's a de facto handgun ban. If it's some arguably-unconstitutional safety feature requirement, SCOTUS has more important things to worry about. I think it's entirely possible that if they take the case and come down on our side, the decision won't even mention MDMs, but only microstamping. In which case, if the CA legislature replaces the law with a new one which just drops the microstamping requirement, they might get away with it.

[taperxz]

Yes and no. The lawsuit may challenge the entire roster, but the grounds for challenging it might not implicate the entire roster, but only the microstamping requirement.

A key point Pena raises in the cert petition is that no new guns are being added to the roster. Pena notes the shrinking roster size from 2013 (when microstamping came into effect). But what about the period from 2006-2013, when the requirement for LCI/MDM was in effect, but microstamping was not? Pena doesn't mention it. I can't find any actual data, but I did find a graph prepared by CGF in this article, which appears to show the number of guns on the roster going up at the beginning of that period. The roster doesn't start to shrink until 2009. Or at least that's what it looks like. Maybe somebody more familiar with the actual data can comment. As I say, I'm working with what I have here.

If the MDM requirement was accompanied by a rise in the number of guns on the roster, then Pena can't argue that it's a de-facto new handgun ban. He would have to argue that guns without them are the overwhelming choice of other Americans. This might or might not be persuasive.

In my view, the reason this rises to level of being worth SCOTUS's time is that it's a de facto handgun ban. If it's some arguably-unconstitutional safety feature requirement, SCOTUS has more important things to worry about. I think it's entirely possible that if they take the case and come down on our side, the decision won't even mention MDMs, but only microstamping. In which case, if the CA legislature replaces the law with a new one which just drops the microstamping requirement, they might get away with it.

[HowardW56]

Yes and no. The lawsuit may challenge the entire roster, but the grounds for challenging it might not implicate the entire roster, but only the microstamping requirement.

A key point Pena raises in the cert petition is that no new guns are being added to the roster. Pena notes the shrinking roster size from 2013 (when microstamping came into effect). But what about the period from 2006-2013, when the requirement for LCI/MDM was in effect, but microstamping was not? Pena doesn't mention it. I can't find any actual data, but I did find a graph prepared by CGF in this article, which appears to show the number of guns on the roster going up at the beginning of that period. The roster doesn't start to shrink until 2009. Or at least that's what it looks like. Maybe somebody more familiar with the actual data can comment. As I say, I'm working with what I have here.

If the MDM requirement was accompanied by a rise in the number of guns on the roster, then Pena can't argue that it's a de-facto new handgun ban. He would have to argue that guns without them are the overwhelming choice of other Americans. This might or might not be persuasive.

In my view, the reason this rises to level of being worth SCOTUS's time is that it's a de facto handgun ban. If it's some arguably-unconstitutional safety feature requirement, SCOTUS has more important things to worry about. I think it's entirely possible that if they take the case and come down on our side, the decision won't even mention MDMs, but only microstamping. In which case, if the CA legislature replaces the law with a new one which just drops the microstamping requirement, they might get away with it.

That's what I recall. When the AG, certified (or whatever the process was) to compel microstamping, that was when the complaint was amended to include a challenge to the micro stamping mandate

[cire raeb]

Yes and no. The lawsuit may challenge the entire roster, but the grounds for challenging it might not implicate the entire roster, but only the microstamping requirement.

A key point Pena raises in the cert petition is that no new guns are being added to the roster. Pena notes the shrinking roster size from 2013 (when microstamping came into effect). But what about the period from 2006-2013, when the requirement for LCI/MDM was in effect, but microstamping was not? Pena doesn't mention it. I can't find any actual data, but I did find a graph prepared by CGF in this article, which appears to show the number of guns on the roster going up at the beginning of that period. The roster doesn't start to shrink until 2009. Or at least that's what it looks like. Maybe somebody more familiar with the actual data can comment. As I say, I'm working with what I have here.

If the MDM requirement was accompanied by a rise in the number of guns on the roster, then Pena can't argue that it's a de-facto new handgun ban. He would have to argue that guns without them are the overwhelming choice of other Americans. This might or might not be persuasive.

In my view, the reason this rises to level of being worth SCOTUS's time is that it's a de facto handgun ban. If it's some arguably-unconstitutional safety feature requirement, SCOTUS has more important things to worry about. I think it's entirely possible that if they take the case and come down on our side, the decision won't even mention MDMs, but only microstamping. In which case, if the CA legislature replaces the law with a new one which just drops the microstamping requirement, they might get away with it.

This why I don’t donate. Unless the the entire roster gets scrapped; otherwise we lost!

[busa]