Pena effect on AB1964?

[morningglory]

Hello, just wanted to know if I understand the implications of Pena v Cid (or Lindley) correctly.

If the roster is overturned, does it nullify AB1964? Or will AB1964 always stand on its own? Thank you.

[Librarian]

If the Roster were to be overturned, 1964 would have no effect, because the point of SSE is to get around a Roster restriction.

Overturning the roster would invalidate PC 32000 and the following sections (Article 5 of Chapter 4) that implement the Roster, the exceptions, and the testing. PC 32100(b)(4), the amended part from 1964, is within that Article.

[morningglory]

Thank you Librarian, in your opinion what do you find the likelihood of that happening? Looks like the case is still going through the wickets?

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/caedce/2:2009cv01185/191444/

[IVC]

Difficult to see the future is. Blurry the force is.

[CaliforniaLiberal]

[IVC]

It took me time and some lost bets to KCBrown to learn the wisdom of pessimism.

He had to retract some of the predictions. Publicly. You'll find it in some sig lines.

The only wisdom of being a pessimist is that if you're wrong at least you're happy that your prediction didn't come true. That's the escape mechanism common to all pessimism. It's great for people who don't want to evaluate reality critically.

Just remember, a wrong prediction is still a wrong prediction even if you're a pessimist. Sure you get pleasantly surprised, but you lose credibility for your methodology.

[ccmc]

He had to retract some of the predictions. Publicly. You'll find it in some sig lines.

The only wisdom of being a pessimist is that if you're wrong at least you're happy that your prediction didn't come true. That's the escape mechanism common to all pessimism. It's great for people who don't want to evaluate reality critically.

Just remember, a wrong prediction is still a wrong prediction even if you're a pessimist. Sure you get pleasantly surprised, but you lose credibility for your methodology.

Very few people are 100 pct optimists or pessimists. Most are realists who assess each situation as it comes. It's not pessimistic to be skeptical that SCOTUS will come to the rescue of firearms enthusiasts in the 8-10 states that have draconian restrictions on what may be owned and carried. Rather it's a realistic assessment of the future based on past results (which are never a 100 pct indicator, but most people still make decisions based on past experience).

A 50 year old who lives in California but wants to buy a normal AR-15 with standard capacity mag at his LGS has two choices. Wait for a court ruling which will allow him to do so (unless the really unexpected happens and California legislators completely scrap the state's gun laws) or move to a state that doesn't have this restriction. All else being equal which is the more realistic scenario in the short or medium (perhaps even long) term for his being able to buy that AR-15?