Rammifications of Nordyke on Pena???

[tommyid1]

So now that Nordyke has been opined, what effect with it have on pena going forward or will they stay again if nordyke goes enbanc or back to trial court?

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

[Bhobbs]

IMO they will say the roster is legal because there are other options for pistols and the rosters is not a substantial burden.

[Lone_Gunman]

We need to find someone who, for physical reasons, NEEDS an off roster handgun to defend themselves. Maybe someone with no right hand that needs lefty controls that aren't on the roster.

[nrakid88]

We need to find someone who, for physical reasons, NEEDS an off roster handgun to defend themselves. Maybe someone with no right hand that needs lefty controls that aren't on the roster.

Or maybe someone who shoots like **** with everything BUT a Gen4 Glock...

I could be that person.

Hell, any of us could.

Then how could we effectively defend ourselves when we can't make hits with the guns California arbitrarily allows us to use.

[M1A Rifleman]

IMO they will say the roster is legal because there are [I]other options [/I]for pistols and the rosters is not a substantial burden.

I sure that will be the courts ruling for ALL the current and near future litigation that is in the pipeline. The games and extreme back bending and knot tieing from the courts and the legislature will keep us in restrictions for years........

[Bhobbs]

I sure that will be the courts ruling for ALL the current and near future litigation that is in the pipeline. The games and extreme back bending and knot tieing from the courts and the legislature will keep us in restrictions for years........

I agree. I think this will be a major hurdle to get over now.

[nrakid88]

I agree. I think this will be a major hurdle to get over now.

just more sand in the hour glass.

i am going to stop waiting, move out of state, send CGF checks untill they win, and in thirty years when I am ready to retire, I bet the laws of this state will be palatable for my retirement.

[dantodd]

We need to find someone who, for physical reasons, NEEDS an off roster handgun to defend themselves. Maybe someone with no right hand that needs lefty controls that aren't on the roster.

[CalBear]

Nordyke is going to make Pena really difficult. It falls right into the removed burden and alternative routes without excessive cost or difficulty wording.

[Blackhawk556]

[CCWFacts]

We need to find someone who, for physical reasons, NEEDS an off roster handgun to defend themselves. Maybe someone with no right hand that needs lefty controls that aren't on the roster.

Yeah, didn't they pick a plaintiff who has only a left hand, and cannot use the mag release (or whatever) on rostered Glocks, just for that reason?

[tommyid1]

What we need is a way to show people and mor importantly judges the idiocy of this law in a way that can be explained away by legalese.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

[PsychGuy274]

We need to find someone who, for physical reasons, NEEDS an off roster handgun to defend themselves. Maybe someone with no right hand that needs lefty controls that aren't on the roster.

I doubt that'd be enough because one can still get off-roster pistols through PPTs and single-shot exemptions.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Yeah, didn't they pick a plaintiff who has only a left hand, and cannot use the mag release (or whatever) on rostered Glocks, just for that reason?

This is the roster case's only serious attempt to demonstrate a burden on self defense but the case makes false assertions that are easily disproven. Such as that the plaintiff "cannot operate" a glock with a right handed magazine release. Of course he can, he can just press the mag release with his thumb instead of his index finger. This is a basic part of the "one-handed shooting" portion of most handgun classes and is easily performed. The plaintiff's bigger problem is reloading the handgun once the mag is dropped and an ambi mag release isn't going to help with that. For the life of me I don't know why they are arguing that the right handed glock cannot be operated, it's not true at all. As for the other plaintiffs, all their declarations say is basically "I want this gun" or "I want that gun" with no attempt to demonstrate how their inability to purchase that gun is detrimental exercise of the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. IMO this is the big failing of the roster lawsuit as currently alleged.

[CHS]

The Supreme Court of the United States said that the Buntline .22lr revolver that Heller owned was EXPLICITLY protected by the Constitution and the Second Amendment. This is the only gun in history actually named by the Supreme Court as being constitutionally protected.

But guess what? You can't have one in CA since it's not on the Roster. Also, don't forget that DC adopted California's roster (not a copy, they ACTUALLY adopted the CA roster) and then immediately folded when they were challenged on it.

Me thinks the roster will fall. If D.C. didn't think it was worth fighting, I don't see how CA will be able to justify it.