Rammifications of Nordyke on Pena???

[ke6guj]

Go get your handgun, unload it, put it in your left hand, and assume you want to release the magazine without using your trigger finger. Make sure it's a gun you don't mind dropping.

Is that a reasonable arguement? I'm a lefty and always use my left trigger finger to drop the mag.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Go get your handgun, unload it, put it in your left hand, and assume you want to release the magazine without using your trigger finger. Make sure it's a gun you don't mind dropping.

That's your decision not to use the index finger to depress the magazine release, it's a not unsafe technique that is the standard in the one handed shooting component of every handgun class.

They may certainly confirm his condition, but making the argument that they can force him to spend lots of money to have his firearm changed is... an undue burden - even if that is the test actually used to "arms in common use" which the ambi gen 4 Glock certainly is.

Oh yeah the 30 bucks to install an ambi mag release is going to put him in the poor house! It's handguns that are in common use, nobody is going to be doing any empirical analyses to see whether particular makes and models are in common use.

Where are those sensitive places you were so sure of again?

Where is that staunch 2A defender Judge "Reasonable Regulation" Gould again? lol

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Is that a reasonable arguement?

Umm, no, not when everybody does it that way!

[hoffmang]

It's handguns that are in common use, nobody is going to be doing any empirical analyses to see whether particular makes and models are in common use.

"the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

"It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed."

But I guess you're right anonymous maybe lawyer guy. Heller really means that "It is an answer to say, as California does, that it is permissible to ban half of the handguns in common use and 90% of new models so long as possession of other firearms (i.e. some handguns) is allowed. We will ignore that there is no rational basis to remove some handguns from commerce simply for failure to pay a regulatory fee."

Where is that staunch 2A defender Judge "Reasonable Regulation" Gould again? lol

Trying as hard as you are to bury the panels canard to sensitive places.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

You keep dodging the burden analysis which is now the 9th circuit standard for evaluating 2A regulations (as opposed to prohibitions which we are not talking about here). You can't demonstrate how the handgun choice available under the roster burdens the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

Trying as hard as you are to bury the panels canard to sensitive places.

I've always thought sensitive places was a disposable argument in Nordyke, and that the real issue was burden on the core of the right. I've been consistent on that as long as I've been posting about it! My only interest in sensitive places in Nordyke is the larger question whether you can have a sensitive place if CCW is allowed, I don't think CCW precludes sensitive place, otherwise sensitive place is out the window for schools among other places. Anyone can do a simple search of my posting history to see my previous statements on this and see for themselves. You on the other hand with all of your political savvy have consistently been making lousy predictions about Nordyke and how friendly this panel would be. And you have no good excuse for the lousy ambi mag release claim that is being made in Pena and no sound or realistic basis in experience or anything else for thinking a disabled litigant won't be questioned about his functional limitations.

[kcbrown]

Political savvy you don't have.

What has politics of this nature has to do with the appointed judiciary?

Most certainly, a judge that was elected to his position may have to worry about these things, but we're talking about appointed judges here. Are they not largely immune from such things? If not, why not?

[kcbrown]

Pardon my forthrightness, but Fabio and Gene appear to be talking past each other. Fabio's arguments appear to be with respect to how the 9th Circuit will likely handle the case. Gene's arguments appear to be with respect to how the Supreme Court will probably handle it.

Given Nordyke, those had better not be the same thing at all for our sake.

Unless and until the Supreme Court sets things right, the 9th Circuit's approach is the law of the land here in California, and that's an undisputable fact.

[navyinrwanda]

Heller really means that "It is an answer to say, as California does, that it is permissible to ban half of the handguns in common use and 90% of new models so long as possession of other firearms (i.e. some handguns) is allowed. We will ignore that there is no rational basis to remove some handguns from commerce simply for failure to pay a regulatory fee."

[vantec08]

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

We have a winner. As mentioned by one of the moderators in another chat thread, they will milk hell out of "substantial burden." It will be the next great challenge in the entire 2nd amendment lawsuits.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Pardon my forthrightness, but Fabio and Gene appear to be talking past each other. Fabio's arguments appear to be with respect to how the 9th Circuit will likely handle the case. Gene's arguments appear to be with respect to how the Supreme Court will probably handle it.

There is no chance whatsoever that the Supreme Court would endorse a statistical inquiry into whether a particular firearm such as a Glock with an ambi safety is "in common use" which is what Pena tries to do. Heller certainly didn't do that when it decided that handguns as an entire class of arm were in common use; it never even mentions the particular firearm at issue because it wasn't relevant to the inquiry it was making. The "in common use" inquiry was to decide whether handguns as a class of arms was protected and that has been decided already. On top of that you have complete prohibitions on an entire class of arms versus regulation within that class. Heller is the former, Pena is the latter; the roster does not include a ban or prohibition on an entire class of arms. If I haven't said that in this thread, I have said it here in other threads recently and and the past. Heller is very pro-regulation, it almost went out of it's way to say "don't worry about all of those existing gun regulations that we're not directly considering here."

But anyway, the roster case doesn't cut it under a Nordyke burden analysis, and it doesn't cut it under the Heller-inspired statistical "in common use" argument that it tries to make.

In case the forest is getting lost through the trees here, my main concern is that these flagship cases are weak cases (Nordyke, Pena) that I have consistently and vocally been saying are likely to result in bad or not particularly helpful law, while others have been calling me troll or bad lawyer and putting me on ignore lol. I'll let you decide who has been consistently been making the right calls on Nordyke, from burden on the core of the right to sensitive places, to how friendly the panel is to the 2A...it's easy, just do a search.

[Taxidave]

There isn't one person on this forum or anywhere in California who is unable to purchase a handgun suitable for self-defense. The roster list is huge. Handguns in all sizes and calibers, from every major handgun manufacturer, semiautos and revolvers, and different color choices if cosmetics are important to you. A ban is a complete prohibition of a class of arms, this isn't close.

Actually I'm one who is unable. But that's because I'm a van-dweller with no physical address.

[CalBear]

Heller is very pro-regulation, it almost went out of it's way to say "don't worry about all of those existing gun regulations that we're not directly considering here."

There are portions of Heller that do match your statement. For Pena, the most notable is:

[N]othing in our opinion should be
taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws impos-
ing conditions and qualifications on the commercial
sale of arms.

It seems like that last clause is particularly relevant. Obviously there will need to be some interpretation of the extent to which those conditions and qualifications apply, but a firearm safety cert program may fall under it.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

There are portions of Heller that do match your statement. For Pena, the most notable is:


It seems like that last clause is particularly relevant. Obviously there will need to be some interpretation of the extent to which those conditions and qualifications apply, but a firearm safety cert program may fall under it.

Yep. I think some points will be scored but in the big picture the roster does not amount to a ban or prohibition of an entire class of protected arms, and the 2A will be found to allow for consumer protection / safety regulation (supported in part by the language in Heller you quoted). I don't really want to see another pro-regulation result.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Actually I'm one who is unable. But that's because I'm a van-dweller with no physical address.

Ahh that is a problem...I could have been a little more precise in how I phrased that!

[mdimeo]

2. Do you really think that the state wants to question our one armed plaintiff on the record? Really? LOL.

Does that even happen in these cases? I thought these were mostly question-of-law, MSJ-type cases without a lot of factfinding, and I'm surprised there'd be any calling of non-expert witnesses. Not snarking here, just curious.