California Handgun Roster Struck Down By Federal Court As Unconstitutional

[Rob Boudrie]

Wouldn't that be based on the judge buying into the whole "dangerous" guns horse shit ?

Definitions:

• Injunction remains - States "gun list" is not in effect while waiting final ruling
• Injunction lifted - States gun list remains in effect while waiting final ruling
• Plaintiff wins - Stats gun list relegated to the scrapheap of bad ideas and not applied
• Plaintiff loses - Court uphold states right to screw over plaintiff (and others)

Looking at 4 scenarios:

1. Injunction remains, Plaintiff wins - no "harm"
2. Injunction remains, Plaintiff loses - "Harm" is the defendant (state) has permanently lost the ability to screw over plaintiff who bought a non-anointed gun.
3. Injunction lifted, Plainftff wins - "Harm" was allowing plaintiff to be temporarily screwed over by the state.
4. Injunction lifted, Plaintiff loses - No "harm" as stats right to screw over plaintiff never compromised.

The concept of an injunction is to avoid permanent damage, damage to a plaintiff defined as not getting their way. Note that #2 has a permanent effect, but #3 has only a temporary effect. So it does not require an evaluation of the merits of the case for a lifting of the injunction to be on sound legal ground.

It can be tricky to understand the legal basis when evaluating a case through the lens of what you feel about the actual merits of the arguments.

 

[Lxpony]

MA handgun registry has never stopped me from buying any handgun in Massachusetts. Just gotta know who to ask to do a 4473 for ya

 

[nstassel]

Terrible advice. This could take several years for it to be settled. No need to wait for the roster to be struck down, there are ways to get off-roster handguns. It’s not illegal to possess an off-roster handgun, it’s just more of an inconvenience.

Check your sarcasm detector

 

[Chevy 2 65]

View: https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1638312604622807040/photo/1

 

[cathouse01]

Need to remember that there are two "lists" involved in the MA handgun ban. The official roster, which is a list of handguns that the manufactures have submitted for (and passed) some official MA safety tests. Then their is the AG's consumer safety rules, which is not a list at all but a number of "consumer safety" items (e.g. a loaded chamber indicator) that the AG has determined are needed to protect the consumer from "dangerously unsafe" guns. So while Glocks are on the roster, a normal consumer (i.e. non-law enforcement) can't officially buy them from an FFL, since Glocks don't meet the AG's (arbitrary) consumer protection rules (the AG claims their loaded chamber indicator is inadequate, which really means they just don't like Glock).

You could technically get rid of the roster and still not be able to buy a Glock from an FFL due to the consumer protection rules (an FFL, being a business, must comply with the AG's consumer protection edicts).

An additional observation is that I believe the Supreme Court is very unlikely to strike down any "approved handgun" list that doesn't actually eliminate an entire class of handgun. You might not be able to get a Glock in MA, but you can get a Sig P320 or a Smith and Wesson M&P or any one of several other similar polymer striker fired pistols. I think SCOTUS will be perfectly fine with a state limiting choices within a class, as long as there are still some choices available.

 

[LittleCalm]

Need to remember that there are two "lists" involved in the MA handgun ban. The official roster, which is a list of handguns that the manufactures have submitted for (and passed) some official MA safety tests. Then their is the AG's consumer safety rules, which is not a list at all but a number of "consumer safety" items (e.g. a loaded chamber indicator) that the AG has determined are needed to protect the consumer from "dangerously unsafe" guns. So while Glocks are on the roster, a normal consumer (i.e. non-law enforcement) can't officially buy them from an FFL, since Glocks don't meet the AG's (arbitrary) consumer protection rules (the AG claims their loaded chamber indicator is inadequate, which really means they just don't like Glock).

You could technically get rid of the roster and still not be able to buy a Glock from an FFL due to the consumer protection rules (an FFL, being a business, must comply with the AG's consumer protection edicts).

An additional observation is that I believe the Supreme Court is very unlikely to strike down any "approved handgun" list that doesn't actually eliminate an entire class of handgun. You might not be able to get a Glock in MA, but you can get a Sig P320 or a Smith and Wesson M&P or any one of several other similar polymer striker fired pistols. I think SCOTUS will be perfectly fine with a state limiting choices within a class, as long as there are still some choices available.

How would SCOTUS uphold any of that? None of it is consistent with the history and tradition of firearm regulation in the US. Assumes SCOTUS sticks to the Bruen analysis.

 

[Joeldiaz]

How would SCOTUS uphold any of that? None of it is consistent with the history and tradition of firearm regulation in the US. Assumes SCOTUS sticks to the Bruen analysis.

You’re assuming this case even gets to SCOTUS. SCOTUS only takes up about 80 cases a year on various issues, 2A cases being least among them. I doubt SCOTUS is gonna take up a handgun roster case as their next big 2A issue over much more important ones such as AWBs, large cap mag bans, 18-20 year old carry bans, prohibited persons, etc.

Our case is gonna lose first at the 1st Circuit, which means we’ll be the first roster case to seek cert from SCOTUS before any other state. If they do take up a roster case I suspect they’ll wait until there’s a circuit split in one of the other circuits that have a handgun roster, such as CA or MD. They’ll probably deny cert and wait to hear one of those cases instead of ours. I don’t think any other state with a roster has regulations similar to the AG’s “consumer protection” regulations, which means that even if those other state rosters get struck down by SCOTUS there’s no guarantee those cases would affect our regulations (we still have safe storage requirements Post-Heller after all). Then we’ll still be left with the regulations, which means no new Glocks still. I wouldn’t even be surprised if the AG doubled down after that and started claiming that other new handguns didn’t meet the regulations, which means we’ll be back at square one again.

 

[LittleCalm]

You’re assuming this case even gets to SCOTUS. SCOTUS only takes up about 80 cases a year on various issues, 2A cases being least among them. I doubt SCOTUS is gonna take up a handgun roster case as their next big 2A issue over much more important ones such as AWBs, large cap mag bans, 18-20 year old carry bans, prohibited persons, etc.

Our case is gonna lose first at the 1st Circuit, which means we’ll be the first roster case to seek cert from SCOTUS before any other state. If they do take up a roster case I suspect they’ll wait until there’s a circuit split in one of the other circuits that have a handgun roster, such as CA or MD. They’ll probably deny cert and wait to hear one of those cases instead of ours. I don’t think any other state with a roster has regulations similar to the AG’s “consumer protection” regulations, which means that even if those other state rosters get struck down by SCOTUS there’s no guarantee those cases would affect our regulations (we still have safe storage requirements Post-Heller after all). Then we’ll still be left with the regulations, which means no new Glocks still. I wouldn’t even be surprised if the AG doubled down after that and started claiming that other new handguns didn’t meet the regulations, which means we’ll be back at square one again.

You are right. I was just saying that if the court looked at this under Bruen, I don’t see it surviving. It is sad that there are just so many laws that violate 2A.