SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Gun Control Discussion    CA Handgun roster struck down ( Bolland vs Bonta)
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
CA Handgun roster struck down ( Bolland vs Bonta) Login/Join 
Member
posted
No doubt a challenge will be made and a possible stay however a precedent has been set with a ruling against the infamous handgun roster and all the onerous requirements such as Loaded Chamber Indicator, Micro-Stamping, etc....

Judge Issues Order Blocking California’s Handgun Roster, Microstamping, Magazine Disconnect, Loaded Chamber Indicator Mandates

Initial reaction and important parts


Here's the legal documentation
quote:
Californians have the constitutional right to acquire and use state-of-the-art handguns to protect themselves. They should not be forced to settle for decade-old models of handguns to ensure that they remain safe inside or outside the home. But unfortunately, the UHA’s CLI, MDM, and microstamping requirements do exactly that. Because enforcing those requirements implicates the plain text of the Second Amendment, and the government fails to point to any well-established historical analogues that are consistent with them, those requirements are unconstitutional and their enforcement must be preliminarily enjoined. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED.

More detail...
 
Posts: 14478 | Location: Wine Country | Registered: September 20, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
goodheart
Picture of sjtill
posted Hide Post
I was thinking of posting this in the Lounge where it would get more visibility.
This is huge...of course the State will appeal, but it should go to SCOTUS eventually.
Meantime I'm drooling over a few more handguns I would be able to buy.
Note that this will automatically decrease the value of off-roster handguns owned by CA residents.

Edited to add: I just got a senior life membership in CRPA which is one of the plaintiffs in the suit.


_________________________
“ What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.”— Lord Melbourne
 
Posts: 17929 | Location: One hop from Paradise | Registered: July 27, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Get Off My Lawn
Picture of oddball
posted Hide Post
The roster has not been "struck down" or going away anytime soon, just the microstamping, Loaded Chamber Indicator, and mag disconnect requirements are labeled unconstitutional. The roster, with its other requirements (drop test, function safety, etc) still remains, and there is a 2 week period for the CA DOJ to file an appeal before the preliminary injunction takes place, likely going before the 9th Circuit.



"I’m not going to read Time Magazine, I’m not going to read Newsweek, I’m not going to read any of these magazines; I mean, because they have too much to lose by printing the truth"- Bob Dylan, 1965
 
Posts: 16466 | Location: Texas | Registered: May 13, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
While I enjoy a good win anytime you can get them if we've learned anything this likely means nothing... How long has it been since the Benitez ruled the 10rd mag limit unconstitutional in CA? 4 years? and yet they still have a 10rd magazine limit
 
Posts: 1294 | Location: Arizona | Registered: January 31, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
goodheart
Picture of sjtill
posted Hide Post
So far, for Sig fans Bonta has huffed and puffed, seared down, and produced...a 320 and 365 on the DOJ roster.
Logic, rationality, and SCOTUS decision carry no weight.


_________________________
“ What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.”— Lord Melbourne
 
Posts: 17929 | Location: One hop from Paradise | Registered: July 27, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
At some point...some time....there's gonna be a lawsuit alleging police departments are using unsafe pistols since LEO are except from the approved pistol roster . This will then put the state into the position of having explain, why police are using unsafe guns, and why they aren't using only those models listed. Roll Eyes
 
Posts: 14478 | Location: Wine Country | Registered: September 20, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
The wicked flee when
no man pursueth
Picture of KevH
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by corsair:
At some point...some time....there's gonna be a lawsuit alleging police departments are using unsafe pistols since LEO are except from the approved pistol roster . This will then put the state into the position of having explain, why police are using unsafe guns, and why they aren't using only those models listed. Roll Eyes


They won't. They'll force police departments to choose from The Roster.

Nancy Skinner (cop-hating Berkeley State Senator) just tried this year to remove our exemption from The Roster. She would rather the police not exist, or at least be completely unarmed (she's stated both in the past).

https://sd09.senate.ca.gov/new...g-illegal-guns-their

Thankfully the bill stalled out. I'm sure she'll try to reintroduce it next year.

The Roster needs to go away, but it will likely take the US Supreme Court to force the issue and who knows how long that will take.


Proverbs 28:1
 
Posts: 4180 | Location: Contra Costa County, CA | Registered: May 28, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Junior Member
posted Hide Post
The problem is that when Benitez issues his rulings, he stays them for ten days so Bonta has time to appeal, and he always does. So in essence, Benitez' rulings are moot.
 
Posts: 2 | Registered: November 09, 2023Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Gun Control Discussion    CA Handgun roster struck down ( Bolland vs Bonta)

© SIGforum 2024