Other State Big Win In California

[GWS]

CRPA V Bonta got the Roster declared unconstitutional and an injunction has been granted!! The "Roster" is dead and Californians can buy any new handgun they desire.


https://crpa.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=10f1b2be1fbee7acd9ac7bb79&id=5f70d26c5b&e=089dd79b0d

Read More

 

[User 1234]

Not quite. The injunction prevents the state from applying certain parts of their roster criteria to guns. Manufacturers still must send their guns to be tested and approved and added to the list. Californians can't simply go buy a Gen 5 Glock today.

 

[ma96782]

Aloha, Mark

 

[Nosferatu]

It's important you read the ruling. It doesn't remove the roster, just implementation of newly added sections:

As used in this part, "unsafe handgun" means any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, for which any of the following is true:

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Attorney General Robert Bonta, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order or know the existence of this injunction order, ARE HEREBY PRELIMINARILY RESTRAINED AND ENJOINED from implementing or enforcing California Penal Code sections 31910(b)(4)–(6), or from otherwise preventing the retail sale of handguns that do not have a chamber load indicator, a magazine disconnect mechanism, or microstamping capability but that meet the other requirements of the Unsafe Handgun Act.

(a) For a revolver:
(1) It does not have a safety device that, either automatically in the case of a double-action firing mechanism, or by manual operation in the case of a single-action firing mechanism, causes the hammer to retract to a point where the firing pin does not rest upon the primer of the cartridge.
(2) It does not meet the firing requirement for handguns.
(3) It does not meet the drop safety requirement for handguns.
(b) For a pistol:
(1) It does not have a positive manually operated safety device, as determined by standards relating to imported guns promulgated by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
(2) It does not meet the firing requirement for handguns.
(3) It does not meet the drop safety requirement for handguns.

(4) Commencing July 1, 2022, for all centerfire semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015, it does not have a chamber load indicator.
(5) Commencing July 1, 2022, for all centerfire or rimfire semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015, it does not have a magazine disconnect mechanism if it has a detachable magazine.
(6)(A) Commencing July 1, 2022, for all semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015, it is not designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters used to identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched or otherwise imprinted in one or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired.
(B) The Attorney General may also approve a method of equal or greater reliability and effectiveness in identifying the specific serial number of a firearm from spent cartridge casings discharged by that firearm than that which is set forth in this paragraph, to be thereafter required as otherwise set forth by this paragraph where the Attorney General certifies that this new method is also unencumbered by any patent restrictions. Approval by the Attorney General shall include notice of that fact via regulations adopted by the Attorney General for purposes of implementing that method for purposes of this paragraph.
(C) The microscopic array of characters required by this section shall not be considered the name of the maker, model, manufacturer's number, or other mark of identification, including any distinguishing number or mark assigned by the Department of Justice, within the meaning of Sections 23900 and 23920.
(7) The Department of Justice shall, for each semiautomatic pistol newly added to the roster pursuant to Section 32015, remove from the roster exactly three semiautomatic pistols lacking one or more of the applicable features described in paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of subdivision (b) and added to the roster before July 1, 2022. Notwithstanding those paragraphs, each semiautomatic pistol removed from the roster pursuant to this subdivision shall be considered an unsafe handgun. The Attorney General shall remove semiautomatic pistols from the roster pursuant to this subdivision in reverse order of their dates of addition to the roster, beginning with the semiautomatic pistol added to the roster on the earliest date and continuing until each semiautomatic pistol on the roster includes each of the applicable features described in those paragraphs.

 

[po18guy]

As always, the devil lurks in the details.

 

[GWS]

Nonetheless. Its the 1st major victory in the PRK since Freedom Week.
The mag bans and AW bans are going to fall next.

Be a downer if you want, I'm celebrating

 

[aljames]

FCADOJ?

 

[L84Cabo]

Not quite. The injunction prevents the state from applying certain parts of their roster criteria to guns. Manufacturers still must send their guns to be tested and approved and added to the list. Californians can't simply go buy a Gen 5 Glock today.

^^^ THIS.

The decision doesn't go into effect for 14 days to give the state time to appeal. To that end, it will be very interesting to see what the inherently corrupt 9th District does with this...whether they honor the Bruen ruling or come up with some creative way to crap all over it. Ultimately, however, I don't see how this ruling can be overturned based on Bruen. But it may take a trip to SCOTUS to make that happen.

Also, as pointed out, the ruling does not eliminate the CA roster all together...and that was never the point of the case to my understanding. Note that this case was launched long before the Bruen decision was handed down. The intent was to go after key elements of the roster first (the requirements for mag disconnects, loaded chamber indicators, and most critically, microstamping). The plan/strategy was to secure a win on these elements first, and then go after the roster itself.

As a side note, keep in mind Californian's have not be able to acquire any new handgun models for quite some time...I had thought that it was from 2007, but the articles I've seen recently say 2013. So maybe there were a couple that made it through between 2007 and 2013. During this time, of course, many handguns have fallen off the roster as MFG's have decided to not renew various models (they have to be renewed every year).

 

[Member 53328]

Not quite. The injunction prevents the state from applying certain parts of their roster criteria to guns. Manufacturers still must send their guns to be tested and approved and added to the list. Californians can't simply go buy a Gen 5 Glock today.

I don't even think they can buy Gen 4 Glocks….. at least they couldn't when I was stationed in 29 Palms. Unless you had LE creds.

 

[User 1234]

I don't even think they can buy Gen 4 Glocks….. at least they couldn't when I was stationed in 29 Palms. Unless you had LE creds.

No Gen 4 Glocks, no Gen 5 Glocks, and not even any Gen 3 Glocks made in the USA. Austrian Gen 3 Glocks, of most models, are on roster.

 

[dangerranger60]

There is one other part of the list that this does not help. For every one new gun added to the list 3 must be removed! So new guns are a blessing, but how many will be added before the list collapses on itself?

 

[L84Cabo]

There is one other part of the list that this does not help. For every one new gun added to the list 3 must be removed! So new guns are a blessing, but how many will be added before the list collapses on itself?

I'm of the opinion that this will only help us when it comes time to challenging the constitutionality of the roster itself. This clearly demonstrates the goal here is to take the number of guns available to purchase, down to zero. This is not about safety. It's about the systematic elimination of all guns from CA. There is no other possible justification for such a ridiculous requirement.

 

[User 1234]

If the state used its bumping statute to move guns off the roster every time a gun was added per the judge's new standards, it would create an endless circle that would not comply with the ruling. This will become an interesting legal debate. Gladly, California will lose that debate in the end.

 

[CamoDeafie]

It's about the systematic elimination of all guns from CA. There is no other possible justification for such a ridiculous requirement.

Guess what State this Senator was from...

 

[edzz]

Guess what State this Senator was from...

That guy was ugly in '95 and hasn't gotten any better looking (or sounding) with age.

 

[nammac]

 

[nammac]

Guess what State this Senator was from...

Diane "I got my gun, but you can't have yours" Feinstein…. Funny how democrats have double standards for everything…

 

[Bandook]

No Gen 4 Glocks, no Gen 5 Glocks, and not even any Gen 3 Glocks made in the USA. Austrian Gen 3 Glocks, of most models, are on roster.

Does this bring back the Single Shot Exception? That's how a lot of newer Glocks bypassed the roster.

 

[GWS]

Does this bring back the Single Shot Exception? That's how a lot of newer Glocks bypassed the roster.

No
They passed a separate law that ended SSE in 2015,IIRC

 

[po18guy]

Here is a legal analysis of the decision.