CA Handgun Roster/Unsafe Handgun Act facing new legal challenges

LiveLife

LiveLife

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2010
Messages
32,920
Location
Northwest Coast
There are now two legal challenges to CA's Handgun Roster/Unsafe Handgun Act.

The Supreme Court's ruling in NYSRPA v Bruen resulted in new challenges to the California handgun roster/Unsafe Handgun Act and AB 2847 (Microstamping) - https://rumble.com/v1b9vds-supreme-court-decision-brings-end-to-california-handgun-roster.html
  • CA approved roster of handguns limits handguns sold in the state - https://www.oag.ca.gov/firearms/certified-handguns/search
  • Law enforcement officers are exempt from the roster thus creating an expensive availability of "CA legal" off-roster handguns
  • Addition of new handgun to the roster requires removal of three existing handguns on the roster
Renna v Bonta (CA Unsafe Handgun Act) was filed by Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms joined by North County Shooting Center, Inc., Gunfighter Tactical, LLC, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Firearms Policy Coalition, and several private citizens Danielle Jaymes, Laura Schwartz, Michael Schwartz, Robert Macomber, Clint Freeman, John Matthew Klier, Justin Smith, John Phillips, Cheryl Prince, Darin Prince, Ryan Peterson, Leonard Ruebe, PWGG, L.P., and Lana Rae Renna, for whom the lawsuit is named. They are represented by attorneys Raymond M. DiGuiseppe of Southport, N.C. and Michael P. Sousa of San Diego - https://www.saf.org/saf-defends-motion-for-injunctiverelief-in-california-renna-case/

Borland v Bonta (CA Handgun Roster) was filed by California Rifle and Pistol Association (CA's affiliate for NRA) to challenge CA Handgun Roster that limits availability of handguns gun owners can purchase since 2013 Unsafe Handgun Act.

Attorney discuss two important cases which aim to eliminate the California handgun roster - https://rumble.com/v1zi6n9-supreme-...-an-end-to-the-california-handgun-roster.html
  • Renna v Bonta "settlement" based on Peña v. Lindley (CA Unsafe Handgun Act) ruling by 9th Circuit became moot due to Bruen ruling (which now requires "text and history" approach) and Renna v Bonta became renewed post Bruen ruling
  • CRPA with Borland v Bonta case is requesting preliminary injunction to halt the enforcement of the Handgun Roster with hearing date for 12/19/22 but rescheduled for 1/23/23
 
kalielkslayer said:
Ironic that as a retired LEO I can keep the handguns I bought while on active duty but since I retired, I can’t buy LEO only handguns.

Doesn’t make sense!!! Apparently I wasn’t a threat when I was working, but I am now???
Click to expand...

It's worse than that. The excuse for the roster is "handgun safety". So it was OK for you to have a potentially "unsafe" gun when you carried it everyday, and you can keep your "unsafe" gun, but you can't buy a new one.

My favorite is that a gun gets dropped off the register if the manufacturer stops paying the annual fee, so the same gun can be "safe" one day and "unsafe" the next.
 
kalielkslayer said:
Fingers crossed!!!

Ironic that as a retired LEO I can keep the handguns I bought while on active duty but since I retired, I can’t buy LEO only handguns.

Doesn’t make sense!!! Apparently I wasn’t a threat when I was working, but I am now???
Click to expand...

I see it the other way round.
If Armed Government Employees had to follow the same requirements as American Commoners, there might be fewer restrictions.
 
Last edited:
I have to report from the battle lines here that while these Anti Roster cases look good, California simply does not and will not obey any SCOTUS ruling in regards to 2A rulings.
While SB-918 failed, they just introduced it's replacement, SB-2, which will make the places you can legally carry a CCW highly restricted like the New York law, they will be
passing this new outrage momentarily.

When tyrants rule your state, they simply ignore the Constitution and SCOTUS and there is not a Federal administration that will send in armed federal troops or LEOs to force Sacramento to
stop breaking the law of the land. California, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, Massachusetts all thumb their noses at the law of the land and just impose tyranny on their citizens when
it comes to 2A rights.

I don't see this changing regardless of SCOTUS or even the 9th, they just roll out a new, slightly modified version of the old "banned" law and start up again by sneaky tricks like
ramming it through without public hearing or by using slimy tactics like gut and amend. The elected officials in these states all regard themselves as Teflon and will continue to
just do whatever they like to restrict gun freedoms because they can get away with it because literally nobody will hold them accountable. Not the electorate, the Feds, nobody.
If you were a politician and weren't held accountable and just inflict whatever misguided laws you wanted to achieve your political goals, wouldn't you? No accountability means
they can be as brazen as they want to be.

6Aamqsv.jpg
 
Capybara said:
I have to report from the battle lines here
Click to expand...
Well, I am in CA so I am well aware of the battle.

Keep in mind that this thread discussion is about CA's Handgun Roster/Unsafe Handgun Act facing new legal challenges and I would appreciate it if you could stay on topic and leave politics out or this thread will be shut down quickly, like so many other threads that drift and get political. As you have seen on other threads I maintain, I work to focus on actual objective factual developments instead of "OMG, sky is falling" posting of subjective opinions.

Keep in mind that our founders framed the nation and defined what the federal government's powers are and what the state government's powers are to allow "We the People" to self govern ... that is our Constitution.

If state's "We the People" pass laws that are constitutional, then "We the People" of that state have spoken.

If state's "We the People" pass laws that are not constitutional, then the judicial branch of the federal government all the way to the Supreme Court will rule them unconstitutional. And "We the People" of the nation's elected representatives of the legislative and executive branches will pass federal laws to permanently enforce Supreme Court rulings, even to adding Constitutional amendments.

Do you think mob majority imposing on the rights of the minority is new? Hardly, as that was the case even back in 1776. Not too long ago, some states passed laws that allowed slavery and limiting rights of women, even to vote. Yes, they were "constitutional" laws. But "We the People" of the nation wanted to correct the injustices and abolished slavery and inequality of women. And "We the People" of the nation elected representatives to legislative and executive branches to permanently enforce self governance by adding amendments to the Bill of Rights.

In past several decades, bi-coastal mob majority increasingly imposed on the rights of the minority gun owners from enjoying modern types of arms protected by the Second Amendment, just like modern forms of free speech protected by the First Amendment. And justice Thomas in his Bruen ruling clearly stated the Second Amendment IS NOT a second class right. So in 2022, "We the People" of the nation elected their legislative representatives and in 2024, "We the People" of the nation will elect their executive representative to possibly permanently enforce Supreme Court rulings and further shift federal/Supreme Court make up to be pro-2A with presidential appointments.

Ultimately, it will be up to "We the People" of the nation, the entire nation. That's how our founders framed our government, as a Constitutional Republic and "We the People" will self-govern whether you like it or not.

OK, let's get back to the OP.

Thank you in advance.
 
Last edited:
After living under the CA “safe handgun roster” and watching how they decimate the rights of citizens they wish to control I would say it’s about time they get taken to task.

For work, I have lived in CA 4 different times for a total of 26 years. I first moved to CA in December of ‘82. Seeing the gun laws there now vs the laws in the early 80’s I could see the chipping away of gun rights and the how they were incrementally ratcheted up over time. Living there 4 different times meant leaving 4 different times. Looking back it is and was amazing to me how much different the mindset of people living under CA law vs the rest of the nation.
Many people in CA have Stockholm Syndrome and definitely do not know it.

I hope these suits are successful.
 
Can't wait to see what happens on Monday, hope judge Benitez hands them their butts!

CA has been trying every trick they have but he shuts them down every time.

The thing I like is the fact that he gives them all rope that they want. Knowing full well that they're just going to hang themselves.
 
These inane rules are, and always have been, an end-around the 2A as a defacto gun ban rather than having anything to do with “safety”.

I hope that these blatant infringements are exposed by the Courts as the frauds they are, and then get tossed once and for all. :thumbup:

Stay safe.
 
kalielkslayer said:
Fingers crossed!!!

Ironic that as a retired LEO I can keep the handguns I bought while on active duty but since I retired, I can’t buy LEO only handguns.

Doesn’t make sense!!! Apparently I wasn’t a threat when I was working, but I am now???
Click to expand...
Any time you have a special class of people who can do things that otherwise would be illegal, I got problems with it.
 
Just curious, does CA require all manufacturers to "pay to play" if they want to sell products in that state?

Or have to be on a sales list where a new product can only be listed if other products are knocked off the list?
 
As I understand it, the manufacturer must pay a fee and provide gun(s) for drop testing. There is no limit on the number of guns listed, but if you don't keep the bribes coming, they drop off and are likely gone for good because there are now mechanical requirements in addition to the drop test. I doubt anybody is going to add a magazine disconnect and loaded chamber indicator to, say, a 1911, just to be able to sell it in California.
 
FWIW, California's drop test was a topic we used to discuss in our Six Sigma course. We mocked it a lot. It's very statistically very weak. If the objective really was discriminating against unsafe firearms, it would be a failure.
 
The fact that law enforcement and exempt persons can buy any "not unsafe" handgun is validated proof that the Roster is just a defacto slow motion handgun ban.
If the state really thought that non-roster guns were unsafe, they would forbid any state employees and LEOs to purchase or carry them. The Roster also had a technology
requirement added during Kamala Harris' reign as AG that any new handguns to be added to the roster must have working microstamping, even though that technology, on a commercially viable level, doesn't exist.
 
I know it's only noon out here on the left coast but has anyone heard anything yet?
 
Mk-211 said:
I know it's only noon out here on the left coast but has anyone heard anything yet?
Click to expand...
Borland v Bonta was rescheduled for 1/23/23 and Renna v Bonta is being renewed and no recent filing on Renna page - https://michellawyers.com/renna-v-becerra/

Maybe soon.
LiveLife said:
  • Renna v Bonta "settlement" based on Peña v. Lindley (CA Unsafe Handgun Act) ruling by 9th Circuit became moot due to Bruen ruling (which now requires "text and history" approach) and Renna v Bonta became renewed post Bruen ruling
  • CRPA with Borland v Bonta case is requesting preliminary injunction to halt the enforcement of the Handgun Roster with hearing date for 12/19/22 but rescheduled for 1/23/23
Click to expand...
 
Speedo66 said:
Just curious, does CA require all manufacturers to "pay to play" if they want to sell products in that state?

Or have to be on a sales list where a new product can only be listed if other products are knocked off the list?
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear in my questions. What I meant was, do these requirements only apply to firearms or to other legal objects for sale in CA?
 
Speedo66 said:
What I meant was, do these requirements only apply to firearms or to other legal objects for sale in CA?
Click to expand...
CA Handgun Roster was first of it's kind in the nation at the time of implementation in direct response to Unsafe Handgun Act.

Hence not meeting "text and history" requirement for post-Bruen Second Amendment case ruling. ;)
 
Last edited:
Without someone that is pro 2A running the federal government none of this matters. CA will simply ignore any rullings it doesn't like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LiveLife
  • Locked
Supreme Court decision brings end to CA Handgun Roster
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
Robert
Robert
LiveLife
  • Locked
CRPA and Reno May file lawsuit challenging CA's handgun roster
Replies
0
Views
377
LiveLife
LiveLife
LiveLife
CA removes microstamping requirement from Handgun Roster
Replies
9
Views
778
herrwalther
H
LiveLife
4 pistols added to CA Handgun Roster pending Boland/Renna v Bonta
2
Replies
42
Views
5K
LiveLife
LiveLife
LiveLife
Bruen decision may mark an end to CA ammunition restriction
2 3
Replies
53
Views
4K
rsrocket1
rsrocket1
Back
Top