California Handgun Roster Declared Unconstitutional!

[upptick]

Halleluja! A preliminary injunction was just issued but it won't go into effect for 14 days. This means that the Court believes the plaintiff's case -- alleging that the handgun roster is unconstitutional -- has merit. Of course, the State will likely appeal after the final order is issued. This is amazing news, but not unexpected given the NYSRPA case. Californians can soon get gen 5 Glocks without paying double or triple the price!

https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/...d-other-aspects-of-unsafe-handguns-act-n68616

 

[unclenunzie]

While good, it's just a preliminary injunction. Have to wait and see how it shakes out but as a non-lawyer I can't see such a patently absurd system of denial (roster) surviving Bruen.

 

[pbearperry]

Praying for the same thing in Massachusetts.

 

[Spats McGee]

On the one hand, I don't expect the roster to survive Bruen. On the other, I do expect a motion to stay the injunction, and I expect it to be granted.

 

[RickD427]

Nothing has been declared "Unconstitutional."

All that occurred here was that the trial judge issued a Preliminary Injunction, which was stayed to allow California to appeal.

The issue of whether the "Safe Handgun" roster passes constitutional muster remains to be tried, and the outcome of that future trial is not yet known.

But today's action is certainly a good start.

 

[upptick]

Nothing has been declared "Unconstitutional."

All that occurred here was that the trial judge issued a Preliminary Injunction, which was stayed to allow California to appeal.

The issue of whether the "Safe Handgun" roster passes constitutional muster remains to be tried, and the outcome of that future trial is not yet known.

But today's action is certainly a good start.

Preliminary injunctions are issued when the party petitioning for it is "likely to prevail on the merits" and the allegation in this case is that the handgun roster is unconstitutional. So, you're right, the court has yet to declare that the roster is unconstitutional. They've just said that they plan on doing so.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...They've just said that they plan on doing so.

No they did not.

As you said, the standard for issuing a preliminary injunction is a finding that the petitioner is likely to prevail. "Likely" is not the same as "certainly."

In law, details matter and precision is important.

 

[CapnMac]

This duplicates https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...equiring-safety-features-for-handguns.917229/
As it's very preliminary, it' probably not good fodder for Legal.
Not unless it reaches the Circuit level

 

[.38 Special]

Good news, but just one stone in a very long road.

And what empty soul would celebrate the potential restoration of basic civil rights to millions by buying a... Glock?

 

[Frank Ettin]

This really isn't getting into the legal issues.