• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

California Handgun Roster Struck Down By Federal Court As Unconstitutional

JJD92

NES Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2013
Messages
14
Likes
7
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
Hi to all.
This is my first post, I have been lurking on the forum for a while.
How will the California decision affect the MA gun roster? How long will it take to see a change?
I'm waiting for my LTC and wonder if I should wait on getting a gun as soon as I get it or maybe I should wait?
Thanks,
JJD
 
Where do you see it's been decided?

The last update on CourtListener is in February

Same with the FPC site, itself.

As best I can tell, you mean this:



Which only grants an injunction while they decide the case. That's a good sign, but not "Struck Down [...] As Unconstitutional."

Finally, what @Rob Boudrie said.

I'm waiting for my LTC and wonder if I should wait on getting a gun as soon as I get it or maybe I should wait?
No reason to wait. Buy what you want from someone who will help you get it. There are plenty at the Mill.
 
Hi
I may be wrong, I just watch this video
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOUR4ySw630

Just gut exited for a good win.

Not your fault. He's one of the folks who most loves some exaggeration in their titles.

It's a preliminary injunction. This means that CA can't enforce the law while the final decision is made. It doesn't go into effect for two weeks. It may or may not be appealed by CA. It'll probably go our way. It's too soon to say "it's been struck down."

 
Hi to all.
This is my first post, I have been lurking on the forum for a while.
How will the California decision affect the MA gun roster? How long will it take to see a change?
I'm waiting for my LTC and wonder if I should wait on getting a gun as soon as I get it or maybe I should wait?
Thanks,
JJD
This is Massachusetts, so you may have a very long wait.
 
Hi to all.
This is my first post, I have been lurking on the forum for a while.
How will the California decision affect the MA gun roster? How long will it take to see a change?
I'm waiting for my LTC and wonder if I should wait on getting a gun as soon as I get it or maybe I should wait?
Thanks,
JJD
Definitely don’t wait. Get a gun ASAP.

One, this case of Boland v. Bonta didn’t strike down the whole CA Handgun roster. This just struck down certain safety feature requirements (microstamping, magazine disconnect, loaded chamber indicator) that new guns being manufactured had to meet in order to be added to the roster. Companies would still need to pass the other requirements of the roster that weren’t challenged, like drop safety testing. There is a separate lawsuit in CA challenging the roster in its entirety, it’s called Renna v. Bonta. We’re waiting on a decision for the preliminary injunction for that case to arrive in the coming months.

Two, it wasn’t even officially “struck down.” A preliminary injunction was issued at the district court level, meaning that CA can’t enforce the law throughout the duration of the lawsuit until the case has been decided. The injunction also doesn’t go into effect for another 2 weeks to give CA time to appeal to the 9th circuit, which they most certainly will. The 9th circuit is pretty anti-2A but we live in a post-Bruen world so who knows what could happen with the case at that point.

Three, CA is in a completely different circuit than we are. Decisions from other circuits don’t have direct effects on our own. We’re in the 1st circuit, which is comprised of MA, NH, RI, ME & Puerto Rico. Our own case challenging MA’s handgun roster (Granata v. Campbell) was dismissed at the district court level pre-Bruen and is now currently scheduled for oral arguments at the 1st Circuit on April 4th. The 1st Circuit is just as anti-2A as the 9th, so who knows what could happen there either. It’s probably gonna have to take one of these cases going all the way up to SCOTUS to get this resolved, which could take several years. Heck, it took Bruen 4 years to get to SCOTUS.
 
Hi,
Thanks for the replies. I really like the Shield plus as a daily carry. I will probably get an M&P compact too, and Im not waiting, as soon as I get my LTC I will get the shield.
It just sucks that there are only a few to choose from. I really like the Glock 47. I once have a Berretta 92FS. It just would be nice if you can pick something you really want, not just from a few choices.
 
Last edited:
Hi,
Thanks for the replies. I really like the Shield plus as a daily carry. I will probably get an M&P compact too, and Im not waiting, as soon as I get my LTC I will get the shield.
It just sucks that there are only a few to choose from. I really like the Glock 47. I once have a Berretta 92FS. It just that would be nice if you just can pick something you rally like, not just form a few choices.
You can.
 
Ya dude, I would definetily wait. Don’t get shit till this is settled in MA….
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.
 
Heres how your betters that run your shitty state view that ruling

Take that piece of paper

Turn that sumbitch sideways

And shove it straight up your candy ass
 
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.
I disagree. This thing will be settled very soon. I say wait, he’ll have way more options……
 
I disagree. This thing will be settled very soon. I say wait, he’ll have way more options……
What makes you say it’s gonna be settled soon? Our own case in MA was dismissed already at the district court, and there’s no telling what will happen with the case at CA1. If we lose there, which is definitely a possibility, there’s no guarantee that SCOTUS will take the case. They typically only take about 80 cases yearly on a variety of issues, 2A cases being least among them. I seriously doubt they’ll take up a handgun roster case as their next big 2A issue. If I had to guess, they’re probably going to be looking for something that would have a larger impact such as an AWB, 18-20 year old carry ban, or prohibited person case.

Also, our case doesn’t just challenge the roster. Our case also challenges the AG’s “consumer protection” regulations. I’m not sure if CA even has similar regulations, which would mean that even if one of the CA roster cases makes it to SCOTUS and they accept and rule in favor of the 2A, there’s no guarantee it would strike those regulations down as well. It’s still another way for the state to limit our handgun options arbitrarily. Case in point, Glocks actually are on the MA approved handgun roster but according to the AG they don’t comply with the consumer protection regulations so we still can’t buy them from dealers.
 
What makes you say it’s gonna be settled soon? Our own case in MA was dismissed already at the district court, and there’s no telling what will happen with the case at CA1. If we lose there, which is definitely a possibility, there’s no guarantee that SCOTUS will take the case. They typically only take about 80 cases yearly on a variety of issues, 2A cases being least among them. I seriously doubt they’ll take up a handgun roster case as their next big 2A issue. If I had to guess, they’re probably going to be looking for something that would have a larger impact such as an AWB, 18-20 year old carry ban, or prohibited person case.

Also, our case doesn’t just challenge the roster. Our case also challenges the AG’s “consumer protection” regulations. I’m not sure if CA even has similar regulations, which would mean that even if one of the CA roster cases makes it to SCOTUS and they accept and rule in favor of the 2A, there’s no guarantee it would strike those regulations down as well. It’s still another way for the state to limit our handgun options arbitrarily. Case in point, Glocks actually are on the MA approved handgun roster but according to the AG they don’t comply with the consumer protection regulations so we still can’t buy them from dealers.
Dude, I was messing with ya😂

You took the bait hard on that one. I thought it was hilarious that the OP asked if he should wait for something to take years through the court system or simply just go guy something. You saw the shiny post and pounced😂😂
 
The state has a strong case for a stay of that injunction, and may get it.

The concept of an injunction is to avoid damage to one party if they win the case. CA will argue that the damage to the plaintiff if said plaintiff wins is temporarily going without a particular gun while the case moves forward, however, the damage to "the people" will be that persons buying handguns not on the roster will constitute ongoing damage as they will be able to possess these very dangerous guns in perpetuity even if the case is decided against them, thus permanent damage.

Permanent "damage" generally trumps "temporary" damage when the courts decide what pre-decision status of the challenge to lock in.

Such an appeal of an injunction worked when there was a temporary injunction against the magazine ban, creating a narrow window for legal purchase before that injunction was stayed (and plaintiff's case eventually lost).
 
Last edited:
The state has a strong case for a stay of that injunction, and may get it.

The concept of an injunction is to avoid damage to one party if they win the case. CA will argue that the damage to the plaintiff if said plaintiff wins is temporarily going without a particular gun while the case moves forward, however, the damage to "the people" will be that persons buying handguns not on the roster will constitute ongoing damage as they will be able to possess these very dangerous guns in perpetuity even if the case is decided against them, thus permanent damage.

Permanent "damage" generally trumps "temporary" damage when the courts decide what pre-decision status of the challenge to lock in.

Such an appeal of an injunction worked when there was a temporary injunction against the magazine ban, creating a narrow window for legal purchase before that injunction was stayed (and plaintiff's case eventually lost).
Wouldn't that be based on the judge buying into the whole "dangerous" guns horse shit ?
 
Back
Top Bottom