Federal Judge Issues Preliminary Injuction Against CA handgun roster

[steveTA84]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/judge-blocks-california-law-requiring-safety-features-handguns-2023-03-20/
 

March 20 (Reuters) - A federal judge on Monday blocked California from enforcing a state law requiring new semiautomatic handguns to have certain safety features, finding it violates the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney in Santa Anna, California is the latest in a line of decisions striking down state gun laws following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year expanding gun rights. The judge said it would not take effect for 14 days to give the state a chance to appeal.

 

 

[yurimodin]

On 3/20/2023 at 4:40 PM, steveTA84 said:

The judge said it would not take effect for 14 days to give the state a chance to appeal.

chickensh**

[EdDinIL]

I'm sure California will just roll over and accept this without throwing a temper tantrum and lashing out at gun owners statewide.

[Euler]

The case appears to be Boland v Bonta.

[Euler]

BTW, the title "ruled unconstitutional" is a bit premature. The judge didn't issue a final ruling. It's only a preliminary injunction. The case has yet to be heard.

[Upholder]

Additionally, the injunction does not appear to remove the roster, it enjoins the state from requiring Loaded Chamber Indicators, Magazine Disconnects, or Micro-stamping for a handgun to be placed on the roster.

Edited March 20, 2023 at 11:40 PM by Upholder

[Euler]

On 3/20/2023 at 7:39 PM, Upholder said:

Additionally, the injunction does not appear to remove the roster, it enjoins the state from requiring Loaded Chamber Indicators, Magazine Disconnects, or Micro-stamping for a handgun to be placed on the roster.

 

The separation of judicial, legislative, and executive power limits the court. Actions can be enjoined. Existence cannot be.

 

If, on the other hand, there was a law requiring the executive branch to destroy the roster and any record thereof, but the executive branch defied the law, the courts could issue a writ of mandamus, which is an order to any other government organization to obey the law. That's not the case here.

[Upholder]

The specific point I was trying to make is that he didn't enjoin the state from limiting sales to guns on the roster, he appears to have limited what conditions could be used to exclude guns from being added to the roster.

[Tvandermyde]

the original roster was like a CPSC act for drop tests and the like, since they -- CPSC were banned from testing firearms. 

So a roster may likely survive in some limited capacity, but the microstamping mandate was just handed a death blow by this judge as well as the concept of piling on requirements to see that no new firearms are allowed for sale.

 

Its a good ruling for us, solid and takes a few shots at the logic of the anti-gunners, 

 

Tuesday 2A round vid coming in an hour

[steveTA84]

There it is, whole law 

 

 

[steveTA84]

And the communist swine at the 9th already stayed it 

 

[Upholder]

Note that these are different cases.

 

Boland v Bonta had a preliminary injunction issued nearly 2 weeks ago and is the case that the 9th circuit stayed the preliminary injunction for.

 

The FPC case is Renna v. Bonta and was heard in the Southern District of California.

Edited April 1, 2023 at 01:23 AM by Upholder