FergusonTO35 said:
Any word on how the gun roster lawsuit is going? I have read that S&W and Ruger both let a number of their models fall off the list because they believed that the guns were going to soon be removed anyway and they would just proceed with their lawsuit.
Hi,
So far, not so good.
Remember, I am NOT a lawyer, so anything I say here is only personal opinion based on a number of years' worth of observation thru a layman's eyes. Feb. 26, 2015, the District Court issued summary judgment in Peña v. Lindley in favor of the defendant, Lindley. In other words, the Court ruled in favor of the State of CA since the original complaint named Mr. Lindley in his position as Chief of the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms. The decision is available here: https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/litigation/pena-v-lindley/ Click on the bold link by that date to read the decision. At first read, it doesn't look like the plaintiffs made much of a case in that Court's opinion. The case was immediately appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court, where I assume it still rests.
Several references in the plaintiffs' complaints were to the Peruta case (concerning San Diego County's procedure on issuing CCWs.) A three judge panel from the Ninth decided on appeal from the District Court in favor of the appellant (Peruta) in that case, so it might seem a good basis for some of the Peña case's arguments. However, the panel's ruling was then appealed to the Ninth
en banc by San Diego County. That appeal was heard on (or about) June 16, 2015, and a final decision still awaits. As such, I don't know how much weight the earlier panel's decision carries by reference. Whether the Court would wait on a Peña decision to first see how Peruta plays out is an unknown to me.
What is NOT an unknown is that CA gets sued a lot but doesn't lose too often. Whether the laws are so carefully crafted as to withstand challenges originally, or the challenges simply don't find their Achilles heel when they are brought, I can't say. What I do know is that waiting and relying on a pending court case to be favorable when making a difficult to reverse "business decision" can be sketchy practice at best, disastrous at worst. The idea that Ruger (and perhaps S&W? I'm not familiar with what they've done on this issue) would let guns fall off the roster, in hopes of a favorable court decision, guns which were grandfathered in and only required "renewal" fees each year (in the amount of $200/model per the court papers, a mere pittance in the grand scheme of things) to remain rostered, shows me a level of naivete or an outright lack of political, legal and business acumen that is disturbing. If not in general, it certainly is at the level of dealing with the State of CA.
Anyone I talk to who's lived here very long understands the idea that the State isn't near as likely to outlaw something, on its face, as it is to make it so difficult to comply that people will give up and attrition will do what actual legal documents might have trouble doing (back to the idea the laws are so carefully crafted as to withstand challenge.) Sadly, the District Court seems to have come out and said the very same thing, if in more legalistic terms, and appellants would have to come up with a far more iron clad argument before the Ninth than they did as plaintiffs at the lower level if the Ninth can be expected to reverse the District Court's decision.
Methinks Mr. Fifer screwed the pooch on this deal, and we'll all suffer sooner or later from his decision, regardless of how the Courts' decisions affect us! Remember, if CA wins, there are other States just watching to see how it happens so they can copy the drill. Fortified with the knowledge Ruger caved as easily as they apparently did, your State might be one of them... perhaps even the next.
Returning to the OP, the old adage says a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, so with that as background, for me the answer is still "Yes!"
Rick C
Ok, I'm funnin' ya a little, but there's a serious side to this, too.
