GAME CHANGING LAWSUIT WIN WRECKS HANDGUN ROSTER!!! – BOLAND V BONTA MPI GRANTED

Because the plain text of the Second Amendment covers Plaintiffs’ proposed course of conduct of purchasing state-of-the-art handguns, and the UHA’s CLI, MDM, and microstamping requirements are not consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.

Porac mentions most le use UNSAFE handguns – great to see their support validated

[Reno May testifying that “[b]ecause of the high demand (for Off-Roster handguns) and the very low supply, usually being supplied by law enforcement or people who move from out of state into this state with one of those firearms, it’s hard to come by, and it is very expensive”].)

Lance Boland testifying that left-handed shooters sometimes have to “add[] steps of manipulation to the gun that, if we had an ambidextrous firearm or a left-handed firearm, we wouldn’t have to do,” which takes time in a situation where “seconds or micro-seconds of time can be the difference between being able to use your firearm successfully, defensively, and potentially losing your life”].)

Similarly, if Off-Roster firearms were truly unsafe, California would not allow law enforcement to use them in the line of duty, when the stakes are highest. But the substantial majority of California’s law enforcement officers use Off-Roster handguns in the line of duty. (Dkt. 57-2 [Declaration of Brian R. Marvel, President of Peace Officers Research Association of California, hereinafter “Marvel Decl.”] ¶ 5 [“Most agencies issue officers the latest models of either Glock or Sig Sauer handguns, which lack Case 8:22-cv-01421-CJC-ADS Document 60 Filed 03/20/23 Page 21 of 22 Page ID #:2061
magazine safety disconnects, chamber load indicators, and of course microstamping.”]; see id. ¶ 7 [“For example, many officers are issued 4th or 5th-generation Glock pistols, which are off-roster and lack magazine safety disconnects, chamber load indicators, and of course microstamping.”].) Indeed, the government’s own witness, Special Agent Salvador Gonzalez, testified that he uses an Off-Roster duty handgun without a CLI, MDM, or microstamping capability. (Tr. at 243–44.) If CLIs and MDMs truly increased the overall safety of a firearm, law enforcement surely would use them. (Marvel Decl.
¶ 5.) But they do not. Instead, they choose to use “newer, improved and safer generations of handguns” that are Off-Roster.

californians have the constitutional right to acquire and use state-of-the-art handguns to protect themselves. They should not be forced to settle for decade-old models of handguns to ensure that they remain safe inside or outside the home. But unfortunately, the UHA’s CLI, MDM, and microstamping requirements do exactly that. Because enforcing those requirements implicates the plain text of the Second Amendment, and the government fails to point to any well-established historical analogues that are consistent with them, those requirements are unconstitutional and their enforcement must be preliminarily enjoined. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED.