As expected, California responded to our lawsuit, Peña v. Cid (in which I am a plaintiff) with a motion for dismissal.
Amusingly, in their response, they make a point of summarizing the arguments for each of my three co-plaintiffs. For example:
...Vargas wants to buy a "Glock 21 SF with an ambidextrous magazine release" from a willing seller, but that he cannot because the handgun is not on the roster. (Am. Compl. ¶ 39.) It alleges that the "Glock 21 SF-STD is listed on the California Handgun Roster," but that the Glock 21-SF with an ambidextrous magazine release "is better suitable" for left-handed shooters like Mr. Vargas, who "was born without an arm below the right elbow."In each case for the other plaintiffs, at least a paragraph is given, explaining what handguns they wish to purchase, and why those handguns' unavailability is unreasonable.
Me? I get one sentence: "Finally, Thomas wishes to purchase a 'High Standard Buntline style revolver' but cannot because it is not on the roster."
Of course, the handgun I wish to purchase is precisely the one the Supreme Court said Dick Heller had a right to purchase in Heller v. DC. Surely, their omission of this explanation for why I should be allowed to purchase it was merely an oversight.