Pena et al v. Cid

Filing 89

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 6/5/2014 ORDERING The parties' cross motion for summary judgment are pending before the court 61 . Having carefully considered the parties' arguments in light of the current record, the court fi nds the record insufficient to render judgment, and so directs the parties to provide supplemental briefing on two issues; Simultaneous briefs, not to exceed 20 pages each and any factual support therefor are due within 30 days of the filing of this order. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

IVAN PEÑA, et al.,

No. 2:09-CV-01185-KJM-CKD

12
Plaintiffs,
13
14
15
16
17

v.

ORDER

STEPHEN LINDLEY, in his official
capacity as Chief of the California
Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms,
Defendant.

18
19

The parties’ cross motions for summary judgment are pending before the court.

20

Pls.’ Mot. Summ. J. at 1, ECF No. 61; Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. at 1, ECF No. 55. Having

21

carefully considered the parties’ arguments in light of the current record, the court finds the

22

record insufficient to render judgment, and so directs the parties to provide supplemental

23

briefing on two issues: (1) whether the microstamping requirement, CAL. PENAL CODE §

24

31910(b)(7)(A), of the California Unsafe Handgun Act (“UHA”) amounts to a de facto ban of

25

unrostered weapons to which the requirement applies, and if not, the extent of the

26

requirement’s burden on Second Amendment rights; and (2) whether a reasonable fit exists

27

between the UHA’s testing requirements, id. §§ 31910(a)–(b)(6), particularly the similar-gun

28

exception, id. § 32030, and the statute’s purposes. Simultaneous briefs, not to exceed twenty
1

1

pages each, and any factual support therefor are due within thirty days of the filing of this

2

order.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 5, 2014.

5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2