Rhode v. Becerra (Challenge to CA Ammo Sales) - ORAL ARGS at 9th 11-9-2020

[BeAuMaN]

Originally Posted by Dirk Tungsten

LOL if u think the courts will side with us on this.

I mean do you have anything beyond just general pessimism or not? I get being pessimistic about the case in general, but this specific exemption that's very clearly written, and with an intent that is pretty clear?

It's a gem from where I stand.

[hoystory]

I don't see that the Michel Lawyers website for Rhode v. Becerra has been updated with this filing, but Becerra says the new ammo check requirement had blocked more than 100 felons or other prohibited persons from buying ammo.

Sean Brady says that 10,000 other ammo purchases were denied...to borrow the old legal saw, the state of California is punishing 100 innocent gun owners to make sure they get 1 criminal.

[cg&p]

Originally Posted by hoystory

I don't see that the Michel Lawyers website for Rhode v. Becerra has been updated with this filing, but Becerra says the new ammo check requirement had blocked more than 100 felons or other prohibited persons from buying ammo.

Sean Brady says that 10,000 other ammo purchases were denied...to borrow the old legal saw, the state of California is punishing 100 innocent gun owners to make sure they get 1 criminal.

what was the old Lenninist saying? "Better to kill thousands of innocents than to let 1 guilty person free" (?)

[wolfwood]

state filed its opposition


https://www.scribd.com/document/4209...odes-Opp-to-PI

[Guninator]

Originally Posted by AKSOG

So they are using the backround check data for pressing charges and search warrants? wow

Source? Are you referring to CA's opposition motion? They don't actually say they are doing that. They were giving examples of other jurisdictions' uses of ammo ordinances.

[Foothills]

Originally Posted by NorthBay Shooter

It noted that the “rate of detection of criminal violators has proven to be higher than originally expected.”

They knew going in they were going to use this data for other stuff.

Seems like less invasive policies have failed to survive 4th Amendment challenges in recent years.

[Librarian]

Folks,

It seems many have forgotten that threads in this forum are for LITIGATION UPDATES.

Kindly cease the chit-chat; much of the past few days posts will be moved to a new thread.

It isn't that what is being discussed is bad, it's that that discussion does not go into this thread.

ETA 60 posts moved to http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1551520 in General Gun Discussions

[Markinsac]

Link to the Michel firm with all of the relevant documents in the case:

http://michellawyers.com/rhode-v-becerra/

[wolfwood]

everytown filed an amicus brief a few minutes ago

https://www.scribd.com/document/4215...Brief-repaired

[mshill]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

everytown filed an amicus brief a few minutes ago

https://www.scribd.com/document/4215...Brief-repaired

"Cause Heller says we can... longstanding prohibitions...blah, blah, blah"

[astro.dude]

Ran out of 30-06 and needed some to zero a new scope, so went Dicks out of desperation. Dicks Dublin is checking for citizenship before selling ammo. Friggin unreal...

[coryhenry]

Preliminary injunction with Judge Benitez being heard today in San Diego at 10:30 courtroom 5A.

[Metal God]

Dicks Dublin is checking for citizenship before selling ammo.

WOW can that be any more unconstitutional ???? Just happened to be in a situation last week where I saw how a person registered to vote . They just filed out the paperwork and got there voter registration card . They did not need to show citizenship , birth certificate , proof of residency . NOTHING ! just fill out the paper work and you can vote .

Anyways , I'll be down there this morning . Fingers crossed !

[coryhenry]

Just an update from the injunction. I had to step out to go back to work. Judge benetiz was asking very good questions of the state about why the second amendment right is not treated the same as the other rights by the state. It’s looking pretty darn good from my perspective. The state didn’t have any good answers.

[Rakso]

[Dirtlaw]

[NorCalRT]

Good to hear! I shall have my shopping cart prepped and ready

[M60A1Rise]

I bought a few extra ammo cans just in case , this time i'll be buying future calibers.

[Rakso]

Online vendors better not trip.

[vino68]

Originally Posted by Rakso

Online vendors better not trip.

I agree.

[vino68]

Originally Posted by coryhenry

Just an update from the injunction. I had to step out to go back to work. Judge benetiz was asking very good questions of the state about why the second amendment right is not treated the same as the other rights by the state. It’s looking pretty darn good from my perspective. The state didn’t have any good answers.

Sir, thank you for taking time out of your day to be there and reporting back to us.
I would not expect anything substantial today. He has shown us to be a thoughtful, careful and prolific writer with regards to his decisions.

[HUTCH 7.62]

[sfpcservice]

Are PI's ruled on in the same proceeding or are they heard and then you get an answer in two weeks?

[TransplantTexan]

Originally Posted by coryhenry

Just an update from the injunction. I had to step out to go back to work. Judge benetiz was asking very good questions of the state about why the second amendment right is not treated the same as the other rights by the state. It’s looking pretty darn good from my perspective. The state didn’t have any good answers.

I was there also (on the opposite end from you) I too had to leave to get back to work and thought that the Judge was asking some very good questions. I was going to try and get back after lunch but since I was out on vacation last week I needed to get caught up on some work.

He also had a good analogy comparing Driver's Licenses to firearm ownership and due process under the law.

It will be a very interesting transcript to read.

[Metal God]

Ok just got done I was there all day , wish I had brought a note pad , lots of things talked about in there .

Short version is our side believes there are to many rejections in the system ( 10,000+) in July with only 106 of those actually being prohibited persons . Something like 18% rejections in July . So we are saying this system is over burdensome to the general public . It is denying far to many who other wise should not be denied while only preventing very few that are actually prohibited persons .

The state is claiming those 10k+ were simple mistakes that can easily be fixed . Things like mismatching addresses because you moved . didn't know you were not in the system yet or clerical errors . which they claim are all easy fixes .

Our side said fixing 10k+ mistakes when the government is involved is never an easy fix and it still takes hours to days to resolve . This is putting an undo burden on law abiding citizens .

In the end the judge put his ruling on hold for 30 to 60 days so the state can produce a list of all 10k+ denials and why each was denied . He is having a hard time excepting you can be denied and not know why or how to fix it right away . It appears he's looking to see if the system is fixable , broken or just not well designed .


On a side note , Right at the beginning the state conceded if you were from out of state visiting for hunting or what ever you can just have a friend who is a CA resident buy you some ammo or you can give that friend the money to buy you ammo and that was all legal . Which the judge just shook his head in disbelief because the state just said it's OK to do straw purchases in the state of CA . I mean we all just sat there with are mouths open , Did the state just lob one up to be hit out of the park . I thought case closed right there but it went on for another 2 hours .

Anyways very interesting , The first part of the day was looking good for us . The judge was challenging the state with some very good questions that they did not have great answers for . The state did come around later with some good counter punches after lunch . Our guy did some good work in there and I'd like to thank him for that . We talked with him at lunch and after and he seemed optimistic and thinks the judge is leaning are way but believes the judge wants to be clear the system is not working before making his ruling .

[vino68]

Metal God, much thanks for reporting back.

[Metal God]

Online vendors better not trip.

The judge seemed concerned that the law was not equal to out of state vendors when they were talking commerce clause . Sure Walmart and Dicks have stores in CA but other vendors out of state do not . He seemed to be saying he didn't think it was fare CA was mandating if you sold a product to a CA resident . You as the business owner had to have a store in CA to do so .

He also brought up the face to face part of the law . He asked the state " with all the technology out there today why can't we just skype or facetime with the store to prove we are who we say we are . Something like having your face on the camera/screen and hold up your photo ID to prove you are who you claim to be ? The state countered that pretty good giving the example of that would not work buying alcohol , you can't just facetime with the store and have them deliver you beer , there still needs to be a face to face check on that .

Anyways like I said there was a lot of things debated in there and I can't remember everything off the top of my head . Feel free to ask questions , maybe they will bring back some of my memory's lol

[Sousuke]

What’s funny is you CAN buy alcohol on line in CA and have it shipped to your door

[Metal God]

What’s funny is you CAN buy alcohol on line in CA and have it shipped to your door

I think your right . a friend has wine shipped to them all the time .

[sevendayweekend]

Metal God - thanks for the summary

[Aeneas]

Originally Posted by Metal God

Ok just got done I was there all day , wish I had brought a note pad , lots of things talked about in there .

Short version is our side believes there are to many rejections in the system ( 10,000+) in July with only 106 of those actually being prohibited persons . Something like 18% rejections in July . So we are saying this system is over burdensome to the general public . It is denying far to many who other wise should not be denied while only preventing very few that are actually prohibited persons .

The state is claiming those 10k+ were simple mistakes that can easily be fixed . Things like mismatching addresses because you moved . didn't know you were not in the system yet or clerical errors . which they claim are all easy fixes .

Our side said fixing 10k+ mistakes when the government is involved is never an easy fix and it still takes hours to days to resolve . This is putting an undo burden on law abiding citizens .

In the end the judge put his ruling on hold for 30 to 60 days so the state can produce a list of all 10k+ denials and why each was denied . He is having a hard time excepting you can be denied and not know why or how to fix it right away . It appears he's looking to see if the system is fixable , broken or just not well designed .


On a side note , Right at the beginning the state conceded if you were from out of state visiting for hunting or what ever you can just have a friend who is a CA resident buy you some ammo or you can give that friend the money to buy you ammo and that was all legal . Which the judge just shook his head in disbelief because the state just said it's OK to do straw purchases in the state of CA . I mean we all just sat there with are mouths open , Did the state just lob one up to be hit out of the park . I thought case closed right there but it went on for another 2 hours .

Anyways very interesting , The first part of the day was looking good for us . The judge was challenging the state with some very good questions that they did not have great answers for . The state did come around later with some good counter punches after lunch . Our guy did some good work in there and I'd like to thank him for that . We talked with him at lunch and after and he seemed optimistic and thinks the judge is leaning are way but believes the judge wants to be clear the system is not working before making his ruling .

So would you say that the crux of the CRPA's argument was on a broken system, or that non-prohibited persons may be denied? If so, that's pretty disappointing, as it's not the process that's the problem. The problem is the fact that the state has the audacity to think that a free individual should have to prove themselves worthy to the government that they are responsible enough to obtain something integral to exercising a fundamental right. It shouldn't be focused on how effectively totalitarianism can be implemented.

[moleculo]

Originally Posted by Metal God

Feel free to ask questions , maybe they will bring back some of my memory's lol

Was there any discussion related to the core burden on the 2A and if so, what was that part like? IOW, apart from "the system sucks" part was there any discussion similar to what came out of the Magazine lawsuit?

[moleculo]

Originally Posted by Sousuke

What’s funny is you CAN buy alcohol on line in CA and have it shipped to your door

I have wine shipped regularly to my door direct from wineries. But I was there in person to initiate that transaction. Regardless, I just checked on Bevmo.com and all you have to do is fill out an online form confirming that you're 21 with your DOB and you're good to go. And buying alcohol isn't even a constitutional right....

[Rakso]

Originally Posted by Metal God

Ok just got done I was there all day , wish I had brought a note pad , lots of things talked about in there .

Short version is our side believes there are to many rejections in the system ( 10,000+) in July with only 106 of those actually being prohibited persons . Something like 18% rejections in July . So we are saying this system is over burdensome to the general public . It is denying far to many who other wise should not be denied while only preventing very few that are actually prohibited persons .

The state is claiming those 10k+ were simple mistakes that can easily be fixed . Things like mismatching addresses because you moved . didn't know you were not in the system yet or clerical errors . which they claim are all easy fixes .

Our side said fixing 10k+ mistakes when the government is involved is never an easy fix and it still takes hours to days to resolve . This is putting an undo burden on law abiding citizens .

In the end the judge put his ruling on hold for 30 to 60 days so the state can produce a list of all 10k+ denials and why each was denied . He is having a hard time excepting you can be denied and not know why or how to fix it right away . It appears he's looking to see if the system is fixable , broken or just not well designed .


On a side note , Right at the beginning the state conceded if you were from out of state visiting for hunting or what ever you can just have a friend who is a CA resident buy you some ammo or you can give that friend the money to buy you ammo and that was all legal . Which the judge just shook his head in disbelief because the state just said it's OK to do straw purchases in the state of CA . I mean we all just sat there with are mouths open , Did the state just lob one up to be hit out of the park . I thought case closed right there but it went on for another 2 hours .

Anyways very interesting , The first part of the day was looking good for us . The judge was challenging the state with some very good questions that they did not have great answers for . The state did come around later with some good counter punches after lunch . Our guy did some good work in there and I'd like to thank him for that . We talked with him at lunch and after and he seemed optimistic and thinks the judge is leaning are way but believes the judge wants to be clear the system is not working before making his ruling .

Thank you for this.

[littlezipp]

Thank you for the summary!

This part

Originally Posted by Metal God

On a side note , Right at the beginning the state conceded if you were from out of state visiting for hunting or what ever you can just have a friend who is a CA resident buy you some ammo or you can give that friend the money to buy you ammo and that was all legal . Which the judge just shook his head in disbelief because the state just said it's OK to do straw purchases in the state of CA . I mean we all just sat there with are mouths open , Did the state just lob one up to be hit out of the park . I thought case closed right there but it went on for another 2 hours .

[Rakso]

Originally Posted by Aeneas

So would you say that the crux of the CRPA's argument was on a broken system, or that non-prohibited persons may be denied? If so, that's pretty disappointing, as it's not the process that's the problem. The problem is the fact that the state has the audacity to think that a free individual should have to prove themselves worthy to the government that they are responsible enough to obtain something integral to exercising a fundamental right. It shouldn't be focused on how effectively totalitarianism can be implemented.

I'll go buy ammo later today, I hope I get denied (I shouldn't). Is there a way to send a complaint about being denied? If so, where? Or to whom?

[Rakso]

Originally Posted by littlezipp

Thank you for the summary!

This part

Absolutely.

[sonofeugene]

Originally Posted by moleculo

I have wine shipped regularly to my door direct from wineries. But I was there in person to initiate that transaction. Regardless, I just checked on Bevmo.com and all you have to do is fill out an online form confirming that you're 21 with your DOB and you're good to go. And buying alcohol isn't even a constitutional right....

I order wine from out of state and there is no check on me or my age. An adult does have to sign for it, though, when it arrives, but that's it.

[vino68]

Originally Posted by Sousuke

What’s funny is you CAN buy alcohol on line in CA and have it shipped to your door

Funny how in Utah it is the exact opposite.

[Metal God]

I want to state for the record this is my take on the hearing . There was a lot said and I'm not a lawyer . This goes to everything I posted so far and everything moving forward . If I need to correct things I will but have no intentions on defending everything I write . FWIW that was not to come off snarky but rather "just so you know "

So would you say that the crux of the CRPA's argument was on a broken system, or that non-prohibited persons may be denied? If so, that's pretty disappointing, as it's not the process that's the problem. The problem is the fact that the state has the audacity to think that a free individual should have to prove themselves worthy to the government that they are responsible enough to obtain something integral to exercising a fundamental right. It shouldn't be focused on how effectively totalitarianism can be implemented.

I'd say yes that was the main talking points as I heard them . There was many things discussed but that was the primary focus IMO . The judge asked several times If we had a fix for the system or ideas to make the whole idea of keeping ammo away from prohibited persons work . We declined to give any real ideas and simply said there might be something that could be done but that's not our burden to prove . It's in fact the states burden to not only prove there idea is constitutional but it works and does not put an undo burden on law abiding citizens . Which it clearly is at this time with a 18% failure rate and only 106 were prohibited . To put a finer point on it out of 50k+ checks only 106 were deemed prohibited persons . One of the reasons the judge wants the data he's asking for is he not only wants the answer to why 10k+ were denied when they should not have . It was suggested that maybe that 106 number was not all that accurate . Like if you were busted for smoking a joint in the 60" , you would have been charged with a felony . Under this system something like that which is no longer even illegal would cause a rejection on your ammo background check . The judge wants to know how many of those 106 were actually truly prohibited persons .

The state is already setting the stage to say they don't have access to all the data the judge is asking for ( I think because the system is not designed to store it in a way that it's that simple to retrieve ) or that's what it seemed the state was trying to say with out actually saying it . They just said they weren't sure what data they would be able to produce . That was a point we hammered home a lot . The state has data of 10k+ rejections but can't say why , who or if they have been resolved . The judge is asking for all of July and August data .

Was there any discussion related to the core burden on the 2A and if so, what was that part like? IOW, apart from "the system sucks" part was there any discussion similar to what came out of the Magazine lawsuit?

Yes they talked about it being a second amendment issue but the judge made it clear he was OK with the state trying to keep the guns and ammo out of prohibited persons hands . At that point it seemed they were treating ammo background checks as equal to firearms background checks or almost equal . Meaning the judge seemed open to it if it was instant and we didn't have such a high rejection rate of people that likely should not be rejected . He seemed quite unhappy about the whole thing but was giving the state a chance to make there argument .

He drilled the state several times while almost never challenging are side . At one point the state kept pointing out 9th circuit cases affirming his positions which prompted the judge to ask both sides "has the 9th ever heard a gun control case they didn't find constitutional " It was then pointed out to him that both carry cases ( Peruta and the Hawaii cases ) were won by our side but one was over turned on enbanc and the other is currently in enbanc process . It was established that the 9th circuit has never heard a gun control law they didn't like .

I order wine from out of state and there is no check on me or my age. An adult does have to sign for it, though, when it arrives, but that's it.

Yeah I just talked with my buddy . He said the same , he needs to show ID to take possession of the wine . If he's not home they will not leave it and after the 3rd attempt they send it back .