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

[MCubeiro]

STATUS - newest events at the top.
Michel & Associates case link: https://michellawyers.com/rhode-v-becerra/

Court of Appeals Case No.: 20-55437

District Court Case No.: 3:18-cv-00802-BEN-JLB

9th Circuit Case: 20-55437, 06/12/2020

8-30-2020 Oral arguments at 9th Circuit 11-9-2020

7-31-20 Appellees' answering brief https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...ring-Brief.pdf

6-12-20 Appellant's (state) opening brief to the 9th - https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...ning-Brief.pdf

ISSUES PRESENTED
1. Whether the district court erred in holding that plaintiffs had
established a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that
California’s ammunition background check laws, which, in most cases,
require a small fee and short wait to purchase ammunition, violate the
Second Amendment.

2. Whether the district court erred in holding that plaintiffs had
established a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that
California’s laws requiring (A) ammunition transactions to take place in
face-to-face transactions and (B) residents bringing ammunition in the State
to deliver that ammunition to a licensed vendor for processing in a face-toface
transaction, violate the dormant Commerce Clause.

3. Whether the district court erred in holding that the burden
plaintiffs experience—a short wait and a small fee to purchase
ammunition—outweighs California’s interest in continuing to prevent
violent felons, the dangerously mentally ill, and other prohibit people from
purchasing ammunition.

5-14-20 // Librarian

9th grants the stay of the preliminary injunction, resolving the earlier 'administrative' stay
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...71335.68.0.pdf


4-24-20 // Librarian

9th grants the stay - https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...71335.66.0.pdf This one was 'administrative', no merits evaluated.

Becerra appeals to the 9th for a stay.

Judge Benitez denies the stay - https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...tn-to-Stay.pdf

Much to anyone's surprise (/sarcasm) Becerra files for a stay - https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...anting-MPI.pdf


4-23-20 // Librarian

Injunction - https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...anting-MPI.pdf

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and his officers, agents,
servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or
participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and
federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction
order or know of the existence of this injunction order, are enjoined from
implementing or enforcing the ammunition sales background check
provisions found in California Penal Code §§ 30370(a) through (d) and
30352, and the ammunition anti-importation provisions found in
§§ 30312(a) and (b), and 30314(a) as well as the criminal enforcement of
California Penal Code §§ 30365, 30312(d) and 30314(c).

2. Defendant Attorney General Xavier Becerra shall provide forthwith, by
personal service or otherwise, actual notice of this order to all law
enforcement personnel who are responsible for implementing or enforcing
the enjoined statute. Within 10 days, the government shall file a
declaration establishing proof of such notice. Alternatively, the parties
may file a stipulation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 23, 2020

NOTE WELL it is only the specified sections (I embedded links to the code) that are enjoined.



=========================== 2018 ============================
For immediate release:

CRPA LEGAL TEAM FILES FEDERAL LAWSUIT
CHALLENGING CALIFORNIA’S AMMUNITION SALE RESTRICTIONS

On Thursday, April 26, the California Rifle & Pistol Association, working with the experts and legal scholars at the NRA, filed an important lawsuit challenging California’s restrictions regarding the sale or transfer of ammunition. These restrictions, enacted in 2016 as part of the “Gunmageddon” bills and Proposition 63, require all ammunition sales and transfers to be conducted via face-to-face transactions at California licensed firearm dealers or licensed ammunition vendors. And beginning July 1, 2019, all ammunition purchasers will be required to pass a background check before taking delivery of any ammunition.

Leading the lawsuit is Kim Rhode, a six-time Olympic medal winner who uses specialized ammunition approved by the International Shooting Sport Federation during the competitions she participates in. Joining her are several other law-abiding California gun owners and the following out of state businesses who can no longer ship ammunition directly to their California customers:

• Able’s Sporting, Inc. (also known as “Able Ammo”)- Located in Huntsville, TX, Able Ammo specializes in discount hunting supplies, shooting supplies, hunting firearms, discount ammunition, and other firearm related accessories. Visit their website by clicking here.
  
• Ammunition Depot- Located in Boca Raton, FL, Ammunition Depot was founded by freedom-loving Americans who know that 1) It is every American’s right and responsibility to defend themselves, their family, and country; and, 2) without ammunition, none of that is possible. Visit their website by clicking here.
  
• Sam’s Shooters Emporium- Located in Lake Havasu City, AZ (just outside of California), Sam’s Shooters Emporium celebrated 20 years of business as the largest indoor shooting range in Arizona. The owners of Sam’s Shooters Emporium, Sam Scarmardo and his wife, are dedicated supporters of the Second Amendment and both NRA Life Members. Visit their website by clicking here.

The lawsuit, titled Rhode v. Becerra, challenges the California’s new ammunition sales restrictions as a violation of the Second Amendment, Commerce Clause, and Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. The lawsuit also challenges the restrictions as being preempted by the Firearm Owner’s Protection Act.

The filing of Rhode marks the fourth lawsuit filed challenging the provisions of Proposition 63 and the other “Gunmageddon” gun control bills. Once such lawsuit, titled Duncan v. Becerra, has already succeeded in obtaining an important injunction against Proposition 63’s ban on the possession of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. The other two lawsuits, titled Rupp v. Becerra and Villanueva v. Becerra (both of which challenge California’s “assault weapon” restrictions and registration requirements), are also seeking injunctions while those lawsuits are pending.

Help Us Protect the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

NRA and CRPA are not standing idly by as California’s new firearm restrictions begin to take effect, but WE NEED YOU to help us turn the tide. CRPA’s Grassroots (GO) project needs individuals to be the voices for the right to keep and bear arms in local communities. To learn more about how you can help in these efforts, visit https://www.crpa.org/programs/volunteers-grassroots/ or send an email to volunteer@crpa.org.

To stay informed on the Rhode case, as well as the other “Gunmageddon” lawsuits and other important Second Amendment issues here in California and throughout the nation, make sure you are subscribed to NRA and CRPA email alerts. And be sure to visit the NRA-ILA California dedicated webpage at www.StandAndFightCalifornia.com and the newly redesigned CRPA website at www.CRPA.org.

[Maltese Falcon]

Good deal, thanks for the update. Now if we can get injunctions for all of them...

.

[tenemae]

Originally Posted by MCubeiro

Joining her are [...] the following out of state businesses

Thank god someone in free America hasn't forgotten us

[Librarian]

For the frequent critics, note that the suit seems to cover a broad front often omitted:

The lawsuit, titled Rhode v. Becerra, challenges the California’s new ammunition sales restrictions as a violation of

the Second Amendment,
Commerce Clause, and
Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.

The lawsuit also challenges the restrictions as being preempted by the Firearm Owner’s Protection Act.

[Frisco3Gun]

Wahoo! Thanks for fighting the good fight!

[CandG]

Awesome! Go get 'em, boys!

That's great that you got Kim Rhode on board with this!!

[Skip_Dog]

Time for another donation. Thank you to all involved to at least fight the fight.

[Phalanx20mm]

Thank you for continuing to fight for our rights.

[operavoice]

Go Kim!

[KahrMan]

Originally Posted by Librarian

For the frequent critics, note that the suit seems to cover a broad front often omitted:

Yep, glad they included the commerce clause.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Gavin is reacting predictably...

...Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is running for governor, defended his initiative and vowed to fight the NRA lawsuit.

“We wrote Proposition 63 on solid legal ground and principle: If you're a felon banned from possessing guns in California, then you should not be able to purchase the ammunition that makes a firearm deadly,” Newsom said in a statement. “California voters said loudly and clearly that guns and ammunition do not belong in the hands of dangerous individuals — but once again, the NRA has prioritized gun industry profits over the lives of law-abiding Californians.”

[RobG]

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

Gavin is reacting predictably...

He is such a f%^king tool. I am gonna venture a guess and say that felons were banned, are still banned, and will continue to be banned even if the lawsuit is a win.

[baddos]

Californians also voted for prop 8 Newsom.

[boogak]

Where do I donate to?

[BryMan92]

I am wondering, do other states do this? A quick search says no. In MA, where I come from, you can order online from some places and if you buy in-person you just flash your license. No background check is required.

[kinkarcana]

I understand its going to take a decent chunk of time for a ruling on this to come about, but would a favorable ruling(repeal of statute) on this also effect the current legislation that the state is trying to implement concerning firearm precursor parts or is the correlation not there being 1 is ammo while the other is and or could be a chunk of metal with the ability to become a firearm?

[Battosai1]

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

Gavin is reacting predictably...

Oooo please for the love of God, let California collapse in a fiery ball of flaming dog **** on Gavin Newscums watch.

[lordmorgul]

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

Gavin is reacting predictably...

This guy is such a shameless liar. Anyone with a felony was already prohibited before this law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Andrew - Lancaster, CA
NRA Life Member, SAF / CRPA / FPC member and supporter, USCCA Member

[Skip_Dog]

Originally Posted by lordmorgul

This guy is such a shameless liar. Anyone with a felony was already prohibited before this law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Andrew - Lancaster, CA
NRA Life Member, SAF / CRPA / FPC member and supporter, USCCA Member

And so only a Ca COE should be good enough for online shipments. Proves we are Ca legal. No need for Fed 03FFL for ammo. He is straight up Bull Sh!7.

[aBrowningfan]

I sooo hope this litigation is successful (another way of saying that I am subscribed to this thread)!

[skilletboy]

Originally Posted by lordmorgul

This guy is such a shameless liar. Anyone with a felony was already prohibited before this law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Andrew - Lancaster, CA
NRA Life Member, SAF / CRPA / FPC member and supporter, USCCA Member

Yep. He's a snake.

[USMCmatt]

This is ****ing amazing... I wish the courts moved faster on things like this.

[superdave50]

if bgc's can't prevent felons from purchasing firearms, how could they prevent ammo purchases?

logic is some crazy stuff...

[denpython]

Gavin is anything but a "law abiding citizen".
Thanks CRPA and NRA!

[Haplo]

Great job guys!

[SWalt]

tag

[KahrMan]

Originally Posted by superdave50

if bgc's can't prevent felons from purchasing firearms, how could they prevent ammo purchases?

logic is some crazy stuff...

Its not about criminals, its about disarming the law abiding public so they can not resist the will of the overlords.

[wolfwood]

\ Benitez got assigned to this case that is the same judge that granted the injunction in the magazine case. The case was originally assigned to a Democrat appointee so this is great news.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/..._Becerra_et_al

[gumby]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

\ Benitez got assigned to this case that is the same judge that granted the injunction in the magazine case. The case was originally assigned to a Democrat appointee so this is great news.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/..._Becerra_et_al

What luck😁

[wolfwood]

I' ve been working in the federal court system for awhile and I doubt luck has much to do with it. Judges on both sides tend to find a way on the cases they like.

[CandG]

Sounds like we pretty much know where this case is going then the question is, what happens when the state inevitably appeals it.

[coryhenry]

I'm just hoping this moves more quickly!!

[MJB]

Good news

[FISHNFRANK]

Well I’ll donate but we can guess how it’s going to go; we get a win in superior court, which is then overturned by the 9th circuit on appeal...then the Supreme Court refuses cert...4-6 years down the road. We’re all much older....

[CandG]

Originally Posted by FISHNFRANK

Well I’ll donate but we can guess how it’s going to go; we get a win in superior court, which is then overturned by the 9th circuit on appeal...then the Supreme Court refuses cert...4-6 years down the road. We’re all much older....

There's a not-zero chance that we win at the 9th, a la Peruta, and then it doesn't go en banc (unlike Peruta), and then it won't matter that scotus doesn't hear it. We've already won 50% of the battle by getting a pro-2a judge at Superior Court, if we get a pro-2a 3-judge panel in the 9th then there's a fair chance we win. It can absolutely happen... Even with the odds stacked against us there's a solid 40% chance we could get a win here.

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

There's a not-zero chance that we win at the 9th, a la Peruta, and then it doesn't go en banc (unlike Peruta), and then it won't matter that scotus doesn't hear it. We've already won 50% of the battle by getting a pro-2a judge at Superior Court, if we get a pro-2a 3-judge panel in the 9th then there's a fair chance we win. It can absolutely happen... Even with the odds stacked against us there's a solid 40% chance we could get a win here.

Um... isn't the case in U.S. District Court (out of state litigants)?

Edit: Separately, I think the non-2A causes of action improve the chances for a favorable outcome for Internet ammunition purchasers. It would be one thing if the case was about a pure 2A matter. Internet ammunition purchases (especially with a sympathetic litigant such as Kim Rhode) is not the same as trying to reverse an AW ban. Rhode can make a bread-and-butter argument that the ban negatively impacts her ability to practice and thus, her ability compete at the level she competes at.

Call me an optimist, but I think the chances of a favorable outcome with this case are north of 50%.

[Drivedabizness]

IANAL and certainly not a Federal appellate lawyer. But I was SO pleased to see a lawyer for our side appear to kick ***. Direct answers to direct questions (as opposed to all sorts of gymnastics and clearly pissing off judges by blathering on without ever addressing the question asked). Opposing counsel looked like an ambulance chasing Poindexter to me.

[MajorCaliber]

I wonder what would happen with an out of state plaintiff, outside of the Ninth Circuit, such as a big online ammo seller, challenging on interstate commerce clause grounds. Could they sue in their circuit and allow us a more reasonable appeal venue?

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by MajorCaliber

I wonder what would happen with an out of state plaintiff, outside of the Ninth Circuit, such as a big online ammo seller, challenging on interstate commerce clause grounds. Could they sue in their circuit and allow us a more reasonable appeal venue?

I think you have to file suit where the defendant is located, which is CA9. Further, you have CA plaintiffs (like Kim Rhode).

[MajorCaliber]

Originally Posted by aBrowningfan

I think you have to file suit where the defendant is located, which is CA9. Further, you have CA plaintiffs (like Kim Rhode).

I understand the first part. I was wondering about that, and if true, your answer settles the issue. As far as the second goes, I was speculating about a hypothetical suit, with only out of 9th district plaintiffs, tailored to get us a non-9th appeals process