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

[Markinsac]

Well, they certainly are in "denial".

[aBrowningfan]

This looks like a standard 'form' denial of everything.

Nothing worth a mention. Blah, blah, blah.

[CCWFacts]

Originally Posted by aBrowningfan

This looks like a standard 'form' denial of everything.

Nothing worth a mention. Blah, blah, blah.

Yeah that didn't take long to read...

[painkiller]

This is funny.17 pages of denial

[donsthebomb]

Has Arizona, Nevada or Oregon enacted any laws that require it's citizens to prove they live in the state at the time they purchase ammunition?

It seems to me that this would be a prerequisite when requiring California residents to register to buy ammunition.

[aBrowningfan]

While not related, Judge Benitez's judgement/order in the magazine case gives me hope there will be a similar outcome in this case. Personally, a MSJ can't come quick enough. Prop 63 isn't looking too good for the anti-2A crowd.

[mshill]

Oh yea..... totally forgot that this is also before Benitez. Bacerra has got to be pissed that both of these Prop 65 boondoggles are in front of Benitez. He is going to tear through them again. When can we get an AWCA case in front of him?

[SimpleCountryActuary]

Originally Posted by mshill

Oh yea..... totally forgot that this is also before Benitez. Bacerra has got to be pissed that both of these Prop 65 boondoggles are in front of Benitez. He is going to tear through them again. When can we get an AWCA case in front of him?

Smile of the Day

[gobler]

Originally Posted by mshill

Oh yea..... totally forgot that this is also before Benitez. Bacerra has got to be pissed that both of these Prop 65 boondoggles are in front of Benitez. He is going to tear through them again. When can we get an AWCA case in front of him?

Wait, what?! Oh, there is hope..

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by donsthebomb

Has Arizona, Nevada or Oregon enacted any laws that require it's citizens to prove they live in the state at the time they purchase ammunition?

It seems to me that this would be a prerequisite when requiring California residents to register to buy ammunition.

As I understand it, California residents do not have to register to buy ammo under Prop 63, but they do have to show proof of residence if they only want to pay$1 for the mandatory check against the APPS database. Otherwise it is $19 for a DOJ check--and which means (I am guessing) a waiting period to pick it up??? After all, the DOJ proclaimed loudly that it cannot process most purchase background checks in three days, but must have 10.

[WoodTurner]

Originally Posted by mshill

Oh yea..... totally forgot that this is also before Benitez. Bacerra has got to be pissed that both of these Prop 65 boondoggles are in front of Benitez. He is going to tear through them again. When can we get an AWCA case in front of him?

This makes me really happy.

[ARFrog]

This may be "outside the box" but after 7/1/2019, if the current law is enacted, could/would all CA COE holders have any standing against the State for double taxation/fees? The COE indicates that one is eligible to receive certain types of firearms and is already predicated on a background check. If the COE holder is "approved" by the State to receive firearm(s) (without designated waiting periods necessary in other transactions), why do they need separate approval and payment of on-going additional background fees to receive ammo?

If under the high capacity magazine judge's thought process a magazine is an "arm", why wouldn't ammunition be also an "arm" in this context?

Just wondering.....

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by TruOil

As I understand it, California residents do not have to register to buy ammo under Prop 63, but they do have to show proof of residence if they only want to pay$1 for the mandatory check against the APPS database. Otherwise it is $19 for a DOJ check--and which means (I am guessing) a waiting period to pick it up??? After all, the DOJ proclaimed loudly that it cannot process most purchase background checks in three days, but must have 10.

Isn't the $1 fee for the search against the AFS database? If so, then you have to have previously purchased a firearm to be listed in the AFS database. And presumably the proof of residence will need to match up against what is in AFS. Otherwise, it is time for the $19 fee.

[Non Political Californian]

Originally Posted by aBrowningfan

Isn't the $1 fee for the search against the AFS database? If so, then you have to have previously purchased a firearm to be listed in the AFS database. And presumably the proof of residence will need to match up against what is in AFS. Otherwise, it is time for the $19 fee.

The agenda is to harmonize gun controls globally.
The next phase would be limiting purchases to calibers you have registered
Restricting purchases of all reloading supplies
Placing limits on amount of ammunition that can be purchased
Further restricting who is allowed to own what and for what valid purposes and how it may be stored
Further complicating the process of acquiring permits and creating a culture of compliance and privilege that encourages snitching.
If you look globally, that's just the trend they are attempting to force.

[boltstop]

I don’t think this as clear cut as the magazine ban.

The state isn’t saying you can’t have ammunition nor is it limiting the quantity - indeed you can even mailorder as much as you want as often as you want - you just have to have the transaction processed through a licensed ammunition vendor.

We can hope that the law will be invalidated but i think it’s a tougher climb.

Now, the roster on the other hand ..........

[vincnet11]

Does this case repeal the face to face transaction law for online sales?

[Non Political Californian]

Originally Posted by boltstop

I don’t think this as clear cut as the magazine ban.

The state isn’t saying you can’t have ammunition nor is it limiting the quantity - indeed you can even mailorder as much as you want as often as you want - you just have to have the transaction processed through a licensed ammunition vendor.

We can hope that the law will be invalidated but i think it’s a tougher climb.

Now, the roster on the other hand ..........

It's always incremental, that's the plan they have followed, and it's why you never compromise with them on anything ever.

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

Originally Posted by vincnet11

Does this case repeal the face to face transaction law for online sales?

It seeks to. That is one of the remedies asked for.

[DB>]

Following Benitez' logic, ammunition is ALSO protected by the 2A, as a gun without ammunition is rather useless.

Since the average gun owner will buy many many rounds over time, the requirement that they pay a substantial "tax" (practically and proportionally) each time they purchase is unduly restrictive (particularly on poorer members of society). This requirement is clearly regressive and punitive against those most likely to NEED to defend themselves. Leftists should be outraged at this bias against poor folk!

I'm sure the argument is that by regulating access to ammo, "gun violence" can be reduced. In practical fact, it likely means that anyone able to will buy larger quantities than they otherwise might, so as to reduce the relative "tax burden". So the law actually does the EXACT OPPOSITE of it's intent.

Many of the "touchy feely/feelgood" laws are so poorly conceived as to be nothing but, as Judge Benitez so perceptively pointed out, an "experiment", consisting of throwing stuff out there, and see if anything "sticks". Of course that does not make good public policy, or make anyone actually safer.

[TruOil]

So a $1 tax on as many rounds as you want to buy at one time is too much?

[gobler]

Not sure if this was brought up but it may not be a "burden" to those who live in or really near a city with lots of FFLs but for those who live in rural areas, it's a burden. Online sales are the only option.

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

Believe it or not, the Ninth Circuit has already confirmed that acquisition of ammunition is protected under the Second Amendment in another one of our cases, Jackson v. San Francisco.

For those craving more of Judge Benitez's opinions, the one in this case mostly denying California's motion to dismiss should be satisfying. It does not address the Second Amendment claim. But is still well written and reasoned.

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by TruOil

So a $1 tax on as many rounds as you want to buy at one time is too much?

CA-DoJ wouldn't see it as a tax. I imagine they would claim it as a 'fee' for implementing the system to perform the automated checking of the AFS database. Kind of like 'fee for service'....

Separately, isn't there a limit on how many rounds can be purchased at one time? Something like 300? Wasn't that one of Kim Rhode's objections, since she routinely goes through 2 or more flats (250 shells/flat) of shells per day she is practicing?

[everyday_hero]

Heard it, read it, the max was 500 rounds. Restricted bulk. Government social experiment. Pretty restrictive if it means 500>= when it comes to multiple calibers, practice, & self defense. Eliminates stock piling.

[everyday_hero]

<=500

[Californio]

I find it telling that a man born in an authoritarian Communist County, does understand what the Republic and its Liberty is all about and these carpetbagger EuroTrash don't have a clue.

My own 5th Great Grandfather was arrested in Scotland, banished to the East Jersey Colony and sold into servitude by the British Crown, his crime, Presbyterians believed in separation between church and state and would not bow before the State Religion of the authoritarian Monarchy. His grandson got the last laugh in the American Revolution.

Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates

Believe it or not, the Ninth Circuit has already confirmed that acquisition of ammunition is protected under the Second Amendment in another one of our cases, Jackson v. San Francisco.

For those craving more of Judge Benitez's opinions, the one in this case mostly denying California's motion to dismiss should be satisfying. It does not address the Second Amendment claim. But is still well written and reasoned.

[Non Political Californian]

Originally Posted by everyday_hero

Heard it, read it, the max was 500 rounds. Restricted bulk. Government social experiment. Pretty restrictive if it means 500>= when it comes to multiple calibers, practice, & self defense. Eliminates stock piling.

Like I said, this is all an agenda, it is a conspiracy and it is out in the open for anyone to look at.

http://www.smallarmsstandards.org/isacs/0310-en.pdf
http://www.smallarmsstandards.org/isacs/0330-en.pdf
http://www.smallarmsstandards.org/isacs/0410-en.pdf
http://www.smallarmsstandards.org/isacs/0430-en.pdf

http://www.smallarmsstandards.org/isacs/

Everything they are doing, everything they are proposing is all laid out, the campaigns they are running, the tactics they are using. All of it.

Never surrender a damn thing to this globalist scum.

[scarbubu]

Its no coincidence that 1st generation immigrants from parts of the world with oppressive authoritarian regimes are some of the staunchest supporters of 2a.

gun grabbing leads to totalitarianism at best, and we've all seen the worst.

[sky00high]

I just became a member in CPRA. I just feel I really need to show my appreciation for their work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TPMArms]

It seems to me the state is arguing both sides of this depending on what is convenient. The state argues that ammo is necessary to make a firearm function, and as such the ability to require a background check is legally enforceable. And on the opposite side, arguing that the ability to travel with a firearm/ammo from one state to another is not protected because ammo is not part of a firearm and does not enjoy the same protection..

[sonofeugene]

More awesomeness!!

Fcuk Newsmen and his ilk. I'll bet none of them served and signed a blank check to this fine country.

The roster should be next. Frankly, that should be even easier to defeat as it's been shown to be impossible to implement micro-stamping.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by sonofeugene

More awesomeness!!

Fcuk Newsmen and his ilk. I'll bet none of them served and signed a blank check to this fine country.

The roster should be next. Frankly, that should be even easier to defeat as it's been shown to be impossible to implement micro-stamping.

Should be, I agree. However, the 9th disagreed with us both. It's up for SCOTUS review in the coming months.

[loganob831]

Originally Posted by everyday_hero

Heard it, read it, the max was 500 rounds. Restricted bulk. Government social experiment. Pretty restrictive if it means 500>= when it comes to multiple calibers, practice, & self defense. Eliminates stock piling.

Wait, what? I thought that the law was if you wanted to SELL 500+ rounds/month you had to get a vendor's license...

If the law limits purchasing to <500 rounds then I need to refill SOON.

[Markinsac]

Originally Posted by TruOil

So a $1 tax on as many rounds as you want to buy at one time is too much?

Read the latest order denying the defendant's motion to dismiss.

Part of the issue is that the transfer has to be face-to-face. The judge states that it is required whether the vendor was one mile away or even much further. In addition, unless you're willing to pay for the delivery afterwards, you have to load and move your purchase.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...ndants-MTD.pdf

[SimpleCountryActuary]

Originally Posted by loganob831

Wait, what? I thought that the law was if you wanted to SELL 500+ rounds/month you had to get a vendor's license...

If the law limits purchasing to <500 rounds then I need to refill SOON.

The limit on what one can sell, trade, or give away without a vendor's license is also un-Constitutional and amounts to an illegal takings.

It's the same as if someone selling a car was required by law to sell it to a car dealer.

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by SimpleCountryActuary

The limit on what one can sell, trade, or give away without a vendor's license is also un-Constitutional and amounts to an illegal takings.

It's the same as if someone selling a car was required by law to sell it to a car dealer.

You forgot to mention the sale part of the transaction. As in: It's the same as if someone buying a car was required by law to buy the car from a dealer. The FFL is effectively a dealer license.

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

Should be, I agree. However, the 9th disagreed with us both. It's up for SCOTUS review in the coming months.

It has been up for review 3 months now and no decision to accept or decline. The glass half full interpretation is that be thankful the petition hasn't been declined. The glass half empty interpretation is that they can't round up four votes to even consider the question.

Net-net, I have my fingers crossed for the case being accepted, but I am also not ruling out a denial. Three months is a bit long for a decision.

[jj805]

Originally Posted by aBrowningfan

It has been up for review 3 months now and no decision to accept or decline. The glass half full interpretation is that be thankful the petition hasn't been declined. The glass half empty interpretation is that they can't round up four votes to even consider the question.

Net-net, I have my fingers crossed for the case being accepted, but I am also not ruling out a denial. Three months is a bit long for a decision.

It hasn't even been to conference yet...

[canopis]

Originally Posted by aBrowningfan

It has been up for review 3 months now and no decision to accept or decline. The glass half full interpretation is that be thankful the petition hasn't been declined. The glass half empty interpretation is that they can't round up four votes to even consider the question.

Net-net, I have my fingers crossed for the case being accepted, but I am also not ruling out a denial. Three months is a bit long for a decision.

The deadline to file a petition for certorari was extended, as was the time for the state to file a response. As a result, all of the briefing for the petition was only finished on March 18. The justices will consider the petition at their April 12 conference, at which time they can grant, deny, or "relist" the petition, which means they will consider it again at the next conference.

[aBrowningfan]

Bump.

With the pending July 1st date for $1/$19 additional taxes on ammunition purchases, I was wondering why no motion for preliminary injunction?