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

[FirearmFino]

I'm not sure it's related to an injunction, but CRPA is looking for people's experiences with the new law:

Although the lawsuit has already been filed, CRPA is looking to collect statistical information on how the law is affecting ammunition transactions at licensed firearm dealers and ammunition vendors here in California. CRPA’s attorneys will be able to use this information as additional evidence in support of the Rhode lawsuit moving forward.

To that end, gun owners, California licensed firearm dealers, and ammunition vendors can assist in this effort by sending an email to ammosnafu@michellawyers.com.

[Sputnik]

Originally Posted by TruOil

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

I'm not the person your question was directed to but... imo, yes, it is. There are already taxes in place, I am aware of that, but this is a fee and a hoop to jump through put in place by CA just to make life harder for the law abiding, nothing else. Not one more inch should be given.

[HarryS]

Soon enough some smartie in the Legislature will make it progressive or just keep raising it. No mas.

[FirearmFino]

CRPA is planning to request an injunction soon

“Newsom’s Prop 63 law is a business killing nightmare and a red-tape charade that is useless as a crime prevention measure,” said CRPA President Chuck Michel. “This law puts a ridiculously excessive burden on Second Amendment rights and was designed to make it practically impossible for gun stores to make a profit or for people to use a gun for sport or self-defense. It’s part of Newsom’s effort to eliminate the “gun culture” – which he hates.” said Michel. “We are going to ask the Court to put a stop to it immediately.”

CRPA, with NRA’s support, challenged the ammunition background check law in court months ago. The lead plaintiff in the case is gold medal-winning Olympic shooter Kim Rhode. The CRPA legal team already got a favorable ruling in the Rhode case – which is being heard by the same judge who ruled in the Duncan 10+ magazine lawsuit. We had to wait for the ammo law to take effect to seek an injunction, but now that the law has gone into effect and the infringements have been documented, CRPA plans to seek an injunction in the Rhode case next week.

[Guninator]

Originally Posted by TruOil

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

Hey, kind of off topic but in somewhat related news, on 1/1/2020, CA DOJ will be charging you $1 fee each time you post on the Internet. You can make as many posts as you want once you log on, but it will be $1 per session.

Surely that isn't too much to exercise your constitutional rights?

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by FirearmFino

CRPA is planning to request an injunction soon

Can't happen soon enough.

[200Apples]

FirearmFino

CRPA is planning to request an injunction soon

Yes, they are. Thank God for the CRPA. I need to donate!

CRPA, with the support of NRA, challenged the ammunition background check law in court months ago with the filing of the Rhode v. Becerra case. The lead plaintiff in the case is Olympic gold medalist shooter Kim Rhode. The legal team already received a favorable ruling in the Rhode case – which is being heard by the same great judge who gave us “Freedom Week” with the ruling in the Duncan case, challenging California's magazine restrictions. Prior to seeking an injunction in the Rhode case it was necessary to wait for the law to take effect. Now that it has, and the infringements and issues have been documented for use as evidence, the plan is to file an injunction next week.

[200Apples]

And thank God for men such as The Honorable Judge [Saint] Robt. T. Benitez.

[astro.dude]

Saw the attached sign posted at the Dublin Big5 when I went to get some 22LR ammo. No soup for you!!

[M60A1Rise]

Originally Posted by astro.dude

Saw the attached sign posted at the Dublin Big5 when I went to get some 22LR ammo. No soup for you!!

Big5 on Lakewood Blvd will be downsizing their ammo as of yesterday. Went in for something else and they were readjusting the shelves , asked about the wait for purchase (approx 5 mins) and was mentioned that they will not be ordering as much once they sell off stock on hand. The BS is beginning faster than I thought it would.

[astro.dude]

Originally Posted by M60A1Rise

Big5 on Lakewood Blvd will be downsizing their ammo as of yesterday. Went in for something else and they were readjusting the shelves , asked about the wait for purchase (approx 5 mins) and was mentioned that they will not be ordering as much once they sell off stock on hand. The BS is beginning faster than I thought it would.

That right there is proof positive of the effect and intent of this bs law.

[M60A1Rise]

Originally Posted by astro.dude

That right there is proof positive of the effect and intent of this bs law.

TBH the REAL intent for this and many other laws imho are to cause nuisance to retailers to make them not want to sell and go through hassle. Yes end game is to get rid of guns but that's hard because of the Constitution but nothing can stop the retail issues , they just make laws.

It's pretty bs and easy to see.

[ddestruel]

Originally Posted by M60A1Rise

TBH the REAL intent for this and many other laws imho are to cause nuisance to retailers to make them not want to sell and go through hassle. Yes end game is to get rid of guns but that's hard because of the Constitution but nothing can stop the retail issues , they just make laws.

It's pretty bs and easy to see.

Well if the courts can interpret the supposed intent of the administration adding back on the citizenship question to the census it'd seem the same argument could be referenced for the legislatures intent of these laws.

[tenemae]

Originally Posted by ddestruel

Well if the courts can interpret the supposed intent of the administration adding back on the citizenship question to the census it'd seem the same argument could be referenced for the legislatures intent of these laws.

With the notable exception that SCOTUS blocked a completely constitutional action (putting citizenship Q on census) and the CA/9CA judges are upholding unconstitutional actions (gun bans/sales restrictions). This is new levels of outrage

[FirearmFino]

CRPA released an online form that people can fill out to report problems with the law/system.

https://cmpdigitalus.typeform.com/to/D3C9LA

[tehlulz]

Would Wal-Mart ceasing sales until July 12th be an infringement of 2a rights and qualify as a valid argument?

[CandG]

Originally Posted by tehlulz

Would Wal-Mart ceasing sales until July 12th be an infringement of 2a rights and qualify as a valid argument?

No. We're still waiting on a few holdout states to ratify the Constitutional amendment that requires walmart to sell ammo 24/7. Until then, Walmart is free to cease ammo sales if they'd like to.

[Roboshred]

Im no legal type but the new ammo law as Ive said before is no different than a poll tax placed on blacks years ago as it inhibits the constitutional rights of all.
I support state wide filings in small claims court and let DOJ mitigate 100k filings.. We all have a right to be heard.. Call me dreamer

[FirearmFino]

Any update on the request for an injunction? It was reported that there were plans to file one last week, but I haven't seen anything about it since the article.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2019...ornia-ammo-law

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

Update: we had a status conference with the Court this past Monday and now have a hearing date on a preliminary injunction motion in a few weeks.

[vairox]

As a sworn LEO I have to present LE ID and a letter from my agency head which is only good for 30 days to buy ammo, but PC 30312 allows me to order ammo online and ship it to my house direct. This is criminalfornia for you.

30312.


(a) (1) Commencing January 1, 2018, the sale of ammunition by any party shall be conducted by or processed through a licensed ammunition vendor.

(2) When neither party to an ammunition sale is a licensed ammunition vendor, the seller shall deliver the ammunition to a vendor to process the transaction. The ammunition vendor shall promptly and properly deliver the ammunition to the purchaser, if the sale is not prohibited, as if the ammunition were the vendor’s own merchandise. If the ammunition vendor cannot legally deliver the ammunition to the purchaser, the vendor shall forthwith return the ammunition to the seller. The ammunition vendor may charge the purchaser an administrative fee to process the transaction, in an amount to be set by the Department of Justice, in addition to any applicable fees that may be charged pursuant to the provisions of this title.

(b) Commencing January 1, 2018, the sale, delivery, or transfer of ownership of ammunition by any party may only occur in a face-to-face transaction with the seller, deliverer, or transferor, provided, however, that ammunition may be purchased or acquired over the Internet or through other means of remote ordering if a licensed ammunition vendor initially receives the ammunition and processes the transaction in compliance with this section and Article 3 (commencing with Section 30342) of Chapter 1 of Division 10 of Title 4 of this part.

(c) Subdivisions (a) and (b) shall not apply to the sale, delivery, or transfer of ammunition to any of the following:

(1) An authorized law enforcement representative of a city, county, city and county, or state or federal government, if the sale, delivery, or transfer is for exclusive use by that government agency and, prior to the sale, delivery, or transfer of the ammunition, written authorization from the head of the agency employing the purchaser or transferee is obtained, identifying the employee as an individual authorized to conduct the transaction, and authorizing the transaction for the exclusive use of the agency employing the individual.

(2) A sworn peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, or sworn federal law enforcement officer, who is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of the officer’s duties.

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates

Update: we had a status conference with the Court this past Monday and now have a hearing date on a preliminary injunction motion in a few weeks.

Could you provide a link to the PI? Thanks in advance.

Edit: link to the motion for PI.

[tenemae]

Originally Posted by aBrowningfan

Could you provide a link to the PI? Thanks in advance.

He said they have a hearing date in a few weeks regarding the motion for a PI. There has been no PI granted to which we can link.

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by tenemae

He said they have a hearing date in a few weeks regarding the motion for a PI. There has been no PI granted to which we can link.

I was looking for a link to the motion for PI. I have updated my post to reflect that.

[Guninator]

Originally Posted by vairox

As a sworn LEO I have to present LE ID and a letter from my agency head which is only good for 30 days to buy ammo, but PC 30312 allows me to order ammo online and ship it to my house direct. This is criminalfornia for you.

My advice would be to tell your and other public employee unions to stop donating to and supporting Democrats. That long-time alliance is coming back to haunt police now that California is essentially a single party state and Democrats can take all of its constituencies for granted.

[wolfwood]

When is the PI getting filed?

[FirearmFino]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

When is the PI getting filed?

August 19th, apparently.

[MCubeiro]

For Immediate Release:

Injunction Filed to Stop California Ammunition Sales restrictions

On Monday, July 22, CRPA with support of NRA filed a motion requesting an injunction against enforcement of California’s recently implemented ammunition laws. The injunction is part of the case Rhode v. Becerra, filed in April of 2018, where lead Plaintiff and gold medal Olympian shooter Kim Rhode and other Plaintiffs have asked the court to halt enforcement after a dubious roll out of the new law on July 1st.

The entire system has been shown to be an unconstitutionally excessive burden on law-abiding gun owners with little to no law enforcement value. California ammunition retailers were given little if any guidance from the state explaining the procedures for processing ammunition sales, amounting to mass confusion throughout the state.

If the court grants the Plaintiffs’ request, it will prohibit California from enforcing its ammunition sales restrictions while the Rhode case is fully litigated. A hearing on the Plaintiffs’ request is currently scheduled for August 19. A decision is expected sometime thereafter.

NRA and CRPA thank Able’s Ammo of Huntsville, Texas, and Ammunition Depot of Boca Raton, Florida, for their continued support of the Rhode lawsuit and support in filing the request for an injunction. NRA and CRPA would also like to thank the countless individuals and businesses who reached out, as well as the following California ammunition retailers who supported Monday’s filing by providing declarations regarding the effect California’s ammunition sales restrictions have had on their businesses:

Turner’s Outdoorsman (27 state-wide locations)

LAX Ammunition OC (Huntington Beach)

Norco Armory (Norco)

Foothill Ammo (Shingle Springs)

Guns, Fishing and Other Stuff (Vacaville)

Royal Loan (San Diego)

Mosquito Creek Outfitters (Placerville)

Discount Gun Mart (San Diego and Santee)

Continue to check your inbox and the California Stand and Fight webpage for updates on the Rhode​ case as well as other issues impacting your Second Amendment rights and hunting heritage in California. ​

[code_blue]

Sweet! His holiness, Benitez will guide us.

[Fishfearme86]

Bravo! Bravo CRPA! Just got the email and came here to spread the news, but it's already here! You guys are awesome, keep it up! So proud I joined CRPA! Good luck and I hope Benitez rules in a similar fashion as he did with the magazine laws!

[OlderThanDirt]

If I read between the lines and note that the case is supported by two out of state vendors, it looks the injunction would allow the resumption of direct mail order deliveries. If so, some of our brighter Congress critters might be concerned that the added weight of ammo deliveries could cause California to capsize.

[hoystory]

Can someone explain to me why, according to the Brady affadavit, the Cal DOJ is of the legal opinion that FFL03 & COE holders can no longer have ammo shipped to them from out of state.

It was my understanding that was a specific allowance written into the law. Did something change or did the DOJ just decide they don't like it and don't need to follow it anymore?

Sent from my SM-T720 using Tapatalk

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

We asked DOJ's attorney whether DOJ recognizes that exemption and he said they do not.

[OlderThanDirt]

Yup. It doesn’t mention FFL03 anywhere.😉

(6) A person who is licensed as a collector of firearms pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto, whose licensed premises are within this state, and who has a current certificate of eligibility issued by the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 26710.

[tenemae]

Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates

We asked DOJ's attorney whether DOJ recognizes that exemption and he said they do not.

So CA DoJ refuses to comply with the CA penal code. Unbelieveable. We desperately need the federal government to step in and stop this insanity. Hopefully the DoJ's attitude will result in being treated more favorably by the judge (Benitez, if I recall correctly)

[wolfwood]

Hearing Date: August 19, 2019
Hearing Time: 10:30 a.m.
Courtroom: 5A
Judge: Hon. Roger T. Benitez


I am going to try and make it to this. The Duncan arguments were great. I hope this will be just as good.

[tehDiceman]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

Hearing Date: August 19, 2019
Hearing Time: 10:30 a.m.
Courtroom: 5A
Judge: Hon. Roger T. Benitez


I am going to try and make it to this. The Duncan arguments were great. I hope this will be just as good.

Address for the courthouse in case anyone needs it.

221 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101

[hoystory]

For those who are interested, I just posted a summary of the CRPA argument with bullet points here for those of you who don't have time to read the entire document.

Also, because I occasionally want to use that journalism degree my parents paid so much for, I filed a California Public Records Act request with the state DOJ.



I will share any information I receive with the forum.

[Cortelli]

Originally Posted by hoystory

Can someone explain to me why, according to the Brady affadavit, the Cal DOJ is of the legal opinion that FFL03 & COE holders can no longer have ammo shipped to them from out of state.

It was my understanding that was a specific allowance written into the law. Did something change or did the DOJ just decide they don't like it and don't need to follow it anymore?

I spent a fruitless half-hour looking for the Brady Group's affidavit on this before realizing you were referring to Sean Brady of Michel & Assoc!

These are the sorts of positions / arguments that entertain me in an otherwise serious proceeding -- I am *sooo* looking forward to DOJ's explanation of why they've taken this position that flies in the face of California law! (Assuming it is surfaced in this litigation).

[wolfwood]

Originally Posted by palacios289

I have a stupid question. Wouldn’t it be a better argument to make that if the state can do an almost immediate background check on a purchaser of ammo, than the same should apply to the purchase of a firearm? Same for buying multiple firearms in a month. Please ignore the legal ignorance. I was jut debating this with some friends and it seems the state really just backed themselves in a corner.

that sounds like the argument which was made in Silvester and that did not work out. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...016-12-14.html