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

[jyc]

Time to take out our rosaries and chant the Saint Benitez prayers, boys. Hopefully this just the beginning of the avalanche that will tear down California's overreaching, unconstitutional burdens to the RKBA.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[tenemae]

Originally Posted by Metal God

the judge made it clear he was OK with the state trying to keep the guns and ammo out of prohibited persons hands .

But was anything mentioned about the state requiring the report of and storage of not only the brand, caliber, and product, but also the amount of ammo being purchased? I.e, If they only want to keep ammo out of prohibited persons' hands, there is no legitimate reason to demand to know how much of what type is being bought.

Can anyone recall if that was challenged or even mentioned?

[Metal God]

One thing of note in regards to the judge asking us if there was anything we thought would work better . We pointed out that the state of CA has a prohibited persons data base . The problem as we see it is that they want to link/include that data base with the gun registry data base . So they first or at the same time see if you have a firearm registered , then you get checked through there prohibited persons data base .

We suggested not using the gun registry and only using the prohibited persons data base . The reason seems to be many rejections were simply because people thought they were in the system already because of firearms they bought in the past . Turns out if you just have long guns and bought them all before 2014 , your not in the firearms registry therefore you will fail the $1 quick check .

The judge seemed disappointed that if a hunter that bought his one gun in 2002 and goes to buy ammo he will likely fail the check which will require him to do the full background check that can take up to days to finish . He asked how is mr random hunter that does not follow all this stuff supposed to know all this stuff . Now instead of going hunting this weekend , Mr random hunter has to wait and see if he can even buy ammo

He even suggested living in CA almost requires you to have a lawyer on retainer just to go buy a gun or ammo because the laws change so fast and they come so often it's not reasonable to expect the general public to keep up on all these laws .

[Metal God]

But was anything mentioned about the state requiring the report of and storage of not only the brand, caliber, and product, but also the amount of ammo being purchased? I.e, If they only want to keep ammo out of prohibited persons' hands, there is no legitimate reason to demand to know how much of what type is being bought.

Can anyone recall if that was challenged or even mentioned?

I don't recall anything about that today . I did talk to our lawyer in the elevator about that . He did confirm that the state does get that data . I had thought that info was only on the application the dealer was required to keep and was not actually sent to the state . I was surprised they were getting that much info . I don't see how that's important unless they have a program to separate out those that buy what ever amount they deem to much .

[Fate]

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.

Quoted because this is spot on.

[balver58]

Originally Posted by Metal God

He even suggested living in CA almost requires you to have a lawyer on retainer just to go buy a gun or ammo because the laws change so fast and they come so often it's not reasonable to expect the general public to keep up on all these laws .

Quite a statement by the judge, Bravo.

[wolfwood]

I had no idea that you guys I was sitting next to were cal guners

[moleculo]

Originally Posted by Metal God

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 .

I get the notices from the shipping company that a delivery is coming that requires adult signature. It's so routine that the delivery guy just drops it off now without needing it. Some day a porch pirate is going have something to pair real nicely with steak...

[taperxz]

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....

The 21st amendment disagrees with you.

[moleculo]

Originally Posted by taperxz

The 21st amendment disagrees with you.

You should go read the 21st amendment again.

[Metal God]

I had no idea that you guys I was sitting next to were cal guners

yep , I was the big guy in the gray shirt , my buddy I was with is a plaintiff in the case .

[wolfwood]

I think the rest of you were together but I was the big guy in the lavender button shirt

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by moleculo

You should go read the 21st amendment again.

I have! You’re wrong.

[Bird of Fire]

As somebody who was just denied a second time of purchasing ammo since the new law went into effect, I'd like to thank you from the heart of my bottom. I'm googling, clicking like mad here and doing my best to navigate BS just to remain legal and not get violated when all I want to do is purchase a legal to own thing. So those of you that were there and gave me a play by play - thanks man. You rock.

[Metal God]

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.

Although the judge did bring up the possibility of the state continuing to write laws that make it harder and harder to exercise the right . Even correcting our lawyer when he mentioned this is like death by a thousands cuts . The judge jumped in and used the Asian wording for the same thing and pointed out that's where that saying comes from .

That all said , I really got the idea that "IF" the system worked perfectly , the judge would be generally OK with it . There were obvious issues he brought up on commerce , how he felt the 2nd amendment was treated like a second class right ( not his words Forget the exact wording he used ) . He compared this law to voting and how fast the state thought the 9th would overturn it if you had to go through the same hoops to vote . He used a couple different examples like that we all know would be stuck down in a heart beat but because this is about guns "it's not as important " .

I agree that the transcript would be a nice read . As I write and read your all's post it keeps reminding me of things said in court today . Everything I've wrote so far is not in the order it happened and reading everything as it naturally flowed in court would be a good read . Especially the first 30min or so . I thought he was going to rule right then and there , he was really going after the state at first .

[Aeneas]

Originally Posted by Metal God

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 .

This is, of course, the state being dishonest. Newsome and others have already pointed out that they intend to mine the data in order to find persons who own "ghost guns." If they believe that they can make those connections, then they can certainly explain who has been denied and for what reason. I also must point out, that their intended use of the data should be declared unequivocally illegal. That is unreasonable search, and not only that, what happens when agents of the state become suspicious? How do they proceed, a knock on the door, a warrant? Hopefully the lawyers addressed that issue.

Originally Posted by Metal God

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 .

Yet another reason that background checks on firearm purchases should not be tolerated. It is both wrong and a true slippery slope. I really hope that Benitez is not ok with a seamless process. There are numerous reasons that this is not good for the citizen of California. Aside from the disgraceful act of having to ask a nanny-state permission in order to do something not only lawful, but also that which is consistent with natural law, what about the financial burden? Sure, one dollar for the instant check may not be much to most people, but it does add up. It's not a fee that the state should be able to impose at their whim. Keep in mind that we already have high sales tax ~8-9%, plus the excise tax added in to the cost of the ammo, which if I remember correctly is 11%. Add the dollar on top of each purchase and it's like adding insult to injury. At what point does the state own your finances more than you do?

Also, I've got to say thank you for attending the proceedings and reporting back and answering questions. It is greatly appreciated.

[moleculo]

Originally Posted by taperxz

I have! You’re wrong.

*yawn*. taperxz, I'm going to leave you with a link to this very old post between you and me and then I'm dropping it so as to not clutter up this thread any worse than we already did. See if you can figure out which sentence I'm referring to and then take it up in the Off Topic section if you really want to hold a debate about the 21st Amendment.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...&postcount=497.

[Aeneas]

Originally Posted by Bird of Fire

As somebody who was just denied a second time of purchasing ammo since the new law went into effect, I'd like to thank you from the heart of my bottom. I'm googling, clicking like mad here and doing my best to navigate BS just to remain legal and not get violated when all I want to do is purchase a legal to own thing. So those of you that were there and gave me a play by play - thanks man. You rock.

That must be frustrating. The state should in no way be able to influence your legal behavior, no matter how trivial a matter it may seem to them.

[TransplantTexan]

Originally Posted by 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 "



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 .



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 .



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 .

Finally have time now to sit down and gather my thoughts about what I was able to witness.

First let me say thank you to Metal God for giving us your take on the proceedings as you saw it. You are spot on regarding how the morning session was going and I wish I had been able to come back after lunch.

My take is that Judge Benitez was quizzing the state more than our side (at least in the morning). He would interrupt Sean with a question or comment and then pretty quickly started quizzing the State's Attorney (SA). Once he started questioning the SA he was somewhat relentless in some of his questions. In fact he even apologized to Sean for going off on a tangent and quizzing the SA during Sean's time.

So here is what I remember of some of the exchanges.

At one point I thought the judge was questioning the SA regarding Due Process Clause. This is where he brought in the privilege regarding driving. His thought process was the state had passed a law setting the speed limit and if he chose to go faster than that and was pulled over and subsequently the state tried to take away the privilege of driving then it would have to first take him to trial and win as part of due process. He then went on to say (IIRC) that the state should at least follow the same due process when denying a right as it would when taking away a privilege.

He then started discussion on an out of state hunter who comes to CA for a hunt and once he is here realizes he only has lead shot and so needed to go buy leadfree ammo he would be denied. The SA tried to use the argument that it was the out of state hunter's responsibility to know our laws and therefore that should not be considered.

The judge agreed with that point but then turned it on him and said, OK I'm an AZ hunter and sometimes I'm a good shot and sometimes not so good. I come to CA for opening day of dove and I bring a case of 7 1/2 lead free ammo and I rally suck that day and shoot up all my ammo and I still have more hunting to do. How am I, as an out of state hunter going to buy ammo? I'm not in AFS, paying the $19 for the BG check won't work as it could take X days for a determination and getting a COE would take even longer.

This was where Judge Benitez remarked, I guess I could give my buddy the money and have him go buy it for me and then give it to me but that would be defeating the ammo BG check law and so as a gun owner in CA I better have a lawyer on retainer to navigate all these gun laws (Thanks for reminding me of that Metal God).

Maybe he is also thinking about the Interstate Commerce clause as well but that is pure speculation on my part.

It was certainly interesting and like I said I look forward to being able to read the transcript to see what I missed.

Originally Posted by wolfwood

I had no idea that you guys I was sitting next to were cal guners

Originally Posted by Metal God

yep , I was the big guy in the gray shirt , my buddy I was with is a plaintiff in the case .

I got there a little late and wasn't able to introduce myself to the anyone there but I had a feeling all the spectators were either plaintiffs, interested parties and calgunners.

I was the one that sat closest to the door and had to leave right before noon. Again wish I had gotten there early enough to introduce myself to your buddy as he and I likely have a couple of things in common (as I likely do with the rest that were there).

[pacrat]

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 .

The state's answer to this relevant question, is a blatant admission that the entire Ammo BGC is a scam, and will NOT serve to keep ammo out of prohibited hands.

It is, what it is, just another infringement to dissuade lawful citizens from exercising an enumerated right.

More feel good, do nothing to fight crime, crime bill.

[TransplantTexan]

I just remembered (hopefully correctly) that during the discussion on how the out of state hunter could have his buddy buy his ammo then the Gilroy, El Paso and Dayton shooters could have done that as well as they were not prohibited persons and therefore the AMMO BG check seems to be useless. In fact I think this is what led into the discussion. But I may have my timing off a little.

[mcbair]

Good job guys. The Jefferson counties are praying for your success! We can win if we never quit and never weaken.

[sfpcservice]

Any audio?

[Limeman]

Originally Posted by Sousuke

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

No only that, but alcohol consumption is not a right protected by the Constitution. The 2nd is, so the states argument is invalid on premise alone. Their argument should get torn and tossed out in that regard.

[Metal God]

At one point I thought the judge was questioning the SA regarding Due Process Clause. This is where he brought in the privilege regarding driving. His thought process was the state had passed a law setting the speed limit and if he chose to go faster than that and was pulled over and subsequently the state tried to take away the privilege of driving then it would have to first take him to trial and win as part of due process. He then went on to say (IIRC) that the state should at least follow the same due process when denying a right as it would when taking away a privilege.

Thanks for helping out , I forgot about those specifics . Yes that drivers license part was real good . Pointing out all the due process needed to restrict the "privilege" of driving while pointing out the right to bear arms is a right written into the bill of rights and not just a simple privilege . The judge couldn't square it when comparing all the things needed to restrict your ability to drive and the very little needed to restrict people to buy ammo seeing how one was a privilege and the other is a right .

I'd like to add that when the judge was drilling the state , That was when are guy was up to bat . Our guy just stood there as the judge and state went back and forth several times . Now that I'm thinking about it the judge brought up most of the concerns many of you have asked about and disappointed they were not discussed more from are side . I think the state was doing such a poor job answering them , maybe enough was said about them between the judge and state are side thought thank you judge for making our points . He then went to the system as his main talking point . The judge had already destroyed the state on many of the other important issues him self . I saw it a couple times during the day when the judge was thinking one way but as the topic was discussed further he seem to change his thinking a bit on the subject . Maybe are side was thinking as the judge and the state went at it . That's what we were going to say anyways why repeat it and let the judge think on it more . The judge seemed to have a good grasp on things as far as where we were concerned lets let him marinade right there and not give him time to hear more from the state on these other things .

[Metal God]

No only that, but alcohol consumption is not a right protected by the Constitution. The 2nd is, so the states argument is invalid on premise alone. Their argument should get torn and tossed out in that regard.

Oh man , don't even get me started on that . How many people are killed by gunman using semi auto rifles a year , maybe 200 give or take ? How many are killed do to alcohol related incidents a year ? 11k+ people are killed every year do to alcohol related incidents . If this was truly about saving lives they would ban the "privilege" of drinking alcohol before restricting the RIGHT to keep and bear arms .

[wannabefree]

So I have read through many of the comments and posts and think we are on pretty good ground for a positive outcome from this judge. The question is how long do you think it will be before he makes a ruling and then how long will it take for the 9th circus to jump in on it.

I know what most will say " Two Weeks" but really what do you all think>

[Metal God]

So I have read through many of the comments and posts and think we are on pretty good ground for a positive outcome from this judge. The question is how long do you think it will be before he makes a ruling and then how long will it take for the 9th circus to jump in on it.

I know what most will say " Two Weeks" but really what do you all think>

I'm not going to say why I think this but I have good reason to .

The judge is likely leaning hard in are favor . He is likely asking for the additional data to be sure his ruling will hold up on appeal which will be instantly filed .

Assuming the data shows what "we" think it will show his ruling will come shortly after he gets the data . He indicated he likely would not need the lawyers to come back but may request them to return to discuss the data and clear up a few things .

That said , He asked for a 30 day continuance then said maybe 60 days . My guess is the state is going to ask for at least the full 60 days and maybe more based on how he acted about retrieving the data as a whole . So my guess is we can see a ruling in as short as 90 days but who knows really ?

[squeeze]

I'd like to caution people about prejudging the outcome based on the performance of the state's lawyers and the lawyers for our side.
A few years ago I and many others, sat through the hearing of the 9th's re; Herrera(?). Our side blew the doors off the states attorney's. The state appeared to be ill-prepared and not capable.
Our lawyers were amazing to watch. They were brilliant, well versed and well prepared. So anyways; the courts are a liberal crap shoot with the odds against us.
Big thank you to Metal God. You did a great job helping us stay informed.

[Dirtlaw]

Any litigation is a gamble. But having hope and faith helps you persevere.

[jyc]

Originally Posted by Metal God

Oh man , don't even get me started on that . How many people are killed by gunman using semi auto rifles a year , maybe 200 give or take ? How many are killed do to alcohol related incidents a year ? 11k+ people are killed every year do to alcohol related incidents . If this was truly about saving lives they would ban the "privilege" of drinking alcohol before restricting the RIGHT to keep and bear arms .

21st amendment. Section 2.

The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.


Consumption of alcohol is every bit a right as the RKBA. Even the 18th amendment did not ban the consumption of alcohol; only the manufacture, transportation, and sale of intoxicating liquor. I think it's a bit disingenuous on our side to call the consumption of alcohol a privilege. I think that approach doesn't help to drive our arguments as effectively as we think it does.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[squeeze]

Originally Posted by Dirtlaw

Any litigation is a gamble. But having hope and faith helps you persevere.

Thanks Dirtlaw. I agree with you; but for decades we have been tied up and repeatedly slapped around by the state. It's sooooo hard to see the glass as half full.
Question: If we win this one, we know the state will appeal the decision. If we do, and they do; how many years is that going to take?

[Scratch705]

Originally Posted by squeeze

Thanks Dirtlaw. I agree with you; but for decades we have been tied up and repeatedly slapped around by the state. It's sooooo hard to see the glass as half full.
Question: If we win this one, we know the state will appeal the decision. If we do, and they do; how many years is that going to take?

i thought if a law was ruled to be bad even if the state appeals, the law would be put on hold and it is as if the law doesn't exist in the meantime during the appeals process?

so during the years long appeal process we get to buy ammo like normal.

or am i totally wrong here?

[Metal God]

21st amendment. Section 2.

doesn't matter . Not being argumentative , just pointing out if they don't care about the second amendment ( one of the first 10 ) insisted by our founders to be included into the constitution . Why should they care about the 21st ? I mean a lot of the anti gunners are also sounding more and more anti 1st amendment as well . So pointing out the 21st really doesn't hold weight in the context of this conversation . The anti's clearly don't care about the rights in the constitution so they shouldn't have issues throwing out any of them like the 21st and banning alcohol in theory should be gtg . Remember the context , it's about saving lives . Surly if restricting the 2nd to save 200 lives is OK , restricting the 21st to save thousands in a no brainer !

Context is everything in these debates , it's important we recognize that .

I hope I got my point across ? It's not about saving lives , it's about restricting guns or throwing out the 21st would be on the table for these life saving anti gunners . It goes directly to what the judge was saying about the second amendment being treated like a second class right

[librarian72]

So.... We get an injunction for one week pending state appeals? I'm ready this time!

[Metal God]

So.... We get an injunction for one week pending state appeals? I'm ready this time!

Yes maybe but no . The injunction will be largely based on if the judge thinks we'll win at trial . I don't believe this is like the magazine ban injunction . Reason being is standard cap ( large cap ) mags were already banned rom sale import and manufacture for years in CA . In this case ammo was freely being sold just a few weeks ago here . If the injunction is granted . It's likely going to stand until the end of trial IMHO .

[Sousuke]

Originally Posted by Metal God

Yes maybe but no . The injunction will be largely based on if the judge thinks we'll win at trial . I don't believe this is like the magazine ban injunction . Reason being is standard cap ( large cap ) mags were already banned rom sale import and manufacture for years in CA . In this case ammo was freely being sold just a few weeks ago here . If the injunction is granted . It's likely going to stand until the end of trial IMHO .

Based on your report, it sounds like it will be dependent on how well the CADOJ perform regarding research of the 10,000+ rejections. If they come back and just shrug saying they couldn't compile all of the data, then he is going to put a stop to this madness with an injunction.

[SimpleCountryActuary]

Originally Posted by Metal God

I'd like to add that when the judge was drilling the state , That was when our guy was up to bat . Our guy just stood there as the judge and state went back and forth several times .

Never interrupt the judge when he is needling your opponent. And never tick off a Federal Judge (been there done that).

[deckhandmike]

When would we likely hear any decision on this case? At least the part that allows ammo sales in the meantime, besides the standard two weeks? Like a week or months?

[Rakso]

90 days