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

[Metal God]

When would we likely hear any decision on this case?

I'd say 90 days at best but the state can ask for more time to comply with the data order .

Originally Posted by Me in post #230

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 ?

[TSD!]

Should have given them 10 days, you know like a background check ie nothing comes back in 10 days you're good to go. It's all electronic data anyway, why give them time to manipulated the data?

[TruOil]

The suggestion to decouple the BGC from the gun registry and only search the AFS is appealing as it fulfills the declared objective of the law--preventing prohibited persons from buying ammo. Mining the data for police investigative purposes to see who has potentially illegal or unregistered firearms (but who are not otherwise prohibited) seems like compelled testimony in violation of the 5th Amendment, perhaps. The overbreadth of the regulations are also demonstrated by the requirement to list not just caliber and bullet type, but muzzle velocity, muzzle energy, purpose for which the ammo was purchased, seller's stock number, number of rounds purchased, and so forth and so on, generally meaningless information for any purpose, demonstrates that the State wants to discourage vendors from selling ammo because the cost of labor/time for entering all of this crap exceeds the $1 fee they get to do the work.

[Hornman]

Thanks guys for sitting in and giving us some insight...yes I as well would like to read a transcript.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by TruOil

The suggestion to decouple the BGC from the gun registry and only search the AFS

Umm, terminology problem - AFS is the 'gun registry', such as it is.

[AKSOG]

Originally Posted by 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?

[ngnrnlo]

Originally Posted by AKSOG

Hilarious. Very original. Haven't seen this before!

[Aeneas]

Originally Posted by AKSOG

Couldn't resist, eh?

[Dirtlaw]

Does anyone have a link to the initial posting site?

[Metal God]

Does anyone have a link to the initial posting site?

What do you mean ? Are you asking for all the motions and briefs filed ?
http://michellawyers.com/rhode-v-becerra/

If you're looking for the latest transcript , we have requested it from the lawyer . When it comes available , I'll post it when I get it but some emails are privileged and can't be discussed or posted to a public forum .

[Dirtlaw]

The final ruling / opinion which is supposed to be issued in about two weeks according to what is written on this thread.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by Librarian

Umm, terminology problem - AFS is the 'gun registry', such as it is.

Yeah yeah, I meant APPS.

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by Metal God

I'd say 90 days at best but the state can ask for more time to comply with the data order .

That would be rich:

CA-DoJ: Your honor, we need at least another 90 days to comply with your request.
Judge: And why is that?
CA-DoJ: Um, um, um.

Any answer they give makes their case go from bad to worse. Kind of how they started off advocating for a straw purchase for out-of-state purchasers...

If CA-DoJ were smart, they would stipulate to the PI request and keep their powder dry for the appeal. As they found out during the iteration on magazines with capacity > 10 rounds, PI is up to the discretion of the judge.

[coryhenry]

Originally Posted by Dirtlaw

The final ruling / opinion which is supposed to be issued in about two weeks according to what is written on this thread.

I believe what you are referencing is the ruling on the preliminary injunction. No one knows when he will produce that ruling but he gave the State 60-90 days to come back with additional supporting documentation.

[Dirtlaw]

Originally Posted by coryhenry

I believe what you are referencing is the ruling on the preliminary injunction. No one knows when he will produce that ruling but he gave the State 60-90 days to come back with additional supporting documentation.

That is correct. My assumption is that it will be posted online by the
Court, so my question is what is the link to where the posting would be be found?

[Metal God]

See post 252 it will be uploaded into that link . However I’m pretty close to this so I’ll post the ruling here as soon as I get it .

[93chipper]

Who can my ffl talk to in regards to this lawsuit he has had issues with selling ammo to a chp officer that recently dros’ed a gun from him and was denied the ammo for the gun

[Metal God]

You could call michel & associates and ask if they need anything else . Sean Brady was the lawyer handling the case when I was there . Interesting you are asking this because the state kept bringing up the fact we ( plaintiffs) did not have one plaintiff that actually had a problem getting ammo . The state was trying to say none of the plaintiffs had standing because none of them actually were denied ammo or there were no depositions presented to the court by the plaintiffs stating so . Although I believe Mr Brady does have some deposition but had not turned them over yet . I know he has at least one because my buddy gave a deposition a couple weeks ago .

After ghe hearing was over I asked our lawyer if he needed any depositions becauss I’d be willing to do so but he pretty seemed unintresred in the idea , not sure what that meant . Either didn’t need it or because I’m not named in the I can’t be deposed ???

[93chipper]

I’m going to have the ffl contact them and he may have the officer contact them as well

[gunuser17]

Metal God, a lawyer would not typically depose a potential witness that is friendly to the lawyer. You typically only depose witnesses for the other side so that you can find out what they might say at trial. If they wanted to use evidence from you as a friendly witness, they would just get an affidavit if they thought they needed it. I suspect that your friend has signed an affidavit or what is also called a declaration. Otherwise, they might just save you as a trial witness if they thought that your testimony woul be helpful.

[Metal God]

@gunuser17 , thanks that was helpful. As I’m sure you could tell by now , I’m not a word smith especially when it comes to the law and the courts lol

[FirearmFino]

From LA Undersheriff Tim Murakami:

Wow. New ammunition laws have the best of intent but has some problems. Since I haven’t bought a gun since 2014 I am not in the system for a BG check. I would have to pay an additional $19 and wait a few days to get my ammo. I elected to pass☹️

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by FirearmFino

From LA Undersheriff Tim Murakami:

B.S. handguns went into the AFS beginning 2000; long guns went in beginning 2014. All he has to do is either: 1. Correct the record; or, 2: register one of his unregistered weapons. If he has a CCW, then there's a weapon registered to him under AFS.

[Rickrock1]

Tagg at 240

[3B830]

Is there a recording of the hearing?

Originally Posted by Metal God

[The Judge] 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]

Dvrjon , please read your post then ask your self if you feel that’s reasonable just to go pick up some ammo . You wrote that as if jumping through all those hoops is no big deal .

[Dirk Tungsten]

Originally Posted by FirearmFino

From LA Undersheriff Tim Murakami:

A lot of angry dumb people in that twitter thread...which i guess is normal for twitter.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

B.S. handguns went into the AFS beginning 2000; long guns went in beginning 2014. All he has to do is either: 1. Correct the record; or, 2: register one of his unregistered weapons. If he has a CCW, then there's a weapon registered to him under AFS.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...ROS.29.2C_1924

Dealer's Record of Sale (DROS), 1924
DROS was implemented by AB 263-Hawes, introduced in 1923 and effective August 7, 1924. Licensed dealers were, and are, required to report handgun sales to the state.

Electronic versions of DROS were specified in AB 671 (Peace) in 1997.

[bigstick61]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

B.S. handguns went into the AFS beginning 2000; long guns went in beginning 2014. All he has to do is either: 1. Correct the record; or, 2: register one of his unregistered weapons. If he has a CCW, then there's a weapon registered to him under AFS.

I think to avoid the $19 fee and the rest the firearm has to have been registered within the last five years, which he probably has not done if he has not bought a firearm since 2014.

Voluntarily registering weapons with the government is generally a stupid idea.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by bigstick61

I think to avoid the $19 fee and the rest the firearm has to have been registered within the last five years, which he probably has not done if he has not bought a firearm since 2014.

The DOJ disagrees with what you think.

Record ownership of a firearm you possess, but were not previously required to report, by submitting a Firearm Ownership Report to the Department.
If your last firearm purchase of a long gun was prior to January 1, 2014, there is a possibility you may not have a record in the Automated Firearms System despite having purchased or transferred your firearm through a firearms dealer. The Department was statutorily prohibited from retaining information regarding sales of rifles or shotguns prior to January 1, 2014. As a result, records of rifles and shotguns in the Automated Firearms System prior to January 1, 2014, are limited to assault weapon registrations (Pen. Code, § 30500, et seq.), voluntary reports of ownership, and other records entered by the Department and California law enforcement agencies.

If he bought a handgun since 1/1/2000, he's in the system. If he's got a CCW, he's in the system (unless there are irregularities in his issuance).

Originally Posted by bigstick61

Voluntarily registering weapons with the government is generally a stupid idea.

He's a senior law enforcement official (Under Sheriff of Los Angeles Sheriff's Department) of of one of the largest law enforcement agencies in the State of California. He IS the f'ing government.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by Metal God

Dvrjon , please read your post then ask your self if you feel that’s reasonable just to go pick up some ammo . You wrote that as if jumping through all those hoops is no big deal .

I don't have to reread my post. I wrote it...I know what it means.

No, IT'S NOT REASONABLE. I wrote that as an illustration of the B.S. we, as citizens have to go through to meet the requirements of the current law and regulations, and to highlight the delusional mentality of senior law enforcement officials who supported this cluster f*** and are now caught in it. He can fix his "problem" the way all of us can fix the same "problem", by jumping through the hoops laid out by DOJ.

But, my sense is, he will use his position and indignation to initiate a waiver for law enforcement officers.

[Librarian]

Let us not drift away from the intent of the thread: events in the case, and whatever understanding of those events we might glean.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by pacrat

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...ROS.29.2C_1924

So, you agree, the Automated Firearms Reporting System came into being on 1/1/2000.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

So, you agree, the Automated Firearms Reporting System came into being on 1/1/2000.

It doesn't matter.

DOJ has been key-entering data from the paper-only records, probably since the database came into existence. The date of first-population of the database is NOT the oldest data in the database.

And, this line of discussion is off topic for this thread. Drop it, or take it to its own thread.

[Librarian]

Again, gentlemembers - THIS thread in THIS forum is for events in the litigation.

9 posts moved to the correct thread, http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1413768

[bigstick61]

Are there any transcripts from the hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction?

[Rakso]

[Metal God]

Hoping to get the transcript of the last hearing in the next week or so . There are indications we may get it by the end of next week but don't hold your breath or anything

[Dirtlaw]

I'm just making sure I'm on the list to receive updates on this important topic. Sorry I'm adding junk to the thread, but this seemed like the best way to accomplish the goal. My understanding is that you need to make a post in order to subscribe to the thread. Please remove while keeping me on the list, if that is possible.

[Friesland]

see "Thread Tools" top right, select subscribe