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

[Metal God]

Well the email with the transcript did not come this week . Sorry guys for getting your hopes up .

[Rakso]

[Dirtlaw]

Originally Posted by Friesland

see "Thread Tools" top right, select subscribe

Thank you Friesland! Much appreciated. I am eager for the ruling on the injunction but my life is complicated now and sometimes I don't have much time to search through the board for information.

[FirearmFino]

NOTICE of Hearing: Telephonic Status Conference set for 10/1/2019 01:00 PM in Courtroom 5A before Judge Roger T. Benitez.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...ode-v-becerra/

[Rakso]

Originally Posted by FirearmFino

NOTICE of Hearing: Telephonic Status Conference set for 10/1/2019 01:00 PM in Courtroom 5A before Judge Roger T. Benitez.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...ode-v-becerra/

[Ishooter]

Will there be any ruling on that date, or the judge will just hear sides of the case?
I can't wait.

[bubbapug1]

Is benetiz the same judge who won us freedom week on magazines??

God I hope so.

[USMCmatt]

Originally Posted by bubbapug1

Is benetiz the same judge who won us freedom week on magazines??

God I hope so.

Yes...yes he is...

[bubbapug1]

Benetiz is going to place an injunction on the Ammo ban. That's my prediction. It's definitely an infringement. I must say it has kept a lot of legal gun owning people away from buying ammo.

[bruss01]

Though I don't expect the AG to make the same mistake twice, it wouldn't be a bad idea for CRPA to contact some of the major online ammo retailers and alert them to the possibility that a limited window for online ammo sales to CA may open briefly and that they'd be fortunately positioned if they had the inventory to accommodate at least some of that spike in business.

[tenemae]

Originally Posted by bruss01

Though I don't expect the AG to make the same mistake twice, it wouldn't be a bad idea for CRPA to contact some of the major online ammo retailers and alert them to the possibility that a limited window for online ammo sales to CA may open briefly and that they'd be fortunately positioned if they had the inventory to accommodate at least some of that spike in business.

I would hope the online retailers would anticipate this given the massive cluster**** freedom week was. It couldn't have been anticipated the first time around, but now it should be on their radar.

Democrats: Hi cap mags are illegal
Judge: Nope
calguns buys ALL the mags

Democrats: Can't sell ammo online
calguns lies in waiting

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by Ishooter

Will there be any ruling on that date, or the judge will just hear sides of the case?
I can't wait.

My guess is the hearing is more of a status hearing (telephonic status conference from the notice). As in how is the CA-DoJ progressing on the deliverable they were given?

I don't expect a ruling from the bench, unless CA-DoJ totally screws the pooch and blows off Judge Benitez' earlier order.

[mit31]

I don't think the two are comparable. If (when) there is an injunction on this case, it will be long-term until the circuit court makes a ruling on appeal. Unlike the mag case, where you had some "dangerous" mags suddenly legal after 20 years, this case affects ALL ammo, and the ruling will affect a law that is only what, 6 months old. IMHO, if the ruling states that the checks are too burdensome on the right to purchase, the injunction will be left in place while the case works its way through the courts.

Originally Posted by tenemae

I would hope the online retailers would anticipate this given the massive cluster**** freedom week was. It couldn't have been anticipated the first time around, but now it should be on their radar.

Democrats: Hi cap mags are illegal
Judge: Nope
calguns buys ALL the mags

Democrats: Can't sell ammo online
calguns lies in waiting

[WWDHD?]

Originally Posted by tenemae

I would hope the online retailers would anticipate this given the massive cluster**** freedom week was. It couldn't have been anticipated the first time around, but now it should be on their radar.

Democrats: Hi cap mags are illegal
Judge: Nope
calguns buys ALL the mags

Democrats: Can't sell ammo online
calguns lies in waiting

Wild speculation here: IF there is some kind of a "Freedom Week" repeat concerning ammo- could there possibly be a problem not with sellers but with shippers (UPS, FedEx) not understanding what is going on legally fast enough before another stay is issued by a higher court & refusing to ship into CA? If anything happens at all like last time it might be a bigger deal for local/gun shows & face-to-face sales without the infringement of the state BG check & registration. At least at first. Time will tell.

[bubbapug1]

The carrier had no liability. He had no clue what's in the box.

Do they pop FedEx for shipping in cocaine?? Or yellow freight??

No.

I don't need any Ammo but I'd still like this over turned. It's a bad precedent.

What's next! Fentynal?

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by mit31

I don't think the two are comparable. If (when) there is an injunction on this case, it will be long-term until the circuit court makes a ruling on appeal. Unlike the mag case, where you had some "dangerous" mags suddenly legal after 20 years, this case affects ALL ammo, and the ruling will affect a law that is only what, 6 months old. IMHO, if the ruling states that the checks are too burdensome on the right to purchase, the injunction will be left in place while the case works its way through the courts.

Originally Posted by WWDHD?

Wild speculation here: IF there is some kind of a "Freedom Week" repeat concerning ammo- could there possibly be a problem not with sellers but with shippers (UPS, FedEx) not understanding what is going on legally fast enough before another stay is issued by a higher court & refusing to ship into CA? If anything happens at all like last time it might be a bigger deal for local/gun shows & face-to-face sales without the infringement of the state BG check & registration. At least at first. Time will tell.

Anything is possible. However, this time around, the most likely outcome from an injunction would be the suspension of the requirement for face-to-face ammunition sales and the ban on Internet sales of ammunition. UPS and a FedEx are not really parties to the litigation, as they are acting as delivery agents for the out of state sellers. Also, remember how the PI in the magazine case played out - PI enjoined enforcement of the requirement to dispossess lawfully acquired magazines with a capacity of > 10+ rounds, which was upheld by the CA9. If a similar PI issues, there won't be a freedom week for ammunition sales, as the ban on Internet and face-to-face ammunition sales will be in place for the duration of the DC litigation.

Net-net, if a PI issues that suspends the face-to-face requirement and ban on Internet ammunition sales, there will be plenty of time for ammunition vendors to ramp up (they probably already have sufficient stock on hand).

[WWDHD?]

Originally Posted by bubbapug1

The carrier had no liability. He had no clue what's in the box.

Do they pop FedEx for shipping in cocaine?? Or yellow freight??

No.

I don't need any Ammo but I'd still like this over turned. It's a bad precedent.

What's next! Fentynal?

Of course the carrier knows whats in the box if there's ammo involves. all kinds of haz mat markings & "small arms cartridges" stickers on the boxes anytime I legally bought ammo online before the July 1st ban.
Magazines were different in that they are just boxes with springs inside them so the carriers were not so concerned with what was inside the package they were delivering.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by WWDHD?

Of course the carrier knows whats in the box if there's ammo involves. all kinds of haz mat markings & "small arms cartridges" stickers on the boxes anytime I legally bought ammo online before the July 1st ban.
Magazines were different in that they are just boxes with springs inside them so the carriers were not so concerned with what was inside the package they were delivering.

I’ve never had a delivery with an open label of “small arms cartridges”. They’ve been double boxed with a generic cover and the warning label on the package was simply “ORM-D” (Other Regulated Materials for Domestic transport only.)

Packages marked ORM-D contain hazardous material in a limited quantity that presents a limited hazard during transportation, due to its form, quantity, and packaging.

That’s used for everything from small arms munitions to perfume and aerosol cans.

The transporter doesn't know what’s in the box...could be primers, powder, perfume or paint....or ammo.

[bubbapug1]

I've never received a package indicating it's Ammo either. Just the warning label orm or whatever it says.

Does the Ammo bill unduly burden an Ammo buyer? Not if you have an extra 30 minutes to kill in a Walmart. It's like buying sudafed. But different.

[sfpcservice]

Originally Posted by bubbapug1

I've never received a package indicating it's Ammo either. Just the warning label orm or whatever it says.

Does the Ammo bill unduly burden an Ammo buyer? Not if you have an extra 30 minutes to kill in a Walmart. It's like buying sudafed. But different.

Sudafed isn't an enumerated right.

[taperxz]

Look for a partial injunction from the judge.

Background checks halted due to the DOJ cluster luck of a system

Which is, split level checks on ammo, FLA BS that ATF has no problem with and possibly the actual registry of ammo.

Online sales may not be taken off since the courts have ruled on other commerce items that a state may restrict online sales like alcohol.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by bubbapug1

Does the Ammo bill law unduly burden an Ammo buyer?

FIFY

Originally Posted by bubbapug1

Not if you have an extra 30 minutes to kill in a Walmart. It's like buying sudafed. But different.

Yup, different...the Walmarts around me still sell Sudafed....

[gobler]

Originally Posted by bubbapug1

I've never received a package indicating it's Ammo either. Just the warning label orm or whatever it says.

Does the Ammo bill unduly burden an Ammo buyer? Not if you have an extra 30 minutes to kill in a Walmart. It's like buying sudafed. But different.

Tell that to those who live over an hour from a walmart or any vender who sells ammo. Thats why Needals Ca unanimously adopted a second amendment sanctuary City. They live less the 10 miles from stores in Az but are prohibited from buying. They live 100 miles from the nearest Ca store. That's infringement.

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by taperxz

Look for a partial injunction from the judge.

Background checks halted due to the DOJ cluster luck of a system

Which is, split level checks on ammo, FLA BS that ATF has no problem with and possibly the actual registry of ammo.

Online sales may not be taken off since the courts have ruled on other commerce items that a state may restrict online sales like alcohol.

Do you think the ban on importation (CA residents buying ammunition out-of-state and bringing their purchase back with them on return) will remain? If so, I am curious as to your reason(s) why.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by aBrowningfan

Do you think the ban on importation (CA residents buying ammunition out-of-state and bringing their purchase back with them on return) will remain? If so, I am curious as to your reason(s) why.

I would think the judge would over turn that too. Its legal commerce and purchased legally out of state.

[tehDiceman]

Be cautious though, there was much discussion that the judge didn't seem too concerned about the background check portion, just the tons of denials portion. That would indicate import/online sales may not come back unless the state fumbles their handling and he rules to punish their contempt.

I'm hopeful that we'll get online sales and import back, too much cheap ammo out there that we aren't able to buy and that stinks for those of us with a budget.

[paddyraid]

Originally Posted by tehDiceman

Be cautious though, there was much discussion that the judge didn't seem too concerned about the background check portion, just the tons of denials portion. That would indicate import/online sales may not come back unless the state fumbles their handling and he rules to punish their contempt.

I'm hopeful that we'll get online sales and import back, too much cheap ammo out there that we aren't able to buy and that stinks for those of us with a budget.

you would be buying it if you had gotten your 03FFL like many of us did. it's not too late. best thing I ever did!

[tehDiceman]

Originally Posted by paddyraid

you would be buying it if you had gotten your 03FFL like many of us did. it's not too late. best thing I ever did!

Only until daddy state says you can't anymore because "safety" or "children". I also see the 03ffl as a just another tax, much like the background check garbage. I'm done willingly giving this state extra money for no reason. The rest of the country doesn't need a friggin FFL to buy ammo online and to hand over more of your info, money, and have additional requirements placed on your firearm ownership just to buy ammo online is not my idea of a good time. (bound book requirements, record keeping, etc.)

I just want to be like an average Joe in a free state and that shouldn't be too much to ask, ya know, to have equality? (Does this become our new standing ground? We want equality and inclusivity with the rest of the gun community? A liberal mind has already exploded over this thought. Lolol)

Think about it though, it is absurd that you need a Federal License to buy ammo like the rest of the country? Sounds a lot like the federal license to own guns that some of the Dem hopefuls are spouting about.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by tehDiceman

Be cautious though, there was much discussion that the judge didn't seem too concerned about the background check portion, just the tons of denials portion. That would indicate import/online sales may not come back unless the state fumbles their handling and he rules to punish their contempt.

I'm hopeful that we'll get online sales and import back, too much cheap ammo out there that we aren't able to buy and that stinks for those of us with a budget.

If the judge doesn't think the background check is an infringement, how do you think he would allow for internet sales to your door too?

[donw]

Originally Posted by aBrowningfan

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%.

I agree...this "Law" does interfere with the 2A. can a firearm be considered as being a firearm with no ammo to utilize in it?

[librarian72]

I wouldn't be surprised if it was anything but a favorable outcome, at least in the near term. Given that the judge has already said during the mag ban that laws that are not tailored at all fail any level of enhanced scrutiny. How could this be any different? It seems likely to play out like the mag case. Enjoined, followed by a motion to remove it while appeals play out.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by tehDiceman

.... have additional requirements placed on your firearm ownership just to buy ammo online is not my idea of a good time. (bound book requirements, record keeping, etc.)

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Not to distract from the discussion, but this indicates a lack of knowledge of the process and responsibilities.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by paddyraid

you would be buying it if you had gotten your 03FFL like many of us did. it's not too late. best thing I ever did!

Because that "loophole" will definitely be around forever.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

Because that "loophole" will definitely be around forever.

1. It isn't a "loophole"; it's a black-letter law.

2. Every law can be changed, but given the reasoning behind the ammo laws, it will be difficult to make the case that folks with federal and state credentials/clearance, are a threat for supplying gangsters with ammo.

[deckhandmike]

Originally Posted by Ishooter

Will there be any ruling on that date, or the judge will just hear sides of the case?
I can't wait.

Anyone else have an idea on this?

[FirearmFino]

DECLARATION Supplemental Declaration of Mayra G. Morales in Support of Defendant Xavier Becerra's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Defendant Xavier Becerra.

[ronlglock]

So 42 prohibited persons were stopped from buying ammunition in July and August. Meanwhile, 30,000 presumably legal purchasers also were blocked.

Well, I guess it’s for the children.

[bubbapug1]

[QUOTE=ronlglock;23462606]So 42 prohibited persons were stopped from buying ammunition in July and August. Meanwhile, 30,000 presumably legal purchasers also were blocked.

That's the point. To block the legal ones.

[Metal God]

It appears this will be the judge asking the state where they are at and if they will be able to comply with the order to get the info he requested . My guess is the state will ask for more time which will be granted . However if the state comes in there all aloof not appearing to have even made an effort . The judge may get pissed and rule right then and there . That's not likely but fingers crossed lol .

Either way I won't be able to make it if it's tomorrow .

NOTICE of Hearing: Telephonic Status Conference set for 10/1/2019 01:00 PM in Courtroom 5A before Judge Roger T. Benitez.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...ode-v-becerra/

Are we sure this is the correct date ? My buddy has not received any notice of a hearing and received an email today saying they have no date scheduled for the next hearing . In the link above I see a notice of hearing but no date shown , am I missing something ? To be clear I'm not saying there isn't anything going on tomorrow , just that I can't find anything official either in the link or from my buddy who is a party in the suite . Unless "Telephonic Status Conference" just means conference call ? Does that mean both sides and the judge will be on a conference call that will be recorded ?

[FirearmFino]

Originally Posted by Metal God

Unless "Telephonic Status Conference" just means conference call ? Does that mean both sides and the judge will be on a conference call that will be recorded ?

Correct (although I don't know if these are recorded). From the hearing notice:

NOTICE of Hearing: Telephonic Status Conference set for 10/1/2019 01:00 PM in Courtroom 5A before Judge Roger T. Benitez. Plaintiff counsel to email Judge Benitez's chambers ... by 5:00PM on 9/30/2019 one toll-free telephone number and pass code to allow the Court to access the conference call. (no document attached) (gxr) (Entered: 09/25/2019)