Ammo law as applied (from the Rhode thread in 2A Litigation)

[TrappedinCalifornia]

The media 'push back' (or awareness, ahem) has already started... Gun group wants judge to block ammunition background checks

[aBrowningfan]

The media 'push back' (or awareness, ahem) has already started... Gun group wants judge to block ammunition background checks

What did you expect?

[stix213]

The media 'push back' (or awareness, ahem) has already started... Gun group wants judge to block ammunition background checks

I like the end of the article, where the anti's are already admitting defeat in district court. Banking everything on the 9th.

[DolphinFan]

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)

Isn't this EXACTLY the definition of Tyrannical? A government that doesn't follow superior Federal Law OR State Constitutional law.

1. tyrannical - marked by unjust severity or arbitrary behaviortyrannical - marked by unjust severity or arbitrary behavior; "the oppressive government"; "oppressive laws"; "a tyrannical parent"; "tyrannous disregard of human rights"
tyrannous, oppressive
domineering - tending to domineer

2. tyrannical - characteristic of an absolute ruler or absolute ruletyrannical - characteristic of an absolute ruler or absolute rule; having absolute sovereignty; "an authoritarian regime"; "autocratic government";

[hoystory]

Well that doesn't say FFL03, but that seems to be where it is defined.

This absolutely enrages me. The law specifically sets out that exception and Becerra and his acolytes decide they don't need to follow the law.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[aBrowningfan]

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)

It is arrogance. Or, pandering to their masters up the foodchain. Or, both.

[RickD427]

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.

Sir,

It would be a good idea to read the California Public Records Act before sending such a request.

The PRA is a tool to request "Records" from government agencies. It is not a tool to ask "Questions" of a government agency.

The way that your request was submitted, you have failed to identify any "Record" being sought. All that you have done is to present eight distinct "Questions" to the DOJ Bureau of Firearms. They have no duty under the PRA to respond to your questions.

I'm hopeful that the DOJ representative responding to your request will treat it broadly and identify responsive records, I often did so when responding to ill-prepared requests. It's in the spirit of the PRA to do so.

But the same official would be on pretty solid ground to respond that there was no record identified in your request. The PRA does not require agencies to prepare a new record (with some narrow exceptions for information in databases) to respond to a request. In short, no one is required to write an answer to your questions. They're only required to provide you a copy of an already-written document.

[Jwalt]

If the DOJ is ignoring the exemption allowing FFL03&COE to receive ammo shipped from out of state, does that mean they're ignoring the exemption allowing us to transport it into the state ourselves as well?

[hoystory]

Sir,



It would be a good idea to read the California Public Records Act before sending such a request.



The PRA is a tool to request "Records" from government agencies. It is not a tool to ask "Questions" of a government agency.



The way that your request was submitted, you have failed to identify any "Record" being sought. All that you have done is to present eight distinct "Questions" to the DOJ Bureau of Firearms. They have no duty under the PRA to respond to your questions.



I'm hopeful that the DOJ representative responding to your request will treat it broadly and identify responsive records, I often did so when responding to ill-prepared requests. It's in the spirit of the PRA to do so.



But the same official would be on pretty solid ground to respond that there was no record identified in your request. The PRA does not require agencies to prepare a new record (with some narrow exceptions for information in databases) to respond to a request. In short, no one is required to write an answer to your questions. They're only required to provide you a copy of an already-written document.

I would argue that those records are created each time the database is used. It will be easy enough to find that number. And every time someone is denied, they have to send them a letter notifying them of why. So, how many letters have they created?

I've filed federal FOIA requests before, and the California law is modeled after the federal law. These questions would not be considered as improper if asked of the federal DOJ.

You seem to think that someone there needs to run a report like the one I'm asking for for there to be a "record" I can request. I don't think you're correct, but we'll find out who's right.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[paddyraid]

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.....

I like your thinking. It makes too much sense. I, along with probably all of you, have wondered why we have to keep paying for background checks for ammo if we've already done background checks to buy the guns the ammo is for. I can't wait to leave this poophole and I worry what this country will be like after I'm dead.

[paddyraid]

you should just end it all now. I would if I were you.

[Librarian]

I've filed federal FOIA requests before, and the California law is modeled after the federal law. These questions would not be considered as improper if asked of the federal DOJ.

You seem to think that someone there needs to run a report like the one I'm asking for for there to be a "record" I can request. I don't think you're correct, but we'll find out who's right.

I've filed PRARs before, and generally, unless the official receiving the request is feeling generous AND has the time, Rick is correct.

Without using the formal PRAR mechanism I've asked DOJ to run a database query, and been soundly ignored.

See also DOJ's page on PRARs, https://www.oag.ca.gov/consumers/general/pra

[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.

[BCA142]

The 10 day wait is a cooling off period and not about how long it takes for the results. For first time buyers the ten day wait makes sense, in gun grabber logic, but for people who own multiple firearms the waiting period is moot. That is more of an argument it seems.

[palacios289]

From my understanding I was under the impression that if you had a firearm purchase on file with DOJ you could proceed with the instant background check purchase of ammo. I was just thinking out loud the state should be cornered into finally admitting the 10 day for exiting gun owners is nothing but an attempt to keep law abiding folks from buying guns.