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

[aBrowningfan]

03FFL friend. so glad I have mine.

So glad I have my stockpile and bulk reloading components.

[jyc]

I relished the fact that Judge Benitez has earned notoriety as "that judge". Can't wait to see his opinion on the essential right to purchase ammunition to bear arms.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[aBrowningfan]

I relished the fact that Judge Benitez has earned notoriety as "that judge". Can't wait to see his opinion on the essential right to purchase ammunition to bear arms.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I am soo hoping that a PI issues. It will be just what I need to replenish my stockpile.

[Sousuke]

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

I notice many of California's gun laws have special exemptions for Federal Licenses of the Collector variety (FFL03). Is there some legal reason for this? Are they making sure not to cross a Federal line of some sort and trigger an ATF or DOJ response? Otherwise, I have no idea why they would provide such exceptions.

[BryMan92]

I notice many of California's gun laws have special exemptions for Federal Licenses of the Collector variety (FFL03). Is there some legal reason for this? Are they making sure not to cross a Federal line of some sort and trigger an ATF or DOJ response? Otherwise, I have no idea why they would provide such exceptions.

My guess is that CA just mimicked the language of the Feds. The rationale might be consistency, laziness, or the thought that the Feds were carving out an exemption, and thus, CA has to follow it. I believe a claim in this case is just that: the Feds clearly preempted some regulations on ammo. Or something.

I could be wrong.

[AKSOG]

So they are using the backround check data for pressing charges and search warrants? wow

[NorthBay Shooter]

So they are using the backround check data for pressing charges and search warrants? wow

Exactly. This could now become a 4A issue. If you are denied, you get looked at for warrants. A simple error in your name or address so it does not match the database causes the denial and you are then run for warrants???

[AKSOG]

Source? Are you referring to CA's opposition motion? They don't actually say they are doing that. They were giving examples of other jurisdictions' uses of ammo ordinances.

I see no significant differences between the local ordinances and the current broad scale backround check sysyem besides the transacrion actually occurs. Although they are not stating they have used the backround check system to do do something similar they certainly seem to justify using similar collected data to conduct those things.

Like the registration process. Even a legitimate mistake when trying to do the same thing could get you a knock on the door. Or perhaps a mistaken name that shows prohibited and made a purchase prior. My point being I strongly doubt they plan to stop enforcement at the denial/approval of purchase at the background check.

[NorthBay Shooter]

Source? Are you referring to CA's opposition motion? They don't actually say they are doing that. They were giving examples of other jurisdictions' uses of ammo ordinances.

[Guninator]

From page 2
In 2007, Sacramento enacted a similar ammunition sales ordinance. Sacramento, Cal., City Code, ch. 5.66.

Yes, as I said above, in their opposition motion, they were referring to the city of Sacramento's 2007 ordinance, not the DOJ's own use of the new law.

I'm not trying to defend the DOJ or say they aren't doing bad things, but trying to be accurate.

[NorthBay Shooter]

Yes, as I said above, in their opposition motion, they were referring to the city of Sacramento's 2007 ordinance, not the DOJ's own use of the new law.

I'm not trying to defend the DOJ or say they aren't doing bad things, but trying to be accurate.

agree

[NorCalBusa]

Not to get too far into the weeds, but I find "background check" to be the wrong term- they sure aren't contacting spouses, acquaintances, social organizations you belong to, current and past employers for ammo purchases.

Is it not but a "criminal history check?

On the other hand, let the media and uninformed continue to think its a full-monty background and take comfort in that...

[Aragorn]

Exactly. This could now become a 4A issue. If you are denied, you get looked at for warrants. A simple error in your name or address so it does not match the database causes the denial and you are then run for warrants???

[Mustard]

Not to be contrarian, but why is it bad that some bad guys who can't be around guns/gun stuff got popped off of a background check?

Is it because it's only 3.2% of buyers were actually bad, and therefore the background check violates 4A?

[Sousuke]

Not to be contrarian, but why is it bad that some bad guys who can't be around guns/gun stuff got popped off of a background check?

Is it because it's only 3.2% of buyers were actually bad, and therefore the background check violates 4A?

One does not relate to the other. There could be 0.0001% or 99%. That has no bearing to whether the check violates the 4th A.

I'm not sure it really does violate the 4th A. in that its voluntary.