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

[eaglemike]

Thank you for taking the time to give us a synopsis. Looks like it solidly went our way today.

The state arguing for laws used against slaves is rich.

Yes, I was able to speak very briefly with Msrs Brady and Moros. They are positive about the final decision. Of course we know our cause is just.

[menancyandsam]

Any response from Benitez or plaintiff's attorney regarding the state reliance on Racist Law (Blacks/Indians) to support their position on treating 100% of the People to Ammo Background checks or Intra state purchasing?

We are all potentially dangerous I guess.


Edit: And thanks for being there & reporting.

[cz74]

I think Bonta is caught in a catch-22, defending racist bigot old laws while having ambitious political aspirations (he wants that AG job in DC), this will be fun to watch for sure.

[eaglemike]

Any response from Benitez or plaintiff's attorney regarding the state reliance on Racist Law (Blacks/Indians) to support their position on treating 100% of the People to Ammo Background checks or Intra state purchasing?

We are all potentially dangerous I guess.

Edit: And thanks for being there & reporting.

I think that will be addressed after the expert submissions. The expert is supposed to provide context for the various laws the state alleges are analogous to the current situation.
It's such a massive stretch for DAG to say that stuff. I couldn't believe she was saying that. Her position seems to be that yes, that's really a law that was in place and is a valid reference for today's situation.


My pleasure.
I hope in the future the general population will realize how ridiculous some of these laws really are.

[Bhobbs]

No, he not asking for it. The state asked for leave to submit that to the court. If he denied that it would be an issue to raise on appeal. He has to avoid giving them stuff to use. There's procedural stuff regarding experts. He said he doesn't need an expert to explain the law to him. IMO this is entirely to prevent that line of appeal.

The 9th is going to stay and overturn his opinion anyway. Nothing he does or writes will prevent it, so he?s just delaying the conclusion of this case.

[darkwater34]

Most of the cases that the defense has presented here prior to 1868 have been rescinded and found to be unconstitutional. Pretty much sums it up for the plaintiffs winning on the merits alone. For the defendants to stand on these old unconstitutional laws most of them being racist. It would probably be better to move the court to the BREA TAR PITS and have the defendants present their case whilst Sinking into the abiss.

[EM2]

Another issue was raised about how the legislature repealed the original Prop 63 and replaced it with the current mess. If Judge B declares the current law unconstitutional, does Prop 63 come back - answer is no, as that was repealed and replaced.
I know this isn't a perfect account, so please forgive any errors. It's worth what you paid me for it.
Off to down some Excedrin.

No worries, I appreciate every effort you have made to keep us informed, Thank You very much.

[homelessdude]

I also say thanks. You took one for the team and I appreciate it. Nothing is better then first hand info.

[AlmostHeaven]

Ok - I was there. Judge Benitez is giving the state every chance to prove their position. He's allowing 30 days for them to come up with expert testimony in support of background checks. I think the context is for ammunition, since that is what the case is about, but that entire term wasn't used all the time.
State had 2 deputy AG's there, Lopez and Echeverria. Ms Lopez did most of the talking. She argued that part of the history supporting the state's position are the laws that prevented slaves and other disadvantaged persons from owning arms are a part of history and should be considered. (ugh - and Judge B asked some questions about that) She also mentioned laws early in the US' life about requiring people to swear fealty to the US. This was done in support to the state's efforts to prevent undesirables from acquiring arms.
SEAN BRADY and KONSTADINOS T. MOROS represented the Plaintiffs.
The state is also questioning standing on several issues. Judge B isn't buying it IMHO, but the plaintiffs will have a chance to update status of some things regarding standing.
Issues questioned by the state:
Does anyone really want to buy ammunition in AZ (for example) and bring it back? Current law would require shipping to a FFL and then going through the background check. If this would be you and you are a member of the CRPA, contact the plaintiff's attorney.
Another potential situation - say you are at a match/shooting trap/other game and the guy next to you runs short 1 round. Legally you cannot just give him even 1 round of .22, it must be transferred through an ffl with background check and fee, real ID, etc.
The state also posits that a real ID is not an impediment to acquiring ammunition. The background check is also in full agreement with Bruen, referring to footnote 9. Plaintiffs attorney Moros pointed out this was in reference to a background check for a ccw, and is a 1-time check, not an "every transaction" check situation.
Also, it seems as though the state wants to kick this down the road forever. They lose nothing by doing this, and preserve the status quo.
Judge B did say he's inclined to decide this case on the merits, and not go though a full trial. He did say that's possible, but he prefers to decide on merits.
Obviously this is only my impression and effort at a synopsis. My guess is that it would be close to the end of the year if not longer before the decision is issued. He did mention that he didn't want this case to go up and down the chain to the 9th and back, etc, so wants to get it done, fully decided so he doesn't have to keep dealing with it. Remember he did decide this case once using intermediate scrutiny in favor on the plaintiff, and Bruen discarded intermediate scrutiny.
My prediction is the plaintiffs will prevail. It's not going to be in 60 days.
I have a major headache after listening to Ms Lopez speak. Judge B certainly is not showing any bias.
What other right requires an ID and background check? Much less every transaction? What is this BS if I want to give a friend a box of .22 at a match? on and on........

I see that the state case made during oral arguments contains just as much unadulterated bullsh*t as the briefs.

Thank you for attending and reporting. I am extremely glad to hear Judge Benitez asked many good questions and made sure to cover several potential avenues of appeal.

[eaglemike]

A few things:
1) let's all be thankful and recognize it's a very good thing Judge Benitez has this case. It could be one of the 2a haters.
2) Judge B recognizes this has dragged on and it's bothersome to him. He commented several times on how much he's had to read and deal with. He commented that this case was decided before, and that he wants to get it done/finished/completed and move on.
3) After DAG Lopez made some comment regarding standing of one of the plaintiffs having found a way to actually get ammunition after dealing with the system, more or less saying it wasn't a big deal - Judge B said something to the effect of "If I said that a person had to show a real ID to vote, how long would it take for the 9th to overturn that?"

I don't know if you have noticed, but liberals seem to be able to talk forever without taking a breath, attempting to overwhelm, and also making it difficult to respond to everything said. DAG Lopez did some of this today, in lawyer-speak. Judge B was (IMO) quite tolerant of her expressing the state's position. Maybe that is required. Some of the stuff she said or alleged was incredible, again IMO.

I don't know how frustrated you all are, but the situation is quite frustrating to me. I have no plans to commit a crime, and have no history of criminal behavior. So why should I/you/etc have our rights infringed upon because of someone else's actions? Why should we have to pay extra, make extra trips to the store, not be able to loan a friend a couple of rounds to finish a match, or even hand a friend a box of ammo for his/her birthday? We all know this massive catalog of laws has had little to no effect on crime, yet the left clings to the thought that another series of laws will finally make people quit shooting/robbing/killing. Of course, they don't recognize that many DA's aren't even enforcing the laws on the books.
No wonder I have a headache.

[EM2]

A few things:
1) let's all be thankful and recognize it's a very good thing Judge Benitez has this case. It could be one of the 2a haters.
2) Judge B recognizes this has dragged on and it's bothersome to him. He commented several times on how much he's had to read and deal with. He commented that this case was decided before, and that he wants to get it done/finished/completed and move on.
3) After DAG Lopez made some comment regarding standing of one of the plaintiffs having found a way to actually get ammunition after dealing with the system, more or less saying it wasn't a big deal - Judge B said something to the effect of "If I said that a person had to show a real ID to vote, how long would it take for the 9th to overturn that?"

I don't know if you have noticed, but liberals seem to be able to talk forever without taking a breath, attempting to overwhelm, and also making it difficult to respond to everything said. DAG Lopez did some of this today, in lawyer-speak. Judge B was (IMO) quite tolerant of her expressing the state's position. Maybe that is required. Some of the stuff she said or alleged was incredible, again IMO.

I don't know how frustrated you all are, but the situation is quite frustrating to me. I have no plans to commit a crime, and have no history of criminal behavior. So why should I/you/etc have our rights infringed upon because of someone else's actions? Why should we have to pay extra, make extra trips to the store, not be able to loan a friend a couple of rounds to finish a match, or even hand a friend a box of ammo for his/her birthday? We all know this massive catalog of laws has had little to no effect on crime, yet the left clings to the thought that another series of laws will finally make people quit shooting/robbing/killing. Of course, they don't recognize that many DA's aren't even enforcing the laws on the books.
No wonder I have a headache.

Respectfully, no they do not.
They are gas lighting us, they know damn well the law abiding are not committing the crimes and that these laws do not actually reduce crime.

[WithinReason]

Thanks for the synopsis! I appreciate your insights.

[AlmostHeaven]

I don't know how frustrated you all are, but the situation is quite frustrating to me. I have no plans to commit a crime, and have no history of criminal behavior. So why should I/you/etc have our rights infringed upon because of someone else's actions? Why should we have to pay extra, make extra trips to the store, not be able to loan a friend a couple of rounds to finish a match, or even hand a friend a box of ammo for his/her birthday? We all know this massive catalog of laws has had little to no effect on crime, yet the left clings to the thought that another series of laws will finally make people quit shooting/robbing/killing. Of course, they don't recognize that many DA's aren't even enforcing the laws on the books.
No wonder I have a headache.

I have always recognized the fact that liberals hold one set of standards for gun rights and a totally different set for voting rights, even though both are equally fundamental.

Even requiring so much as going to a physical polling location and showing identification exceeds the tolerable bounds of restricting voting rights for the State of California. Imagine even daring to propose a criminal background check, mandatory civics class, $100+ poll tax, and voter registration every single election.

Democratic voters whose only knowledge of firearms comes from the wildly inaccurate portrayals pushed by mainstream media and Hollywood do believe that gun control laws reduce crime.

However, rest assured that most Democratic officials and politicians know full well the primary impact of their legislation serves to inconvenience gun ownership, criminalize gun owners, increase dependence on government, and ultimately kill gun culture. The long-term plans of the left contain many facets, and a patriotic citizenry of well-armed individuals capable of effective self-defense stands in the way.

[SpudmanWP]

Update from Kostas Moros

https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1681163873918001152?s=20

A full summary will come from CRPA tomorrow, but some highlights from today's Rhode (ammunition background checks) hearing:

- Benitez repeatedly questioned the DOJ attorneys on why they think old racist laws are relevant to the modern ammunition background check. They said that while they don't endorse the racism, the laws stand for the proposition that there is a tradition of barring people perceived to be dangerous from owning guns. Benitez seemed unsatisfied with this answer. (As he should be, the "how" is totally different, it's not relevantly similar).

- Benitez was also unimpressed with the State's insistence on submitting expert declarations. He says he's not sure why their historians can better explain a historical law with a clear meaning, like the racist laws (he really kept bringing these up - I now expect it to be a big theme of his rulings in these cases). The State submitted hundreds of laws in its survey, and he's skeptical there are more to find. Nevertheless, he gave them a month to submit expert declarations, perhaps to avoid the 9th circuit kicking it back to him again.

- Standing was a big argument today, and apparently what the State is going to push. I.e., if you manage to get through the process even with difficulty, no standing. Of course, there is still standing because of the fees, waits for some people, and out-of-state ammo purchases.

- That last point was apparently a big one for Benitez. He talked about how he used to go bird hunting in Arizona, and would often buy extra ammo while there but wouldn't shoot all the shells, and would bring the remainder back home. Did the state expect him to drive to a California gun store upon his return to do a background check on that ammo? It was here I spoke up and corrected him - if he crossed the border with ammo bought in AZ, he'd be breaking the law. He'd actually have to ship it from AZ to a CA FFL, and pick it up from them. (This seemed to make him even more insistent on this point).

- Benitez also brought up how a regular driver's license isn't enough, you need the costlier "Real ID" one. He asked the DOJ attorneys how fast they thought the 9th circuit would overturn a law that blocked people from voting unless they had "Real ID". (They wisely dodged).

- Benitez implied he'd be OK with the background check as originally envisioned by Prop 63, the version in which you'd get a permit card renewable every five years and use that to buy ammo. He believes Bruen footnote 9 would allow that. But the version CA immediately changed that too (because Prop 63 allows the legislature to modify it with just 55% of the vote) created this far more burdensome system we now have in which you do a NICS check each and every time you buy ammo, complete with a face-to-face requirement (so online ammo must be shipped to an FFL).


Next tweet:

If you are a CRPA member and have had trouble buying ammo under this regime in CA, or if you manage to buy it but incur considerable expense each time (such as by having to pay an FFL to receive your online ammo), please feel free to email me your experience at kmoros@michellawyers.com.

We may be putting together a few new supporting declarations to make sure there are no questions as to associational standing.


Next tweet:

Oh and one last one:

- The record in Rhode from years ago indicated that the DOJ background check denied a lot more people wrongly than it did correctly. That said, there were around 700 people who were denied who were indeed prohibited people who tried to buy ammo. Benitez asked the DOJ lawyers whether the State had arrested/prosecuted any of those people. They had no answer on that, but it's something he wants to know going forward.

(I think the idea here is that if they didn't even bother going after most of these people, then the law clearly just harasses the law-abiding more than it's about stopping criminals)

[AlmostHeaven]

Update from Kostas Moros
https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/stat...918001152?s=20

All of this sounds fantastic.

I think Judge Benitez appears on track to write a magnificent, legally flawless, and logically impenetrable ruling.*

God Bless Judge Benitez and other constitutional scholars like him.

*The Ninth Circuit will overrule Judge Benitez regardless, but everyone knows that ultimately, the Supreme Court will need to settle these issues once and for all.