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

[not-fishing]

If I were a federal judge, I would universally issue preliminary injunctions, clear the calender to schedule prompt oral arguments, and publish rapid decisions, citing Heller and Bruen, striking down any gun control law that came onto my docket.

Unfortunately for everyone on Calguns, I am not.

I really miss Judge Roy Bean:

[Sputnik]

“Who is going to enforce any ruling from SCOTUS?”

Indeed, who in california will?

[TruOil]

?Who is going to enforce any ruling from SCOTUS??

Indeed, who in california will?

Any LEO who ignores a supreme court ruling is subject to individual liability for violation of civil rights. And any judge who ignores a ruling can get hammered by SCOTUS or the Court of Appeals, since ALL courts are bound to enforce the decision.

[rplaw]

All stops got pulled out because the state panicked at having both a federal district court and Ninth Circuit 3-judge panel rule in favor of Second Amendment rights and against gun control.

The Ninth Circuit can move fast when it elects.

Which is an indirect admission that the appellate delays are intentional rather than merely procedural.

[MuckTheGhost]

Any LEO who ignores a supreme court ruling is subject to individual liability for violation of civil rights. And any judge who ignores a ruling can get hammered by SCOTUS or the Court of Appeals, since ALL courts are bound to enforce the decision.

And yet, the SCOTUS hasn't ruled on ammo background checks or mags over 10 rounds. They ruled that NY's law that required "proper cause" was unconstitutional. The also established a framework for judges to use in making 2A decisions. The laws that exist in California are still law until the judicial branch overturns, enjoins, or otherwise, abolishes the law. LEOs are not authorized to "make" or "break" laws. I think you should relax on the LEOs and focus your energy into the judicial efforts, but that's just my opinion.

[Sgt Raven]

And yet, the SCOTUS hasn't ruled on ammo background checks or mags over 10 rounds. ...snip..... but that's just my opinion.

Last year SCOTUS GVR'd, granted Certiorari, Vacated the Decision, and Remanded the cases to the Lower Courts, for a AWB and 2 Mag cases.It may not be a final ruling, but it is a ruling on those cases as they were at that time. That tells the Inferior Courts they got the rulings wrong and try again...

[ar15barrels]

Actions speak louder than words. If he wanted it done, it would be done.

Doing something "right" and "right now" are often quite different.
He could kick it off his plate right now, but then it would come back under appeal because of not doing it "right" the first time.

[ar15barrels]

Thanks to all involved in giving the updates and doing the heavy lifting in court.

During the discussion of the last few pages the topic of COE came up relative to ammo checks. I have alway found it nonsensical that a COE is necessary for a CA vendor to sell ammo to the public but a a member of the public who has "petitioned" the State and been approved for a COE still has to pay for the background check. Every time I purchase ammo I can't help but think I am caught up in "double taxation" or more for a right that I should have without all the hoops to jump through.

When you use your 03FFL and COE, you are paying $1 for a "COE check".
You are NOT paying for a background check because they are not even doing one.
Your COE being valid means you would pass a background check if they actually did run one so there's no need to actually run a background check because if you would fail it, your COE would already have been revoked.

[ARFrog]

When you use your 03FFL and COE, you are paying $1 for a "COE check".
You are NOT paying for a background check because they are not even doing one.
Your COE being valid means you would pass a background check if they actually did run one so there's no need to actually run a background check because if you would fail it, your COE would already have been revoked.

For sake of discussion regardless needing to have an ammo background check, my issue is that the COE means they have already run a background check on me and the ammo process is an unnecessary duplication.

The CA DOJ website states:


What is a Certificate of Eligibility (COE)?

A ?Certificate of Eligibility? certifies the Department of Justice (DOJ) has checked its records and determined the recipient is not prohibited from acquiring or possessing firearms at the time the firearms eligibility criminal background check was performed. A COE is a pre-requisite licensing/permit requirement for all prospective licensed firearms dealers, licensed ammunition vendors, manufacturers, certified instructors, gun show promoters, explosive permit holders, and other firearm related employment activities, including, any agent or employee of a vendor who handles, sells, or delivers firearms and ammunition. The initial COE application process includes a firearms eligibility criminal background check and issuance of a certificate, which is valid for one year. Thereafter, the COE must be renewed annually. A COE can be revoked, at anytime, if the COE holder becomes prohibited from owning/possessing firearms and ammunition. (Emphasis added)


If the State has already deemed me eligible, there is no need to rerun my background each time I purchase ammo other than perhaps: 1) as amoney acquisition scheme by the State or 2) as a a hassle/roadblock scheme to discourage me from exercising my 2A rights.

I can use my certificate to purchase certain firearms outside of a FFL01 but cannot be deemed eligible to purchase ammo?????....please, that is just absurd.

[ar15barrels]

If the State has already deemed me eligible, there is no need to rerun my background each time I purchase ammo other than perhaps: 1) as amoney acquisition scheme by the State or 2) as a a hassle/roadblock scheme to discourage me from exercising my 2A rights.

They do NOT run a background check on you if you present your COE/03FFL when you are purchasing ammo.
They check that your COE/03FFL are valid and then they log the ammo out to you.
It's $1 to check your COE and enter the ammo you are purchasing to complete the ammo transfer.

[Dvrjon]

But look what the 9th did when cases were remanded to it with instructions to consider them in light of the holding in Bruen. I think the 9th could easily have handeld them as a trial de novo, but iinstead they were remanded to their respective trial courts. Anything to delay and delay and delay.

So, as a former attorney, if one of your cases was remanded to the appeals court based on a completely different analytical model, you would have wanted the appellate to take the case de novo before any lower courts had assessed and developed case law under the new structure?

That would have allowed the appellate to define the parameters of the new structure without your lawyering input. I don?t care what the card game is, but when someone else is dealing, I always want to cut the deck. (My preference is to stack the deck, but that?s not always possible).

[Mongo68]

They do NOT run a background check on you if you present your COE/03FFL when you are purchasing ammo.
They check that your COE/03FFL are valid and then they log the ammo out to you.
It's $1 to check your COE and enter the ammo you are purchasing to complete the ammo transfer.

Some places dont accept the COE/ FFL03 and require the "background check". I try to never buy from them anymore on principle, but sometimes I have to...

[darkwater34]

Been doing some research, and found a lot of the preexisting laws that the defendants are using to defend their case predate the founders and probably why the Constitution of the United States was written and the BILL of RIGHTS was adopted to protect the rights of the people to bear arms. Then you have the laws based upon the race of people and slaves and even freed slaves that are deemed today to be unconstitutional. There is one law written in 1868 I believe that might hold water but even with the THT that one fails because it was written almost a hundred years after the founders. It is a law that bars 16 year Olds and mental ill people to their rights to the Second Amendment. So the defendants don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to there laws and regulations based on there current historical findings. But unless that they can prove every firearm owner is not loyal to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and has never pledged themselves to the flag, they may have something that they could use to strip firearms rights away. I have from pre-K12 to K12 every single morning before class Pledged Alegence to the Flag of the United States of America.. Probably everyone in America as well 2A people as well as the Anti 2A people. It would be a hard case for the defendants to prove and there is no blanket law that they could impose that is not already on the books. And it would require a case by case trial to prove each American Firearm Owner to be treasonous, but on the other hand it would be really super easy for the plaintiffs to find the defendants guilty of being treasonous. By the way when required I still pledge alegence to the flag and stand for the National Anthem whenever I hear it. And I fly OLD GLORY in my front yard and will do so until I leave this world.

I am 2A and Proud

[7.62mm_fmj]

There is one law written in 1868 I believe that might hold water but even with the THT that one fails because it was written almost a hundred years after the founders. It is a law that bars 16 year Olds and mental ill people to their rights to the Second Amendment. So the defendants don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to there laws and regulations based on there current historical findings.

If it's just one law, I would think that would be an "outlier".

Further, just because a law existed, I wouldn't think that would establish an enduring tradition of regulation.

[AlmostHeaven]

Been doing some research, and found a lot of the preexisting laws that the defendants are using to defend their case predate the founders and probably why the Constitution of the United States was written and the BILL of RIGHTS was adopted to protect the rights of the people to bear arms. Then you have the laws based upon the race of people and slaves and even freed slaves that are deemed today to be unconstitutional. There is one law written in 1868 I believe that might hold water but even with the THT that one fails because it was written almost a hundred years after the founders. It is a law that bars 16 year Olds and mental ill people to their rights to the Second Amendment. So the defendants don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to there laws and regulations based on there current historical findings. But unless that they can prove every firearm owner is not loyal to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and has never pledged themselves to the flag, they may have something that they could use to strip firearms rights away. I have from pre-K12 to K12 every single morning before class Pledged Alegence to the Flag of the United States of America.. Probably everyone in America as well 2A people as well as the Anti 2A people. It would be a hard case for the defendants to prove and there is no blanket law that they could impose that is not already on the books. And it would require a case by case trial to prove each American Firearm Owner to be treasonous, but on the other hand it would be really super easy for the plaintiffs to find the defendants guilty of being treasonous. By the way when required I still pledge alegence to the flag and stand for the National Anthem whenever I hear it. And I fly OLD GLORY in my front yard and will do so until I leave this world.

The only regulations that the loyalty test historical analogues justify would be requiring the signing of a sworn statement pledging loyalty to the United States of America upon any firearm purchase or license issuance.

The loyalty test laws serve as historical analogues to none of the wildly expansive modern gun control statutes that liberal states have enacted and now defend in court.