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

[chris]

I think we can all agree that the ultimate goal is to win Rhode v. Bonta and render moot this entire discussion about COEs, $1 fees, and the ineptitude of store clerks.

Let this post mark the resumption of the main thread topic.

Agreed. I want the goal to be a win in this case.

[darkwater34]

IThe gun haters wouldn't be so eager to take people's firearms away if they knew. Just how vulnerable disarmed people are. Just wait till then home gets broken into and they are bleeding out on the floor while the theifs take what ever they want after they had their way with your wife and daughter. The police never show up u till after the fact with yellow tape , chalk and evidence markers. Case either get solved within the first forty eight hours or ends up on a shelf and goes cold.

[AlmostHeaven]

IThe gun haters wouldn't be so eager to take people's firearms away if they knew. Just how vulnerable disarmed people are. Just wait till then home gets broken into and they are bleeding out on the floor while the theifs take what ever they want after they had their way with your wife and daughter. The police never show up u till after the fact with yellow tape , chalk and evidence markers. Case either get solved within the first forty eight hours or ends up on a shelf and goes cold.

Liberals mask their faces, plug their ears, and blindfold their eyes.

What makes you think the people who vote to simultaneously ban guns, defund the police, and release violent criminals back into the public under the guise of criminal justice, think for even one millisecond about their personal safety?

Anti-gun progressives, who qualify more as sheep than humans, feel more fear at the thought of conservatives refusing to use their preferred pronouns and preventing children from undergoing gender-affirming surgery, than at the thought of being caught unarmed during a violent attack.

[rplaw]

Because they are checking the status of a COE number, not a person.
They are not running a person through a list of prohibited person's lists like an actual background check.
They are running a COE number through a list of acceptable COE numbers to be sure it's acceptable.

They are not checking for guilty.
They are checking for innocence.

Again, this is semantics. A check is a check is a check. It doesn't matter if they're checking the prior verification or doing a completely new BG check, it's still a check to determine if someone is eligible to purchase ammo.

Which by the way is a check to determine if the State will allow you to exercise your Rights. Which converts those Rights into nothing more than a privilege subject to permission by the State.

What's worse is that under your viewpoint, the check is to prove innocence rather than that burden being on the State to prove guilt of an alleged offense after the offense is committed. Buying ammo is not illegal. Being required to prove that you're allowed to buy ammo goes against the way our system works. Being okay with vendors being required to do that is 1 step past the edge of the cliff.

And then there's the reality that even bad guys have the right to defend their families and children. Where in our world is the power for the State to determine that certain individuals cannot purchase ammo for lawful purposes? Because they "might" commit a crime with it? Have we gone so Orwellian that we are okay with the "thought police" now?

What the ammo check law does is convert everyone into "potential criminals" who must prove their innocence or be considered guilty of a crime. A crime which isn't a crime at all or even being alleged by the State against them.

And you're ok with it because they're "not really checking."

[ar15barrels]

Again, this is semantics. A check is a check is a check. It doesn't matter if they're checking the prior verification or doing a completely new BG check, it's still a check to determine if someone is eligible to purchase ammo.

Which by the way is a check to determine if the State will allow you to exercise your Rights. Which converts those Rights into nothing more than a privilege subject to permission by the State.

What's worse is that under your viewpoint, the check is to prove innocence rather than that burden being on the State to prove guilt of an alleged offense after the offense is committed. Buying ammo is not illegal. Being required to prove that you're allowed to buy ammo goes against the way our system works. Being okay with vendors being required to do that is 1 step past the edge of the cliff.

And then there's the reality that even bad guys have the right to defend their families and children. Where in our world is the power for the State to determine that certain individuals cannot purchase ammo for lawful purposes? Because they "might" commit a crime with it? Have we gone so Orwellian that we are okay with the "thought police" now?

What the ammo check law does is convert everyone into "potential criminals" who must prove their innocence or be considered guilty of a crime. A crime which isn't a crime at all or even being alleged by the State against them.

And you're ok with it because they're "not really checking."

I never said I was ok with it.
I reload most of my ammo and only buy rimfire and occasionaly shotshells or other factory ammo when I can't source brass to load my own.
And even when I do buy ammo, I buy most of my ammo out of state where none of this matters.

[abinsinia]

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Preliminary Injunction Hearing held on 7/17/2023, before Judge Roger T. Benitez. Court Reporter/Transcriber Juliet Y. Eichenlaub. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER or the Court Reporter/Transcriber. If redaction is necessary, parties have seven calendar days from the file date of the Transcript to E-File the Notice of Intent to Request Redaction. The following deadlines would also apply if requesting redaction: Redaction Request Statement due to Court Reporter/Transcriber 8/15/2023. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/25/2023. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/23/2023. (jye) (Entered: 07/25/2023)

Looks like the transcripts of the hearing are on sale now.

[SpudmanWP]

Looks like the transcripts of the hearing are on sale now.

Too bad Court Listener never shows transcripts.

[abinsinia]

Too bad Court Listener never shows transcripts.

It does , but not till some times after (60 days?) the transcripts are posted for sale.

[darkwater34]

I agree

Liberals mask their faces, plug their ears, and blindfold their eyes.

What makes you think the people who vote to simultaneously ban guns, defund the police, and release violent criminals back into the public under the guise of criminal justice, think for even one millisecond about their personal safety?

Anti-gun progressives, who qualify more as sheep than humans, feel more fear at the thought of conservatives refusing to use their preferred pronouns and preventing children from undergoing gender-affirming surgery, than at the thought of being caught unarmed during a violent attack.

Better to have than have not.

[Sgt Raven]

Being okay with vendors being required to do that is 1 step past the edge of the cliff.

And you're ok with it because they're "not really checking."

Where has anyone here said they are OK with any of it?
Stop trying to put words in other peoples' mouths...

[Chewy65]

Looks like the transcripts of the hearing are on sale now.

I have a Pacer account and got a message that I didn't have access to the transcript. Apparntly I can't get it from pacer until before the deadline for pubic release of transcript.

[Chewy65]

Looks like the transcripts of the hearing are on sale now.

I have a Pacer account and got a message that I didn't have access to the transcript.

[abinsinia]

I have a Pacer account and got a message that I didn't have access to the transcript. Apparntly I can't get it from pacer until before the deadline for pubic release of transcript.

You have to go to the court house, or file a special request to get them prior to the public release.

[ar15barrels]

I have a Pacer account and got a message that I didn't have access to the transcript. Apparntly I can't get it from pacer until before the deadline for pubic release of transcript.

Probably because of the redacting stuff that's pending.
I would bet that only the people who are direct parties to the case can get it until any redacting is done.

[Chewy65]

Probably because of the redacting stuff that's pending.
I would bet that only the people who are direct parties to the case can get it until any redacting is done.

Yep. It's to permit the attorneys and the Judges to clean up (redact) a few choice words that escape their mouths. Rewrite history.