Add GrabAGun as well.
Unconfigured Ad Widget
Collapse
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rhode v. Becerra (Challenge to CA Ammo Sales) - ORAL ARGS at 9th 11-9-2020
Collapse
X
-
I sent someone a comparison, some pistol ammo at a big chain with stores up and down CA (and elsewhere), vs. the same ammo at an online retailer. Big CA LGS chain was 150% of the online retailer's price.iTrader under old CalGunsComment
-
It'll be interesting to see how this impacts local prices. So many online retailers ship free over $200 or so. At a certain point, sticker price at brick and mortar CA will have to be lower than online retailers to account for sales and excise taxes, otherwise it won't make sense.Comment
-
Originally posted by thethreegs
Local places are completely panicking. This will completely destroy their ability to be competitive. If you buy locally, you will be charged 11% on top. It's already hard enough competing with online retailers as is, this will be the nail in the coffin. A lot of local places DO NOT want this law to fall as it will jeopardise their business.
Trying to explain to them that the economics of it would hurt their bottom line by reducing sales, a few were smug to rebuttal with 'where else are customers going to go - it's not like they can just buy guns and ammo anywhere, especially since they can't get those things elsewhere'. Well, I've certainly bought a lot less firearms and ammo direct from retail-dealers within CA since the 11% Anti-2nd Amendment Spite Tax kicked in.
And since the 11% went into affect, it's surprising there has been no organized formation of a group of retailers among them to take up fighting this law as they should be. They must be completely daft to not realize this 11% is undercutting them by reducing sales, will get worse, and will certainly have an impact if the reversal of requiring ammo background checks stays with us longer than the time it takes to get an en banc that would kill it ( or possibly longer if the law is deemed unenforceable while the State seeks their appeal to put it back in place ).
Some retailers were certainly going all out to fight it, but just a scant few, certainly not a majority - so I have no empathy now for those that blew it off. We tried to help them, they ignored our plea on their behalf.
--------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LibrarianWhat compelling interest has any level of government in knowing what guns are owned by civilians? (Those owned by government should be inventoried and tracked, for exactly the same reasons computers and desks and chairs are tracked: responsible care of public property.)
If some level of government had that information, what would they do with it? How would having that info benefit public safety? How would it benefit law enforcement?Comment
-
Same thing at a gun range I went to this morning. They stopped running background checks on ammo purchases, but they still have to charge the 11% excise tax.Anchors Aweigh
sigpicComment
-
-
July 29, 2025 SUBJECT: Ammunition Purchase Laws Are Still in Effect—Rhode, et al. v. Bonta, No. 24-542 (9th Circuit) This is an update to the bulletin distributed on February 5, 2024, entitled, “Ammunition Purchase Laws Are Immediately Back in Effect – Stay of Injunction in Rhode, et al. v. Bonta, Case No. 3:18-cv-00802-BEN-JLB.” On July 24, 2025, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals—in Rhode v. Bonta, Case No. 24-542—issued its opinion finding that California's ammunition background check regime is unconstitutional and affirmed the district court's grant of a permanent injunction. However, before that opinion and permanent injunction may take effect, there are a number of procedural steps that must take place, including that the Ninth Circuit must issue its mandate, which would render the decision final and transfer jurisdiction back to the district court. Currently, none of those procedural steps have been taken. Accordingly, California's background check requirements for ammunition purchases currently remain in effect and should continue to be followed by dealers/sellers until further notice. On July 24, there was a major win for gun owners in California when Rhode v. Bonta overturned the state’s background check requirement for ammunition purchases. This is a significant development, and we understand the excitement it brings to many of our customers. That said, Miwall is still awaiting further clarification on the specific nuances and scope of the ruling before we resume ammunition sales to California. While the background check requirement has been overturned, the 11% California Firearms Excise Tax (FET) remains in effect and continues to present compliance concerns. It’s important to note that this ruling does not impact the sale of reloading components, which remain fully available to our California customers. As a California-based company, we deeply value our California customer base. However, we are also more directly exposed to oversight from the California Department of Justice, which makes caution essential. For now, we are taking a careful approach while we assess the regulatory landscape, and we appreciate your patience as we navigate this evolving situation. We will keep you informed with any updates as they become available. — The Miwall Team
As confirmed by the order I started to place then cancelled.Comment
-
Got a case of 9mm and a case of 5.56 from TargetSports USAComment
-
Originally posted by thethreegs
Local places are completely panicking. This will completely destroy their ability to be competitive. If you buy locally, you will be charged 11% on top. It's already hard enough competing with online retailers as is, this will be the nail in the coffin. A lot of local places DO NOT want this law to fall as it will jeopardise their business.
If you can't buy online at super competitive prices, then there was ZERO incentive for local ammo sellers to even be remotely competitive, and thus made buying ammo in California the most expensive state.
Let the locals cry, I won't shed a single tear for them.Comment
-
Imo this was the worst effect of this stupid ammo law.
If you can't buy online at super competitive prices, then there was ZERO incentive for local ammo sellers to even be remotely competitive, and thus made buying ammo in California the most expensive state.
Let the locals cry, I won't shed a single tear for them.
I am not saying this law going away is a bad thing. I am saying, don't make the few businesses that feed your habit the bad guy. That is biting the hand that feeds you. You might not be crying now. But you will if they all start closing their doors. If the best if not only source of guns are used guns from private sellers those prices will skyrocket. Just look at the markup people put on "off roster" handguns. in other words, be nice to your local gun store. They are your friend. Not the enemy.Last edited by tacticalcity; 07-27-2025, 1:49 PM.👍 1Comment
-
And remember all the donkey dicks preaching about getting stopped at Ag check stations? The Fuddery was so thick you could have laid it down and walked across the river on it.
Some of these LGS were also refusing PPTs. Listen to them whine. You can hear it coming from their gash.Comment
-
TargetSportUsa would not let me order online without shipping to ffl. I called and they said they can ship anywhere except Los Angeles and to order with another shipping address. I did that and it worked. They are on the way.
Comment
-
I also ordered from Wild Horse Ammo and it is on the way according to the tracking#.
TargetSportUsa would not let me order online without shipping to ffl. I called and they said they can ship anywhere except Los Angeles and to order with another shipping address. I did that and it worked. They are on the way.
Comment
Calguns.net Statistics
Collapse
Topics: 1,853,899
Posts: 24,989,185
Members: 353,086
Active Members: 6,328
Welcome to our newest member, kylejimenez932.
What's Going On
Collapse
There are currently 5345 users online. 162 members and 5183 guests.
Most users ever online was 65,177 at 7:20 PM on 09-21-2024.
Comment