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

[Sgt Raven]

They have not deposed anyone so far so why start now.
They want this over with just as much as Benitez

OK, we know the State will probably use all their 30 days to file their brief. If the plaintiffs decide not to depose and file their responses before the 30 day period ends. Does that speed up the process for the Court? Or does the 30 day reply period still have to run its course?

[7.62mm_fmj]

Earlier it was noted Judge Benitez sounded OK with having an ammunition purchasing card that renews every 5 years or so.

Would that seem to mean online ammo purchases will still be off limits if the State goes back to the original Prop 63 scheme?

[eaglemike]

Earlier it was noted Judge Benitez sounded OK with having an ammunition purchasing card that renews every 5 years or so.

Would that seem to mean online ammo purchases will still be off limits if the State goes back to the original Prop 63 scheme?

His conclusion was that Prop 63 was repealed and replaced. If the current law is found to be unconstitutional, it goes away. At least that's how I heard it. It was fairly late during the hearing, within the last 10 minutes. We'll know how it was worded when the record is released.
There was some discussion about the mail order/bring back situation. I'm pretty sure that will be taken into consideration.
The state's position is a loser. It's just going to be a major pain for the judge to write a bullet-proof decision. He'll do his best to make it difficult for the 9th to stay/reverse. Maybe we'll get lucky and it will get past the 9th, but I don't think anyone is betting that way.

[ProfChaos]

I dont know if this is worth emailing (kmoros@michellawyers.com), but every time there is ammunition shortages and they limit you to say 5 boxes total, you have to then pay $1 every time. This quickly adds up as being new to gun ownership in 2021 (I know), buying 5 boxes here then 5 there trying to get enough to go to the range to practice.

Yes, I did pay $80 "membership" to a local FFL to buy bulk ammo online as they waived their normal transfer fee for a year.

[Usual_Suspect]

Where does the average gun owner buy ammo? At the gun store. I tell all my customers how to do that and if they don't want to and are buying a new gun anyway or even a PPT, they don't need to go into CFARS because the new DROS fixes all those problems.

You have to hope when you need ammo, they have what you are looking for in stock. If they don't, you have to wait, and wait.

[Drivedabizness]

Funny thing on the ammo background checks is that after the state changed it so every ammo transaction had to get an NICS check, the FBI told CA that they will not allow CA to use NICS for ammo background checks and that CA state had to do their own checks.

I believe what the state is now doing is using an OLD NICS check (from a previous firearm DROS) as the evidence that the buyer has completed an NICS check per the state's requirements since the FBI won't run real-time NICS checks for CA state for ammo.

That's WHY you have to submit all your information that exactly matches a previous firearm DROS in order for the computer to find that previous NICS check that is "on file" in whatever database they are querying.

CA has ALWAYS refused to use NICS (and yes the Feds didn't really want CA to use it - because they'd have had to really up their networking & compute power while dealing with CA's 50% data error rate - but if CA wanted to, they would have had to let them).

But don't forget this - CA has its own system because it WANTS a Rube Goldberg, onerous platform that requires maximum human intervention and chills commerce in arms by making you wait 10 whole days to take delivery. They're hoping to wipe out the culture & tradition of gun ownership by limiting what guns you can get (they've even said in Court, many times, that access to even one model of gun is all they have to do to comply with the 2A), limiting how many you can acquire at one time, making ammo expensive and hard to come by, and not letting you carry outside the home.

[Drivedabizness]

That caught my eye in the order as well. All of a sudden there's going to be a huge uptick in APPS related enforcement.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

DOJ (by my last count) had awarded APPS grants to 11 Counties for $11 million. Ventura used theirs to purchase an analytics system to prioritize by level of offense and geography, so they could focus on the true "bad guys" and have sweeps that got as many guns as possible. They also incorporate adjudications from the Superior Court, instead of waiting for DOJ to add people to the list (DOJ still sends out monthly Excel spreadsheets of "prohibited persons". People fall off the list all the time - with no explanation).
No other County has used theirs to achieve efficiencies. Most took the $$$ and spent it on OT. The combined figures for the backlog of "bad guns" never really goes down.
Part of what this shows you is DOJ is just fine with harassing people (50% of those contacted are the wrong person or never owned the gun they think they did). Again, it's all about chilling the right.

[Bhobbs]

They have not deposed anyone so far so why start now.
They want this over with just as much as Benitez

Benitez adding nearly 3 months doesn't seem like he wants this over. I don't really care if the plaintiffs use it or not. The state had plenty of time to find laws. This is just a stall tactic and Benitez decided to stall more.

[SpudmanWP]

Benitez adding nearly 3 months doesn't seem like he wants this over. I don't really care if the plaintiffs use it or not. The state had plenty of time to find laws. This is just a stall tactic and Benitez decided to stall more.

He did not add ~3 months for S&G.
He set the timelines based on court standards.
Again, he's doing it this way to remove any legitimate appeal on procedural grounds.

btw, he said several times in the hearing that he wants it done. Here is a quote from eaglemike

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.

[Bhobbs]

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

[menancyandsam]

Case page updated with Judge's order.



--edit for formatting

So if interest balancing is defunct, why gage how well the law is working. Don't we stop as THT around 1791 or maybe 1868 era.

[SpudmanWP]

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

His ultimate goal is to do it correctly and Constitutionally. Quick = sloppy

So if interest balancing is defunct, why gage how well the law is working. Don't we stop as THT around 1791 or maybe 1868 era.

His questions about how it's being enforced was a trap to show that the purpose was not law enforcement, but to chill people lawfully buying ammo.

[AlmostHeaven]

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

Judge Benitez is following proper procedures and acting in accordance with the position he has.

Demanding that he fast-tracks lightning decisions, bypassing all ordinary checkpoints, the way progressive activist judges do for their pet issues, is unrealistic, because Judge Benitez is not a gun rights activist who holds an ideological goal of rocketing Second Amendment litigation up to the Supreme Court.

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.

[JiuJitsu]

I?m with Spudman on this one. I think Benitez is trying to do this as fairly and thoroughly as he can to ensure he seals up any procedural holes or potential ways the state and the 9th can cry foul to overturn. The more carefully he does all this and takes his time to get it nice and tight, the less wiggle room anyone will have to reverse upon appeal. If they try it will look pretty damn obvious that they egregiously went against all the text, history and tradition that is in the record. And that gets attention from above.

[Bhobbs]

His ultimate goal is to do it correctly and Constitutionally. Quick = sloppy



His questions about how it's being enforced was a trap to show that the purpose was not law enforcement, but to chill people lawfully buying ammo.

This case has been flailing for years. There?s nothing quick about this.