Jump to content
FXDX

Judge tosses California ammunition purchase law

Recommended Posts

(if this has been posted please delete)

A federal judge on Thursday blocked a California law requiring background checks for people buying ammunition, issuing a sharply worded rebuke of “onerous and convoluted” regulations that violate the constitutional right to bear arms.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/california/story/2020-04-23/judge-tosses-california-ammunition-purchase-law

 

  • Like 5
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, father-of-three said:

Will this decision block New Jersey's similar bill, or will they push it forward until a judge (hopefully) blocks their specific law?

Push it now now and let the judges block it if they will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FXDX said:

A federal judge on Thursday blocked a California law requiring background checks for people buying ammunition, issuing a sharply worded rebuke of “onerous and convoluted” regulations that violate the constitutional right to bear arms.

That is FanfrigginTastic!!!

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't set any precedent. It is only a trial court opinion and only on a preliminary injunction-case continues in the trial court in California. Even if it is appealed, the 9th Cir opinion and or eventual En Banc Opinion, (perhaps in 2022 or 2023) has no binding impact in N.J., and if it eventually gets to the U. S. Supreme Court and cert is granted, you are looking at 2025 at the earliest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Understood this is just a CA verdict and there is NO bearing on NJ but I know somewhere some Pro2A NJ group is looking at this and are pleased. Any/all good news is welcomed here. What I do know is some online retailers are giving CA preference and  I hope they clean out all the online dealers

CA.thumb.JPG.531e179fb1cc308c4fe5f0b49451aaf8.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://reason.com/2020/04/24/preliminary-injunction-against-dysfunctional-california-ammunition-background-checks/

it looks like the judge is ok with background checks and databases just not what CA created

Quote

If the state objective is to make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for its law-abiding citizens to purchase protected ammunition, then this law appears to be well-drafted.  However, if the genuine object is to keep ammunition out of the hands of those who should not be able to buy it, perhaps the State could create a database (that would include persons prohibited, i.e., aliens unlawfully present, felons, and others) and simply make that information available to sellers by cross-checking with the magnetic strip on a standard driver's license and by allowing out-of-state vendors the same ability to engage in commerce as it does California vendors.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WP22 said:

https://reason.com/2020/04/24/preliminary-injunction-against-dysfunctional-california-ammunition-background-checks/

it looks like the judge is ok with background checks and databases just not what CA created

 

 

Well, at least he’s agreeing to a database of prohibited persons not a database of allowed persons. That’s a huge difference.

-Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

Can’t find the link but I believe the 9th circus stayed the injunction already. Ammo-week for CA didn’t even last a day. 

I can’t find that. I did find the motion by the state to stay was denied 

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/breaking-judge-benitez-denies-californias-motion-to-stay-his-injunction-in-ammo-background-check-case/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zeke said:

I could only find the Facebook link someone posted to reddit

https://m.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1078921195820834&id=100011088912909

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Late Friday night (9:46pm), the following order came out from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, granting a temporary stay on the injunction issued on Thursday, April 24, in the NRA funded case of Rhode v. Becerra. This means that the same restrictions that have been previously in effect regarding ammunition in California are back for the time being, pending further order from the court. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So all those UPS shipments of ammo that went out during the day Friday are on their way to individuals in CA.

What happens to them? Returned to sender? UPS is not a law enforcement agency.

I hope the CA guys get their ammo and fire for effect when the time comes. And I think it's sooner rather than later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shepherd9 said:

Yep. Original judge denied the stay but then they went to 9th.  So the 9th circuit strikes again. 

The 9th reacted as fast as I’ve ever seen a court move. Didn’t the judge deny the stay on Friday afternoon and the circuit court was able to convene and issue orders at 10pm on f’n Friday. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

The 9th reacted as fast as I’ve ever seen a court move. Didn’t the judge deny the stay on Friday afternoon and the circuit court was able to convene and issue orders at 10pm on f’n Friday. 

Seriously, it took just hours to reverse and oppress the people.  But it takes months or years for the people to potentially get their basic rights back.

  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, voyager9 said:

The 9th reacted as fast as I’ve ever seen a court move. Didn’t the judge deny the stay on Friday afternoon and the circuit court was able to convene and issue orders at 10pm on f’n Friday. 

I could be wrong, but these temporary orders only require a single judge to make a ruling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...