The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 23, 2020, 06:56 PM   #1
AmmunitionDepot
Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2018
Posts: 46
California restrictions for purchasing ammunition online have been temporarily suspended!

"The experiment has been tried. The casualties have been counted. California’s new ammunition background check law misfires and the Second Amendment rights of California citizens have been gravely injured." - Roger T. Benitez United States District Judge

Check out the full press release here: https://www.ammunitiondepot.com/welc...ck-california#

Last edited by Frank Ettin; April 23, 2020 at 08:53 PM. Reason: Delete business promotion material
AmmunitionDepot is offline  
Old April 24, 2020, 12:08 AM   #2
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
The order may be read here.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old April 24, 2020, 06:20 AM   #3
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
Thanks ammunitiondepot , I'm sure you were told a few days ago like we were this was about to happen ? It was hard to stay quite until the order was given .

By the way I went onto your website to buy some ammo but all I could see for sale were cases of ammo . Do you only sell in bulk or can I buy individual boxes of ammo . I want the vendors that were in the law suite to get my money first . I already tried the others but it appears there system does not allow for shipping to residents yet only FFL right now .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old April 24, 2020, 07:05 AM   #4
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,869
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.
IMHO, Judge Benitez was remarkably brutal in slapping down California's "experiment"
mehavey is offline  
Old April 24, 2020, 02:02 PM   #5
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
not living there, so not having a dog directly in the fight I wonder, what. if anything, prevents the CA gov from "judge shopping" until they find one who will overrule this one so the gov gets their way, again??
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old April 24, 2020, 04:51 PM   #6
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
Quote:
I wonder, what. if anything, prevents the CA gov from "judge shopping" until they find one who will overrule this one so the gov gets their way, again??
__________________
That’s what we did , this judge was not the original judge for the case . This case falls closely under other Second Amendment cases he is hearing right now . I think he’s hearing three of them right now , one of those is the 30 round magazine restriction . This is the judge that gave California what we now call freedom week . California citizens had seven days to order and or buy magazines that held more than 10 rounds because he ordered a preliminary injunction in that case . The state started to freak out when they heard the numbers of 30 round magazine’s being bought ( I personally bought "standard" cap mags for every firearm I own during that week ) and coming into the State and ask for an emergency stay which he granted .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .

Last edited by Metal god; April 24, 2020 at 09:51 PM.
Metal god is offline  
Old April 24, 2020, 06:41 PM   #7
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
The state ask for a stay and it has been denied and the state has already appealed to the 9th circuit I believe there's already a case number at the 9th for it . Wow this stuff sure moves fast when it's against us . I wonder if are side was asking for all this , how fast it would be moving ???
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .

Last edited by Metal god; April 25, 2020 at 03:07 AM.
Metal god is offline  
Old April 24, 2020, 08:48 PM   #8
SHR970
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2011
Posts: 1,427
Now the question is who does it get assigned to? Three years ago that question barely mattered as the uberlibs had a +11 advantage. These days they are only +3.
SHR970 is offline  
Old April 25, 2020, 03:08 AM   #9
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
Did I hear right , The ninth circuit has already stayed the order ?????
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old April 25, 2020, 08:42 AM   #10
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,869
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/br...judge-benitez-DENIES-californias-motion-to-stay-his-injunction-in-ammo-background-check-case/
>
> Benitez was not persuaded. He said he did not think the state would win
> an appeal and said the focus on prohibited people buying ammunition
> was misplaced.
>

No word on 9th
mehavey is offline  
Old April 25, 2020, 08:52 AM   #11
LeverGunFan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 405
The Ninth Circuit has issued a stay => link
__________________
Support the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition
LeverGunFan is offline  
Old April 25, 2020, 11:35 AM   #12
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,604
Wasn't Freedom Day great?

It didn't do me any good, because when I tried to order ammo online during Freedom Day, it turned out that my county had enacted a similar law. So even though the state law was ruled unconstitutional, the county law wasn't subject to the injunction. So I didn't get any ammo.
__________________
Time Travelers' Wisdom:
Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow.
If At Last You Do Succeed, Never Try Again.
natman is offline  
Old April 25, 2020, 01:46 PM   #13
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
https://dl.airtable.com/.attachments...tiontoStay.pdf

Quote:
(3) Why the Motion Could Not Have Been Filed Earlier (9th Cir. R. 27-3(c)(iii)):
The preliminary injunction was issued on April 23, 2020. The Attorney
General this emergency motion on April 24, 2020. I notified the Ninth Circuit
court staff by voicemail and e-mail prior to filing this emergency motion.
This is from the states appeal for the stay . Is it normal for plaintiffs or defendants to contact the court before any official paperwork is filed ? This sounds like collusion to me ? Am I right in thinking the AG contacted the 9th through unofficial channels ( meaning not recorded for the record ) and asked them to get ready for there appeal ? How do we know what was said and or asked for in the email or voicemail . Would that have been CC to all involved ?

Is this normal ? Would it have been excepted that Heller contacted SCOTUS before filing to give them a heads up so they could start preparing for something they had NO official documentation on . Maybe this ain't fishy but it sure smells fishy .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .

Last edited by Metal god; April 25, 2020 at 02:01 PM. Reason: added the part about parties being notified of the call and email to the court
Metal god is offline  
Old April 25, 2020, 01:56 PM   #14
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
Quote:
This is from the states appeal for the stay . Is it normal for plaintiffs or defendants to contact the court before any official paperwork is filed ? This sounds like collusion to me ? Am I right in thinking the AG contacted the 9th through unofficial channels ( meaning not recorded for the record ) and asked them to get ready for there appeal ?

Is this normal ? Would it have been excepted that Heller contacted SCOTUS before filing to give them a heads up so they could start preparing for something they had NO official documentation on . Maybe this ain't fishy but it sure smells fishy .
This type of thing is neither unusual nor unethical. There can be ex parte communication between an attorney and a judge on purely ministerial matters. Here, I bet the AG's office didn't contact the judge's' offices directly, but probably contacted the clerk's office to give the court a heads-up so they would be expecting an emergency motion.
KyJim is offline  
Old April 26, 2020, 08:04 AM   #15
ATN082268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
How often does anti-gun laws get put on hold until litigation is resolved?
ATN082268 is offline  
Old April 26, 2020, 10:56 AM   #16
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
Almost any time a court sides with our side . At least in CA it seems that way . The interesting part about the states “emergency” stay argument is it actual shows the opposite of what they are trying to say/claim . If all these crimnals or prohibited people were going to all of a sudden start buying ammo cus it’s leagal to do so now just like what happen with freedom week and the mags . Doesn’t that actually show the citizens are and have been following the law which by definition shows how much law abiding citizens are harmed by these laws .

Seriously do they realy think criminals were like YES I can finally get those bullets I needed . Better order a few thousand so I’ll have enough for my lifetime of crime .

I believe the judge showed 16% of law abiding citizens who should not be prohibited failed there back ground check and something like out of 650,000 checks they stopped “770” prohibited persons . So if my calculations are correct, over 100,000 law abiding citizens were deprived of there constitutional rights to stop 770 from breaking the law . Can someone name me another law that kind of ratio would be excepted ?

This is an EMERGENCY???? For like 200 years citizens of CA could buy ammo with out a background check . Now after less then a year of this law being in place , if they don’t keep it in place there’s going to be blood in streets ????? This whole thing stinks of something vile .

Last edited by Metal god; April 26, 2020 at 11:18 AM.
Metal god is offline  
Old April 29, 2020, 02:57 PM   #17
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,292
Quote:
if they don’t keep it in place there’s going to be blood in streets ????? This whole thing stinks of something vile.
It never ceases to amaze me how ridiculous the anti-gun folk can be.

I've told this story before (and undoubtedly will tell it again) but when Minnesota was in the process of getting concealed carry laws passed opponents of liberalizing the laws donned a big blue bomb disposal vest, with the high collar around the throat, before they spoke against the law railing that there would be "BLOOD IN THE STREETS!!" (maybe the anti-gun folk should trademark that phrase) and that we'd be turned into the Wild West and that they would NEVER patronize an establishment that DID NOT have the "Gun Free" signage out front. That was many years ago and SURPRISE, none of their predictions came true.
DaleA is offline  
Old May 1, 2020, 01:53 AM   #18
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
WE FILED A MOTION TO VACATE ADMINISTRATIVE STAY

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...tion-Order.pdf

A party “cannot suffer harm from an injunction that merely ends an unlawful practice or reads a statute as required to avoid constitutional concerns.”
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old May 1, 2020, 06:41 AM   #19
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
^^^ That's a pretty good brief (in my non-lawyer opinion).

:popcorn:
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old May 17, 2020, 01:01 AM   #20
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
Well we just lost in everything last week . The stay was granted and the states extension request was also granted . The saddest part appears the judge in San Diego and the judges granting the stay could not be further from each other as it pertains to the "facts" . The way the appeals court wrote there opinion as to why they granted it reads as if they didn't even read the judges opinion on why he granted it . It look like they just read the states request and said wow you're the state you must be right .

Order granting Prelim.-Injunction
https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...anting-MPI.pdf

Emergency motion to stay Prelim.-Injunction
https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...ing-Appeal.pdf

court granting stay on Prelim.-Injunction
https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...ing-Appeal.pdf

Quote:
Originally Posted by From link above
As the Supreme Court recognized in Heller,
Second Amendment rights are not unlimited. See District of Columbia v. Heller,
554 U.S. 570, 626-27 (2008)
Oh how I'm sick of them throwing that in are face . The SCOTUS needs to clarify that sentence . I think we all know that was included so to not undue the NFA and other such laws already on the books . It's the very reason the in common use was added as well . IMHO they go together , the judges were saying yes it's not unlimited but it's also time to stop writing more and more laws infringing on the right . If they're already doing it or have it , LEAVE THEM BE !
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old May 17, 2020, 09:01 AM   #21
buddyd157
Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2020
Location: New England
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP View Post
not living there, so not having a dog directly in the fight I wonder, what. if anything, prevents the CA gov from "judge shopping" until they find one who will overrule this one so the gov gets their way, again??
not too many of us might be living there, but some things out of California reach out to other states, such as the EPA stuff on our cars. i live in New England, and cars out here have CA emissions.
buddyd157 is offline  
Old May 17, 2020, 12:48 PM   #22
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,604
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

While these words do appear in Heller, it's become a fad to take them out of context and misinterpret "not unlimited" to mean "We can impose any limit we want.". That's not what SCOTUS said.

Let's take a look at what the Court DID say. All text in italics is contiguous on page 2, DC v Heller. Emphasis added.

United States v. Miller ... does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

Here the court clearly states that the right applies to weapons in common use for lawful purposes. In the very next line they then state the famous phrase:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:

They then go on to list four examples of the aforementioned limits. Note that EVERY SINGLE ONE of them is an EXISTING law that the court sees as being beyond the scope of Heller.

For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Nothing about the ability to ban guns or ammunition or any sort of open ended limits. Then to make sure that it's crystal clear what weapons the Second DOES protect, they repeat:

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

It's one thing for a civilian gun bigot to regurgitate the one line from Heller they read in the New York Times, but it's unforgivable for a judge to do it while conveniently ignoring the line before it and the lines after. That's a lot of ignoring. It's not merely quoting out of context. It's downright dishonesty.
__________________
Time Travelers' Wisdom:
Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow.
If At Last You Do Succeed, Never Try Again.
natman is offline  
Old August 14, 2020, 01:00 PM   #23
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
A 3-judge panel of the Ninth just upheld this decision, including finding bans on standard capacity magazines a violation of the Second Amendment.

https://dl.airtable.com/.attachments...rraOpinion.pdf
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old August 14, 2020, 02:11 PM   #24
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
Reason and The Volokh Conspiracy have a short summary of the above opinion. You know the state is going to ask for en banc review. If granted that means the Chief Judge and 10 judges drawn at random in the 9th Circuit.
KyJim is offline  
Old August 14, 2020, 02:27 PM   #25
SamNavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2011
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 433
Confirm? Does this decision immediately affect all states in the 9th, such as WA/OR/HI that all have capacity limits, or is there some other process to apply to all the states of the circuit?
SamNavy is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.11933 seconds with 8 queries