|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 23, 2020, 06:56 PM | #1 |
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#
__________________
http://www.AmmunitionDepot.com?utm_s...m_medium=forum Last edited by Frank Ettin; April 23, 2020 at 08:53 PM. Reason: Delete business promotion material |
April 24, 2020, 12:08 AM | #2 |
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 |
April 24, 2020, 06:20 AM | #3 |
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 . |
April 24, 2020, 07:05 AM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,869
|
Quote:
|
|
April 24, 2020, 02:02 PM | #5 |
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. |
April 24, 2020, 04:51 PM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
|
Quote:
__________________
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. |
|
April 24, 2020, 06:41 PM | #7 |
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. |
April 24, 2020, 08:48 PM | #8 |
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.
|
April 25, 2020, 03:08 AM | #9 |
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 . |
April 25, 2020, 08:42 AM | #10 |
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 |
April 25, 2020, 11:35 AM | #12 |
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. |
April 25, 2020, 01:46 PM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
|
https://dl.airtable.com/.attachments...tiontoStay.pdf
Quote:
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 |
|
April 25, 2020, 01:56 PM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
Quote:
|
|
April 26, 2020, 08:04 AM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
How often does anti-gun laws get put on hold until litigation is resolved?
|
April 26, 2020, 10:56 AM | #16 |
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. |
April 29, 2020, 02:57 PM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,292
|
Quote:
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. |
|
May 1, 2020, 01:53 AM | #18 |
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 . |
May 1, 2020, 06:41 AM | #19 |
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 |
May 17, 2020, 01:01 AM | #20 | |
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:
__________________
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 . |
|
May 17, 2020, 09:01 AM | #21 |
Member
Join Date: April 14, 2020
Location: New England
Posts: 40
|
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.
|
May 17, 2020, 12:48 PM | #22 |
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. |
August 14, 2020, 01:00 PM | #23 |
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 |
August 14, 2020, 02:11 PM | #24 |
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.
|
August 14, 2020, 02:27 PM | #25 |
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?
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|