PI hearing was held on 7/17 and 75 days could pass before Judge Benitez can make a ruling on the case (30 + 15 + 30) which will put us sometime in October 2023. (I guess we will sit down and wait some more ...)
Wheels of justice turn slowly, but they surely turn.
Update to
Rhode v Bonta (CA ammunition ban) -
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ition-restriction.907903/page-2#post-12688362
Judge Benitez struck down CA ammunition ban -
https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2024-01-31-Decision.pdf
INTRODUCTION
In 2016, California voters approved a statewide ballot measure known as Proposition 63 ... created a background check system for the purchasing of ammunition ... gun owners would apply for an ammunition purchase permit ... cost $50 and it would be good for four years.
However ... state legislature enacted Senate Bill 1235 ... “prospectively amended” aspects of Proposition 63 ... Instead of creating a system using an ammunition purchase permit that was valid for four years, Senate Bill 1235 requires residents to submit to an automated background check every time they need to buy ammunition ... It is Senate Bill 1235’s requirement of a background check for every purchase that is challenged here ... Why the legislature eliminated the voter-approved 4-year permit system in favor of an every purchase background check scheme is not apparent.
... In earlier proceedings, this Court found the background check and anti-importation provisions likely violate both the Second Amendment and the dormant Commerce Clause and entered a preliminary injunction. (Page 4)
Plaintiffs claim the ammunition background check laws are invalid for three main reasons. First, the ammunition background check scheme violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Second, the anti-importation aspect of the ammunition laws violates the Article 1, §8, clause 3 of the Constitution, known as the dormant Commerce Clause. Third, the anti-importation provision for individuals is preempted by 18 U.S.C. § 926A. This Court agrees. (Page 7)
In Bruen, the Supreme Court rejected the old approach of using different levels of scrutiny ... Applying Bruen’s new lesson, this Court’s conclusion remains the same: the California ammunition background check laws violate a citizen’s right to bear arms (Pages 7-8)
Whatever firearm regulations may be thought of as presumptively lawful under Heller, ammunition regulations are not among them. This is not a question of first impression. It was already decided in Jackson. Jackson said unambiguously that, “Heller does not include ammunition regulations in the list of ‘presumptively lawful’regulations.” ... Because ammunition sale prohibitions and regulations are covered by the Second Amendment, the presumption is that such restrictions are infringements. The State may overcome the presumption, but it needs to do so as Bruen teaches. In other words, “the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” (“Accordingly, when the Second Amendment’s ‘plain text’ covers the regulated conduct, the government has only one way to defend the regulation—by proving that it is ‘consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.’”) (Page 11)
Guns made without serial numbers, or “ghost guns” as the government refers tothem, have been in existence throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. (“A firearm without a serial number in 1791 was certainly not considered dangerous or unusual compared to other firearms because serial numbers were not required or even commonly used at that time.”). Until the mid-twentieth century, the requirement of a serial number on a firearm was unknown. “Serial numbers were not broadly required for all firearms manufactured and imported in the United States until the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968.” (Page 21)
Today, it makes little sense to argue that disarmament laws targeting non-citizens who were not entitled to constitutional protections now justify placing similar modern restrictions on citizens who do enjoy constitutional rights. (Page 25)
In the end, the State has failed to carry its burden to demonstrate that the ammunition background check laws “are consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” as required by Bruen ... Therefore, California’s ammunition background check system laws are unconstitutional and shall not be enforced. (Page 26)
CONCLUSION
The ammunition background checks laws have no historical pedigree and operate in such a way that they violate the Second Amendment right of citizens to keep and bear arms. The anti-importation components violate the dormant Commerce Clause and to the extent applicable to individuals travelling into California are preempted by 18 U.S.C. §926A. Perhaps the simpler, 4-year and $50 ammunition purchase permit approved by the voters in Proposition 63, would have fared better.
Accordingly, the Court permanently enjoins the State of California from enforcing the ammunition sales background check provisions found in California Penal Code §§30352 and 30370(a) through (e), and the ammunition anti-importation provisions found in §§30312(a) and (b) and 30314(a). Criminal enforcement of California Penal Code §§30312(d), 30314(c), and 30365(a) by the Attorney General and all other law enforcement defendants is permanently enjoined.
Judgement -
https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2024-01-31-Judgment.pdf
Decision by Court.
This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta, and his officers, agents, servants,employees, and attorneys,and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order or know of the existence of this injunction order, are enjoined from implementing or enforcing the ammunition sales background check provisions found in California Penal Code§§ 30352 and 30370(a) through (e), and the ammunition anti-importation provisions found in §§ 30312(a) and (b) and 30314(a), as well as the criminal enforcement of California Penal Code §§ 30312(d), 30314(c), and 30365(a). Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta shall provide forthwith, by personal service or otherwise, actual notice of this order to all law enforcement personnel who are responsible for implementing or enforcing the enjoined statutes. Case is closed.
Order denying request for stay -
https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2024-01-31-Order-Denying-Request-to-Stay.pdf
Defendant requests a stay of this Court’s Decision and permanent injunction pending appeal, or in the alternative, a 10-day administrative stay. The Defendant says that, “if the Decision is allowed to stay in effect, it would irrevocably alter the status quo by enjoining enforcement of laws that have been in effect for over four years; allowing prohibited California residents to acquire ammunition during the appeal; and jeopardizing public safety.”
... While there is the possibility that prohibited California residents will be able to acquire ammunition without a stay,
there continues to exist criminal laws against the possession of ammunition by prohibited persons under both state and federal law. This Court’s decision in no way affects those laws and the Defendant is free to continue to enforce the same.
... This Court has given the State plenty of opportunity and time to provide analogues or other evidence to demonstrate the validity of its ammunition background check laws. The Decision simply requires a return to the status quo ante litem as it existed prior to the effective dates of SB1235 and Proposition 63. Having considered the relevant factors, and for many of the same reasons articulated in this Court’s Order denying a stay of the preliminary injunction order (filed Apr. 24, 2020, Dkt. 62), the request for a stay pending appeal and an administrative stay is denied.
Ex FPC attorney discuss today's ruling
Huge news out of California! California's ammunition law was just struck down!1stPhorm: www.1stPhorm.com/armedscholar🎥 Follow Me On Other Social Media 🎥Ins...
www.youtube.com
