California's Ammo background check struck down again

[Dudedog]

Looks like Judge Benitez ruled against the ammo background check again.

https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/24.01.31-Rhode-Decision.pdf

Of course the state will appeal and it will be back in the 9th circus.

It's been almost 5 years since it was put in place, maybe in another year or two it can be put in it's grave.
(of course then CA will come up with something else....)


Got to love Judge Benitez.

 

[.38 Special]

That's the essential trouble, though. Newsom et al can cook up a blatantly unconstitutional law in a matter of weeks, and then laugh up their sleeves while it takes a decade or two to be overturned.

 

[Johnm1]

Now I'm not sure if Judge Benitez's words will be used in the certain appeal, but these words are damming for the gun control crowd.

"The state’s ammunition background check regime turns that constitutional presumption the wrong way around. It treats all citizens as if they do not enjoy a right to buy ammunition. It forces Americans to entreat and supplicate the state for permission.
Only when the State is satisfied that a citizen has proven that they meet the qualifications
– only then – does the state issue its stamp of authorization. See Cal. Penal Code § 30352(d) (“[T]he ammunition vendor shall verify with the department, in a manner prescribed by the department, that the person is authorized to purchase ammunition.”). This is not the language of a right; this is the language of a government license or grant of a privilege."

 

[Spats McGee]

I’m pretty sure someone will end up quoting that. It’s good stuff.

 

[Johnm1]

I'm no soothsayer but I think it is safe to assume that California will both request a stay/injunction (?) and appeeal the case. Now Judge Benitez ruling makes a lot of sense. But is his ruling an 'Opinion' ? Judge Benitez dismissed all of the previous laws that California presented to support historical tradition as not applying. And in my opinion (yeah I know, my opinion doesn't mean anything) any right thinking person would have to agree with Judge Benitez. But couldn't the next court look at those same laws and say "They're a great match to show historical tradition"?

 

[Spats McGee]

I'm no soothsayer but I think it is safe to assume that California will both request a stay/injunction (?) and appeeal the case. Now Judge Benitez ruling makes a lot of sense. But is his ruling an 'Opinion' ? Judge Benitez dismissed all of the previous laws that California presented to support historical tradition as not applying. And in my opinion (yeah I know, my opinion doesn't mean anything) any right thinking person would have to agree with Judge Benitez. But couldn't the next court look at those same laws and say "They're a great match to show historical tradition"?

Yes, CA is almost certain to request a stay. They’ll scramble to any court that they think can help them for that.

And also, yes, another court could sure say that. That’s how we get “circuit splits,” which is one path to SCOTUS.

 

[ECVMatt]

There is another Californian Gold Rush going on right now. Online ammo sellers' servers are crashing and the ones that are working are selling out. I wonder how many millions of rounds have been sold in the last few hours?

I think Benitez denied the stay, setting up at least a few days of sales.

We will see.

In the meantime..

 

[LiveLife]

I think Benitez denied the stay

Yes, request for stay was denied - https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2024-01-31-Order-Denying-Request-to-Stay.pdf

 

[natman]

I'm no soothsayer but I think it is safe to assume that California will both request a stay/injunction (?) and appeeal the case. Now Judge Benitez ruling makes a lot of sense. But is his ruling an 'Opinion' ? Judge Benitez dismissed all of the previous laws that California presented to support historical tradition as not applying. And in my opinion (yeah I know, my opinion doesn't mean anything) any right thinking person would have to agree with Judge Benitez. But couldn't the next court look at those same laws and say "They're a great match to show historical tradition"?

They'd have to cite the historical tradition to do that. And there aren't any or California would have already cited them.

 

[Spats McGee]

They'd have to cite the historical tradition to do that. And there aren't any or California would have already cited them.

Not exactly. CA can cite the same laws and convince a different judge to side with them.

 

[rust collector]

A panel of the 9th circuit court of appeals will likely be acting on a CA request for stay even as we speak. In the past, incongruous rulings have resulted. Just as there appear to be no negative consequences for those passing laws that clearly violate constitutional rights, the same applies to reviewing courts issuing opinions in contravention of USSC decisions.

 

[CapnMac]

I’m pretty sure someone will end up quoting that. It’s good stuff.

The man has an excellent way with words, and his forensic skills are razor sharp.

 

[RickD427]

Please note that California has already filed an appeal and has requested a stay from the Ninth Circuit.

California previously requested a stay from the District Court which was denied.

This case ain't gonna be over until it's over, and that's going to take quite a bit of time.

The Ninth Circuit isn't as liberal as it used to be, and we have seen some Second Amendment cases favorably ruled on where a three judge panel resulted in a conservative panel. But those cases went to en banc rehearings where the still liberal nature of the court prevailed.

 

[LiveLife]

DOJ notice sent out to FFLs due to Rhode v Bonta ruling with judgement - https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1753103781389385729

 

[F-111 John]

The man has an excellent way with words, and his forensic skills are razor sharp.

Judge Benítez also gave the state a hint as to how to remedy their law:

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.

 

[rust collector]

Judge Benítez also gave the state a hint as to how to remedy their law:

While it may sound bad out of context, the court was mocking the efforts to replace a bad proposition with a worse law.

 

[CapnMac]

Judge Benítez also gave the state a hint as to how to remedy their law:

It's my understanding that Benitez is one of "us," a "gun guy." Even if he isn't, he does appear to have his finger on the pulse of all the present jurisprudence afoot.
That, there's a possibility that the notion of permits, of FOID, and all those similar things will be found to not meet the Bruen standard, and be set aside.

The simple history test, of needing a physical permit in the period 1795-1865, being as telling as the notion that, supplicating the government for permission to exercise enumerated Rights, has even less precedent historically.

I'll wager our esteemed @rust collector was alluding to this in his response above. That, there being no reasonable, supportable, rationale for issuing permits existing, the issuing of yet another permit would be beating a dead horse.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Same case?

Natalie Krebs, "Federal Judge Overturns California Law Requiring Background Checks for Every Ammo Purchase", Outdoor Life, 31 Jan 2024.

30 Jan 2024 Federal District Judge Roger Benitez declared the California law requiring in-person background checks for every ammo purchase to be both unConstitutional and uneffective.
Under the CA ammo BG system, 11% to 16% of ammo purchasers were rejected for false positive matches and only 0.03% of purchasers were rightly rejected because they actually were prohibited persons. ...

"The decision comes in response to a lawsuit, Rhode v. Becerra, that was filed against the state by online retailer Ammunition Depot, the California Rifle & Pistol Association, and California native Kim Rhode, a six-time Olympic medalist in double trap and skeet."

The CA ammo BG check fee added $10 to the cost of a box of ammo in California. It could take up to three days to get an answer back.

The CA ammo BG check is dependent on current address matching your state issued drivers license or other ID. You move, change address, you get rejected.

"The law says that the address on your driver’s license has to match the address in their system, and ‘in the system’ is the last time you purchased a gun. ... They have to do an address change to get their address corrected in the system. Typically that has taken people so long that it is easier just to buy a gun to get in the system with your new address. I have talked to people who have been told by the state Department of Justice, ‘just go buy a new gun, it will be faster.’ So that’s a real problem."

 

[irving]

Great news! To celebrate, I bought ammo (that I really didn't need) online yesterday, just so It could be shipped to my door instead of to an FFL! I got it from trueshotammo.com in Arizona, which was also celebrating by offering free shipping to Californians! Woohoo!

 

[BBarn]

Now I'm not sure if Judge Benitez's words will be used in the certain appeal, but these words are damming for the gun control crowd.

"The state’s ammunition background check regime turns that constitutional presumption the wrong way around. It treats all citizens as if they do not enjoy a right to buy ammunition. It forces Americans to entreat and supplicate the state for permission.
Only when the State is satisfied that a citizen has proven that they meet the qualifications
– only then – does the state issue its stamp of authorization. See Cal. Penal Code § 30352(d) (“[T]he ammunition vendor shall verify with the department, in a manner prescribed by the department, that the person is authorized to purchase ammunition.”). This is not the language of a right; this is the language of a government license or grant of a privilege."

That sounds alot like what gun buyers must go through now, except it's a federal stamp of approval instead of a state one.

 

[ECVMatt]

And in another small victory...the HK VP9 series is added to the CA Roster. It has been a bad week for Sacramento and a great week for gun owners in CA.

 

[James K2020]

As usual my timing is bad. Just ordered 700 rounds of 38 special but the order was already sent to Fed Ex and the destination couldn't be changed. I don't mind the background check but the FFLs charge $20/1000 rounds to process and you can spend an hour there waiting in line to pick up your order. Only a few dealers even want to process out of state ammo orders. It was so nice when they shipped to your door.

 

[Mk-211]

What are the 50 historical laws dating from 1789 to 1868 that the Attorney General
has compiled as potential historical analogues? One would expect to find laws or
ordinances that required a gunsmith to check with the local sheriff before selling a
firearm. Or one might expect to find laws that restricted gunsmiths from selling to any
customer who was a stranger in his community. Or perhaps there would be historical
laws uncovered requiring a customer’s proof of citizenship before a merchant was
allowed to sell him gunpowder. These could be apt analogues to demonstrate a related
historical tradition of constitutional regulation.
Nothing like this appears in the State’s compilation of laws.
The State’s compilation lists 48 laws which made it a crime to possess a gun and
ammunition by Negros, Mulattos, slaves, or persons of color, and two laws that
prohibited sales to Indians.

All CA could come up with, proof that the past exposes how racist they really are!

Imagine if the mainstream media would actually put this out, for the whole world to see?!

 

[James K2020]

Same case?

Natalie Krebs, "Federal Judge Overturns California Law Requiring Background Checks for Every Ammo Purchase", Outdoor Life, 31 Jan 2024.

30 Jan 2024 Federal District Judge Roger Benitez declared the California law requiring in-person background checks for every ammo purchase to be both unConstitutional and uneffective.
Under the CA ammo BG system, 11% to 16% of ammo purchasers were rejected for false positive matches and only 0.03% of purchasers were rightly rejected because they actually were prohibited persons. ...

"The decision comes in response to a lawsuit, Rhode v. Becerra, that was filed against the state by online retailer Ammunition Depot, the California Rifle & Pistol Association, and California native Kim Rhode, a six-time Olympic medalist in double trap and skeet."

The CA ammo BG check fee added $10 to the cost of a box of ammo in California. It could take up to three days to get an answer back.

The CA ammo BG check is dependent on current address matching your state issued drivers license or other ID. You move, change address, you get rejected.

"The law says that the address on your driver’s license has to match the address in their system, and ‘in the system’ is the last time you purchased a gun. ... They have to do an address change to get their address corrected in the system. Typically that has taken people so long that it is easier just to buy a gun to get in the system with your new address. I have talked to people who have been told by the state Department of Justice, ‘just go buy a new gun, it will be faster.’ So that’s a real problem."

It's only $1, not $10.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

It's only $1, not $10.

Outdoor Life said the guy paid $10.

Other source:

"In a nutshell, all ammunition purchases or transfers made in California will require a DOJ “point-of-sale” eligibility check at the cost of $1 (or $19 – more on that later) paid by the consumer to the DOJ."
California Ammunition Purchase Laws - LAX Ammo OC 31 Jan 2024
https://laxammooc.com › ammunition-laws-in-california

The proposed law would require a $1 BG check for Californians buying ammo who are on record as having bought a gun and their drivers license address matches the address where they last bought a gun. If there is no gun buy record the ammo buyer pays $19 for an ammo purchase BG check. The higher BG fee reflects the assumption by the state of California that they are buying ammo for a ghost gun.