Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #361  
Old 10-15-2019, 5:37 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 723
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tankarian View Post
Tried again, got the third reject/deny today.
Pretty clear by now this Demshevik ammo law wasn't written to reduce gun crime, it was passed to make gun owners and hunters say "the Hell with it, it's not worth the aggravation, I just give up"
Maybe you just have an evil Doppelganger and haven't met him/her yet. Having a common last name can do that.

(I am lucky--there are very few in this state with my surname.)
Reply With Quote
  #362  
Old 10-15-2019, 7:18 PM
tankarian's Avatar
tankarian tankarian is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,113
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Maybe you just have an evil Doppelganger and haven't met him/her yet. Having a common last name can do that.

(I am lucky--there are very few in this state with my surname.)
There is no chance of that, I can assure you.
__________________
BLACK RIFLES MATTER!

Reply With Quote
  #364  
Old 10-30-2019, 7:09 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,133
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Ouch - the Supplemental Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction kind of lays it out.... I wonder how the state will respond. Facts don't seem to be in the CA-DoJ's favor.
Reply With Quote
  #365  
Old 10-30-2019, 7:58 PM
ARFrog's Avatar
ARFrog ARFrog is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Northern Calif - East Bay area
Posts: 495
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Thanks for posting the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction with addenda. It is an interesting and well articulated read.

Best wishes and thanks to the Plaintiff's and their legal team in/for their efforts.

Here's hoping Judge Benitez brings this to an early and satisfactory resolution!
__________________


ARFrog
Reply With Quote
  #366  
Old 10-31-2019, 1:12 PM
HarryS HarryS is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 271
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I reckon the system is doing exactly what was hoped by denying as many applications as possible whether valid or not. Sheer incompetence is the means to accomplish this goal. Like registering illegal aliens to vote via driver's license issuance, the state is unsure how many wrongs it has committed.

Why would I want these people looking after my healthcare, or my power company?
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #367  
Old 11-04-2019, 12:42 PM
_Midian _Midian is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 85
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Why would I want these people looking after my healthcare, or my power company?

why would you surrender taxes to them?
Reply With Quote
  #368  
Old 11-04-2019, 1:03 PM
HarryS HarryS is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 271
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
why would you surrender taxes to them?
They can jail me for that, take everything I own.

I never want to be in the same position about healthcare or energy, to the extent I can avoid it.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #369  
Old 11-06-2019, 9:12 AM
socal m1 shooter's Avatar
socal m1 shooter socal m1 shooter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 352
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

One of the owners of Artemis blogged about developments in the case this morning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by S. Lieberman
This last week, Sean Brady, an attorney with Michele and Associates, filed a supplemental brief with the court in the case of Rhode v. Becerra. For those of you who have not been playing along at home, this is the challenge to Prop 63’s ammo law, more specifically, the methodology used to process an ammo transaction now in the once great State of California.

It was extremely interesting reading.

The purpose of the brief was to answer questions the court posited of both parties during a status conference earlier in the year.

(Oh, by the way… the judge is the same judge who created “Freedom Week” in Duncan v. Becerra, the case involving standard capacity magazines… yes… we love the honorable St. Benitez.)[...]

So, while we all have anecdotal information about people not being able to buy ammo, we now have some actual data.

It appears that during the months of July, August, and September, 20% of all people who went to a gun store to purchase ammo were unable to do so. [...]

We also learned something fascinating about the record keeping skills of the California Department of Justice: One of the ways to prove you are a good, little citizen, and thus able to exercise your rights, is to pay for a COE (Certificate of Eligibility). This is essentially a background check to determine if you are able to purchase a firearm. Evidently, 12% of the people who have valid COEs were also rejected for ammo purchases. [...]
__________________
WTB extractor for S&W 659, and magazines for S&W 1076. Please PM if you have one or more to sell.
Reply With Quote
  #370  
Old 11-06-2019, 9:26 AM
thatrogue's Avatar
thatrogue thatrogue is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: El Dorado Hills, CA
Posts: 398
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I was rejected today, even though I hold a CCW, dozens of firearms, employee 30+ people as a small business owner in a regulated, licensed and live scanned field, and I’ve never been arrested or faced any type of negative legal consequences of any type in my life.

Imagine the media horror that would ensue with endless interviews of those embarrassed and slandered by the denials if this was a progressive cause.

How do all of us join as plaintiffs?
Reply With Quote
  #371  
Old 11-06-2019, 1:40 PM
socal m1 shooter's Avatar
socal m1 shooter socal m1 shooter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 352
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thatrogue View Post
I was rejected today, even though I hold a CCW, dozens of firearms, employee 30+ people as a small business owner in a regulated, licensed and live scanned field, and I’ve never been arrested or faced any type of negative legal consequences of any type in my life.

Imagine the media horror that would ensue with endless interviews of those embarrassed and slandered by the denials if this was a progressive cause.

How do all of us join as plaintiffs?
Reach out to the OP in this thread, looks like he could answer your question directly.
__________________
WTB extractor for S&W 659, and magazines for S&W 1076. Please PM if you have one or more to sell.
Reply With Quote
  #372  
Old 11-06-2019, 3:31 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,125
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thatrogue View Post
I was rejected today, even though I hold a CCW, dozens of firearms, employee 30+ people as a small business owner in a regulated, licensed and live scanned field, and I’ve never been arrested or faced any type of negative legal consequences of any type in my life.

Imagine the media horror that would ensue with endless interviews of those embarrassed and slandered by the denials if this was a progressive cause.

How do all of us join as plaintiffs?
Your information must mirror that of the one of your past DROSed AND REGISTERED guns. If you moved, changed your name,ect, the AFS will not have a mirror of your information and you must do the $19 background check.

If you self register one of your pre 2014 long guns, you will have a mirrored image in AFS to qualify you for the $1 instant background check.
Reply With Quote
  #373  
Old 11-06-2019, 5:24 PM
socal m1 shooter's Avatar
socal m1 shooter socal m1 shooter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 352
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Your information must mirror that of the one of your past DROSed AND REGISTERED guns. If you moved, changed your name,ect, the AFS will not have a mirror of your information and you must do the $19 background check.

If you self register one of your pre 2014 long guns, you will have a mirrored image in AFS to qualify you for the $1 instant background check.
Does this also apply to folks who have never registered a firearm? $19 background check?
__________________
WTB extractor for S&W 659, and magazines for S&W 1076. Please PM if you have one or more to sell.
Reply With Quote
  #374  
Old 11-06-2019, 5:33 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,133
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by socal m1 shooter View Post
Does this also apply to folks who have never registered a firearm? $19 background check?
If you never registered a firearm, how would you have a record in AFS? $19 fee for you.
Reply With Quote
  #375  
Old 11-06-2019, 7:54 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Shiny
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,613
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
If you never registered a firearm, how would you have a record in AFS? $19 fee for you.
That'll probably be DOJ's reply regarding all the wrongful denials..."how can we be expected to be 100% for just a dollar? And you're rushing us, too. We need 10 days to be sure and everyone has to pay $19. You don't want to be wrongfully denied, do you?"
Reply With Quote
  #376  
Old 11-07-2019, 5:52 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 170
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

JOINT STATUS REPORT
Reply With Quote
  #377  
Old 11-08-2019, 9:37 AM
Metal God's Avatar
Metal God Metal God is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,585
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I was at a local gun store and over heard someone trying to buy ammo . They said they didn't have a phone and the clerk said a phone number was required and stopped the background check process . Is that true , a phone number is required ? Is it also required to buy a firearm . The sad thing is I have a PX4 Storm in jail right now and don't remember if a phone number was required haha .

That requirement sure doesn't seem reasonable to me , not that any of this is . I mean it appears if correct . You can't exercise your right unless you have a phone ??? that can't be right . That in it self should be enough for an injunction ???
__________________
Tolerate
allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

Anyone else find it sad that those who preach tolerance CAN'T allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that they do not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

If you have the time check this out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04wyGK6k6HE or a picture of Mohamed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VwpwP_fIqY
Reply With Quote
  #378  
Old 11-08-2019, 12:31 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,133
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal God View Post
I was at a local gun store and over heard someone trying to buy ammo . They said they didn't have a phone and the clerk said a phone number was required and stopped the background check process . Is that true , a phone number is required ? Is it also required to buy a firearm . The sad thing is I have a PX4 Storm in jail right now and don't remember if a phone number was required haha .

That requirement sure doesn't seem reasonable to me , not that any of this is . I mean it appears if correct . You can't exercise your right unless you have a phone ??? that can't be right . That in it self should be enough for an injunction ???
It is bullsh*t. The LGS that I have purchased most of my pistols, ARs and shotguns from has never asked me for my phone number. And I have never been denied. Not even for my BBAW purchase.
Reply With Quote
  #379  
Old 11-08-2019, 1:28 PM
SteveH SteveH is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,480
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirearmFino View Post
So does this mean no ruling anytime soon?
Reply With Quote
  #380  
Old 11-08-2019, 2:21 PM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 299
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Actually, the opposite. Instead of waiting for an evidentiary hearing, both parties are asking that the court rule on the PI as soon as the State responds to the NRA's last response (two weeks).

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveH View Post
So does this mean no ruling anytime soon?
Reply With Quote
  #381  
Old 11-09-2019, 5:14 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,133
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Look for a partial injunction from the judge.

Background checks halted due to the DOJ cluster luck of a system

Which is, split level checks on ammo, FLA BS that ATF has no problem with and possibly the actual registry of ammo.

Online sales may not be taken off since the courts have ruled on other commerce items that a state may restrict online sales like alcohol.
Based on what has been filed to date, do you think your forecast quoted above still holds? If so, what would a registry of ammunition look like? Paper records maintained at the selling location as is presently occurring? Or? One thing I missed looking at the PC sections, is a provision for a registry. Very possible I missed the section, but I didn't find mention of a registry when I looked.

I definitely think you are on point regarding background checks being halted. If one can purchase a firearm, but not ammunition, there is something pretty f*cked up about the ammunition background check system.
Reply With Quote
  #382  
Old 11-12-2019, 8:17 PM
hoystory's Avatar
hoystory hoystory is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 255
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

If you go way back in this thread, I informed everyone that I had submitted a public records request for data from the first three weeks of the state's Ammo Background check system.

I got the numbers for the month of July earlier today.

You can find the full post which includes a link to the PDF from CalDOJ here.

For those of you who just want the top-line numbers, here they are:



There's a little more analysis over at my site, but I don't think this will stand.
__________________

Editor/Founder
RestrictedArms.com
Reply With Quote
  #383  
Old 11-12-2019, 9:15 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,133
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoystory View Post
If you go way back in this thread, I informed everyone that I had submitted a public records request for data from the first three weeks of the state's Ammo Background check system.

I got the numbers for the month of July earlier today.

You can find the full post which includes a link to the PDF from CalDOJ here.

For those of you who just want the top-line numbers, here they are:



There's a little more analysis over at my site, but I don't think this will stand.
I think the present implementation of ammunition background checks definitely won't survive judicial review. The real question is what (if anything) survives judicial review.

Thanks for sharing the results of your records request.
Reply With Quote
  #384  
Old 11-13-2019, 11:25 AM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 299
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Right. But I am hoping that the focus on the process denials is ONLY for the preliminary injunction, and that the final ruling will also strike down the fee and background check themselves as unconstitutional (regardless of whether or not an instant check process can someday be implemented).

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
I think the present implementation of ammunition background checks definitely won't survive judicial review. The real question is what (if anything) survives judicial review.

Thanks for sharing the results of your records request.
Reply With Quote
  #385  
Old 11-14-2019, 11:09 AM
Murder's Avatar
Murder Murder is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 2
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

As for the number of ammunition background checks in general; do you guys feel this is a lot or little for CA? 50K+ successful attempts in a single month.
Reply With Quote
  #386  
Old 11-14-2019, 11:40 AM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 314
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

My guess is that the number of purchases/attempts in the first few months after the start of implementation would be lower than normal because lots of folks stocked up beforehand and it will take a while for that inventory to need replacement.
__________________
I wish today's liberals could understand: You cannot be generous by giving away other peoples' money and you cannot demonstrate your virtue by your willingness to give up other peoples' rights.

The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
Reply With Quote
  #387  
Old 11-14-2019, 2:54 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,133
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Murder View Post
As for the number of ammunition background checks in general; do you guys feel this is a lot or little for CA? 50K+ successful attempts in a single month.
More like 70k+ attempts in the month of July. As far as whether it is too little, I suspect there was some degree of stockpiling in the run-up to the start of the background checks.
Reply With Quote
  #388  
Old 11-21-2019, 9:11 PM
mootman mootman is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 50
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It has been a while since I've commented here! It's good to be back!

I was speaking to a fellow sportsmen recently about the current ammo rules in Ca. I made to comment that forcing me as a Ca resident to but ammo in Ca is akin to forcing me to buy ALL of the gasoline for my car in Ca.

Does this run afoul of interstate Commerce laws?
Reply With Quote
  #389  
Old 11-21-2019, 9:47 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 723
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mootman View Post
It has been a while since I've commented here! It's good to be back!

I was speaking to a fellow sportsmen recently about the current ammo rules in Ca. I made to comment that forcing me as a Ca resident to but ammo in Ca is akin to forcing me to buy ALL of the gasoline for my car in Ca.

Does this run afoul of interstate Commerce laws?
Bad analogy. You can buy all the ammo you want in any other state--you just can't bring back more than, what is it, 50 rounds purchased in another state. Further, the state thinks it has avoided the ICC by allowing you to buy your ammo from anywhere, as long as it is shipped to a California ammo vendor so that the background check can be performed.
Reply With Quote
  #390  
Old 11-21-2019, 10:11 PM
MJB's Avatar
MJB MJB is offline
CGSSA Associate
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 4,431
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Okay gas doesn't work how about hatch Chiles from New Mexico
__________________
One life so don't blow it......Always die with your boots on!
Reply With Quote
  #391  
Old 11-22-2019, 5:42 AM
Rusty Bolts Rusty Bolts is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 100
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

The violation of the ICC is the cost of a background check. The fees should be considered a tariff. Same could be said of the cost of a COE. Unless you believe the CA DOJ does a more thorough background check than the FBI.

Rusty Bolts
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #392  
Old 11-22-2019, 7:52 AM
dbub dbub is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 11
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

To me, it’s a clear violation of the ICC and a restraint of trade. But that’s just me.
Reply With Quote
  #393  
Old 11-22-2019, 10:38 AM
TSD! TSD! is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sacramento area
Posts: 146
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Was in the local gun store the other day, asked if I could have ammo sent to them. They said why would we do that, it would defeat the purpose of us selling ammo. Seems like a clear violation of ICC to me, unless every gun store is forced to accept ammo transfers, it's clearly a violation of free trade and commerce.
Reply With Quote
  #394  
Old 11-22-2019, 3:45 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 723
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty Bolts View Post
The violation of the ICC is the cost of a background check. The fees should be considered a tariff. Same could be said of the cost of a COE. Unless you believe the CA DOJ does a more thorough background check than the FBI.

Rusty Bolts
The tariff applies to all California buyers and must be charged for all ammo transactions in the state, same for in-state purchases as well as interstate purchases. There is no discrimination against out of state sellers by that charge alone.
Reply With Quote
  #395  
Old 11-22-2019, 3:49 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 723
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TSD! View Post
Was in the local gun store the other day, asked if I could have ammo sent to them. They said why would we do that, it would defeat the purpose of us selling ammo. Seems like a clear violation of ICC to me, unless every gun store is forced to accept ammo transfers, it's clearly a violation of free trade and commerce.
A lot of FFLs will not process an interstate arms sale absent a hefty fee of $75 to $100, or in the case of a big box store (e.g. Sportsman's Warehouse or Cabela's), at all. Is that a violation of the ICC? That one store will not do something is an inadequate sample to surmise that no store will. I have a table top FFL who will process my orders.
Reply With Quote
  #397  
Old 11-24-2019, 9:24 PM
S45 S45 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 20
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Sure would be nice to be able to purchase ammo on the internet and just have it shipped to the door like the old days..
Last gun show I went to I purchased some ammo and the process is a joke. Took 20+ minutes for them to fill out all the forms correctly and get it submitted and cleared for me to make the purchase. And of course they have to write down the exact quantity of each caliber so Gavin knows exactly what I'm purchasing...
Following this thread for updates with my fingers crossed.
Reply With Quote
  #398  
Old 11-25-2019, 12:54 AM
marcusrn's Avatar
marcusrn marcusrn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Oceanside
Posts: 688
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

do they still sell components at gun shows? no onerous background checks?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #399  
Old 11-25-2019, 5:12 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,233
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by marcusrn View Post
do they still sell components at gun shows? no onerous background checks?
No restrictions on components yet, but you know they will have to crack down on all that "ghost ammo" all of us are making.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #400  
Old 11-27-2019, 8:52 PM
Prep Ready Prep Ready is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 3
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Last gun show I went to I bought some beef jerkey and a back messager. Couldn’t buy anything else due to restrictions.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 -8. The time now is 1:06 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.