Rhode v. Becerra (Challenge to CA Ammo Sales) - motion for injunction 7-22-19 - Page 10

TruOil · #**361** 10-15-2019, 5:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankarian

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.)

tankarian · #**362** 10-15-2019, 7:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TruOil

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.

FirearmFino · #**363** 10-30-2019, 4:36 PM

Supplemental Brief in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Supplemental Brief in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Declaration of Edward Allen Johnson in Support of Supplemental Brief in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Declaration of William D. Shepard in Support of Supplemental Brief in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Declaration of Nandu Ionescu in Support of Supplemental Brief in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction

aBrowningfan · #**364** 10-30-2019, 7:09 PM

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.

ARFrog · #**365** 10-30-2019, 7:58 PM

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!

HarryS · #**366** 10-31-2019, 1:12 PM

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?

_Midian · #**367** 11-04-2019, 12:42 PM

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

why would you surrender taxes to them?

HarryS · #**368** 11-04-2019, 1:03 PM

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.

socal m1 shooter · #**369** 11-06-2019, 9:12 AM

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. [...]

thatrogue · #**370** 11-06-2019, 9:26 AM

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?

socal m1 shooter · #**371** 11-06-2019, 1:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thatrogue

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.

taperxz · #**372** 11-06-2019, 3:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thatrogue

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.

socal m1 shooter · #**373** 11-06-2019, 5:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taperxz

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?

aBrowningfan · #**374** 11-06-2019, 5:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by socal m1 shooter

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.

Sputnik · #**375** 11-06-2019, 7:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aBrowningfan

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?"

FirearmFino · #**376** 11-07-2019, 5:52 PM

JOINT STATUS REPORT

Metal God · #**377** 11-08-2019, 9:37 AM

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 ???

aBrowningfan · #**378** 11-08-2019, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metal God

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.

SteveH · #**379** 11-08-2019, 1:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FirearmFino

JOINT STATUS REPORT

So does this mean no ruling anytime soon?

mit31 · #**380** 11-08-2019, 2:21 PM

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

So does this mean no ruling anytime soon?

aBrowningfan · #**381** 11-09-2019, 5:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taperxz

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.

hoystory · #**382** 11-12-2019, 8:17 PM

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.

aBrowningfan · #**383** 11-12-2019, 9:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoystory

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.

mit31 · #**384** 11-13-2019, 11:25 AM

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

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.

Murder · #**385** 11-14-2019, 11:09 AM

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.

MajorCaliber · #**386** 11-14-2019, 11:40 AM

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.

aBrowningfan · #**387** 11-14-2019, 2:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Murder

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.

mootman · #**388** 11-21-2019, 9:11 PM

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?

TruOil · #**389** 11-21-2019, 9:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mootman

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.

MJB · #**390** 11-21-2019, 10:11 PM

Okay gas doesn't work how about hatch Chiles from New Mexico

Rusty Bolts · #**391** 11-22-2019, 5:42 AM

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

dbub · #**392** 11-22-2019, 7:52 AM

To me, it’s a clear violation of the ICC and a restraint of trade. But that’s just me.

TSD! · #**393** 11-22-2019, 10:38 AM

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.

TruOil · #**394** 11-22-2019, 3:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rusty Bolts

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.

TruOil · #**395** 11-22-2019, 3:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSD!

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.

FirearmFino · #**396** 11-22-2019, 6:10 PM

Second Supplemental Declaration of Mayra G. Morales in Support of Defendant Xavier Becerra's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Defendant Xavier Becerra.

S45 · #**397** 11-24-2019, 9:24 PM

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.