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
  #121  
Old 06-28-2019, 7:50 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm not sure it's related to an injunction, but CRPA is looking for people's experiences with the new law:

Quote:
Although the lawsuit has already been filed, CRPA is looking to collect statistical information on how the law is affecting ammunition transactions at licensed firearm dealers and ammunition vendors here in California. CRPA’s attorneys will be able to use this information as additional evidence in support of the Rhode lawsuit moving forward.

To that end, gun owners, California licensed firearm dealers, and ammunition vendors can assist in this effort by sending an email to ammosnafu@michellawyers.com.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 07-01-2019, 8:33 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,969
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
So a $1 tax on as many rounds as you want to buy at one time is too much?
I'm not the person your question was directed to but... imo, yes, it is. There are already taxes in place, I am aware of that, but this is a fee and a hoop to jump through put in place by CA just to make life harder for the law abiding, nothing else. Not one more inch should be given.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 07-02-2019, 11:36 AM
HarryS HarryS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 277
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Soon enough some smartie in the Legislature will make it progressive or just keep raising it. No mas.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 07-03-2019, 4:10 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

CRPA is planning to request an injunction soon

Quote:
“Newsom’s Prop 63 law is a business killing nightmare and a red-tape charade that is useless as a crime prevention measure,” said CRPA President Chuck Michel. “This law puts a ridiculously excessive burden on Second Amendment rights and was designed to make it practically impossible for gun stores to make a profit or for people to use a gun for sport or self-defense. It’s part of Newsom’s effort to eliminate the “gun culture” – which he hates.” said Michel. “We are going to ask the Court to put a stop to it immediately.”

CRPA, with NRA’s support, challenged the ammunition background check law in court months ago. The lead plaintiff in the case is gold medal-winning Olympic shooter Kim Rhode. The CRPA legal team already got a favorable ruling in the Rhode case – which is being heard by the same judge who ruled in the Duncan 10+ magazine lawsuit. We had to wait for the ammo law to take effect to seek an injunction, but now that the law has gone into effect and the infringements have been documented, CRPA plans to seek an injunction in the Rhode case next week.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 07-03-2019, 4:48 PM
Guninator's Avatar
Guninator Guninator is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: OC
Posts: 666
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
So a $1 tax on as many rounds as you want to buy at one time is too much?
Hey, kind of off topic but in somewhat related news, on 1/1/2020, CA DOJ will be charging you $1 fee each time you post on the Internet. You can make as many posts as you want once you log on, but it will be $1 per session.

Surely that isn't too much to exercise your constitutional rights?
__________________
"The right to keep and bear arms . . . is not the only constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications. -- Justice Alito, McDonald v. Chicago

Be sure to add CRPA as your charity in Amazon Smile. $#!thead Bezos canceled it.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 07-03-2019, 8:55 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,475
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirearmFino View Post
Can't happen soon enough.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 07-04-2019, 8:36 AM
200Apples's Avatar
200Apples 200Apples is offline
-DVC- Mojave Lever Crew
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,906
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default


Yes, they are. Thank God for the CRPA. I need to donate!

Quote:
CRPA, with the support of NRA, challenged the ammunition background check law in court months ago with the filing of the Rhode v. Becerra case. The lead plaintiff in the case is Olympic gold medalist shooter Kim Rhode. The legal team already received a favorable ruling in the Rhode case – which is being heard by the same great judge who gave us “Freedom Week” with the ruling in the Duncan case, challenging California's magazine restrictions. Prior to seeking an injunction in the Rhode case it was necessary to wait for the law to take effect. Now that it has, and the infringements and issues have been documented for use as evidence, the plan is to file an injunction next week.
__________________
.
"Get a proper holster, and go hot. The End." - SplitHoof

NRA Lifetime | Avatar courtesy Elon Musk's Twitter User SomthingWicked
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 07-04-2019, 8:41 AM
200Apples's Avatar
200Apples 200Apples is offline
-DVC- Mojave Lever Crew
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,906
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

And thank God for men such as The Honorable Judge [Saint] Robt. T. Benitez.

__________________
.
"Get a proper holster, and go hot. The End." - SplitHoof

NRA Lifetime | Avatar courtesy Elon Musk's Twitter User SomthingWicked
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 07-04-2019, 4:46 PM
astro.dude astro.dude is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 89
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Ammo prohibition, no ammo after 4 pm

Saw the attached sign posted at the Dublin Big5 when I went to get some 22LR ammo. No soup for you!!
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 20190704_171122_noexif.jpg (102.6 KB, 435 views)
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 07-04-2019, 5:55 PM
M60A1Rise's Avatar
M60A1Rise M60A1Rise is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 898
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by astro.dude View Post
Saw the attached sign posted at the Dublin Big5 when I went to get some 22LR ammo. No soup for you!!
Big5 on Lakewood Blvd will be downsizing their ammo as of yesterday. Went in for something else and they were readjusting the shelves , asked about the wait for purchase (approx 5 mins) and was mentioned that they will not be ordering as much once they sell off stock on hand. The BS is beginning faster than I thought it would.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 07-04-2019, 6:09 PM
astro.dude astro.dude is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 89
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M60A1Rise View Post
Big5 on Lakewood Blvd will be downsizing their ammo as of yesterday. Went in for something else and they were readjusting the shelves , asked about the wait for purchase (approx 5 mins) and was mentioned that they will not be ordering as much once they sell off stock on hand. The BS is beginning faster than I thought it would.
That right there is proof positive of the effect and intent of this bs law.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 07-04-2019, 6:15 PM
M60A1Rise's Avatar
M60A1Rise M60A1Rise is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 898
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by astro.dude View Post
That right there is proof positive of the effect and intent of this bs law.
TBH the REAL intent for this and many other laws imho are to cause nuisance to retailers to make them not want to sell and go through hassle. Yes end game is to get rid of guns but that's hard because of the Constitution but nothing can stop the retail issues , they just make laws.

It's pretty bs and easy to see.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 07-05-2019, 6:41 AM
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 887
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M60A1Rise View Post
TBH the REAL intent for this and many other laws imho are to cause nuisance to retailers to make them not want to sell and go through hassle. Yes end game is to get rid of guns but that's hard because of the Constitution but nothing can stop the retail issues , they just make laws.

It's pretty bs and easy to see.


Well if the courts can interpret the supposed intent of the administration adding back on the citizenship question to the census it'd seem the same argument could be referenced for the legislatures intent of these laws.
__________________
NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 07-05-2019, 1:12 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
code Monkey
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: A burned-out Best Buy
Posts: 1,675
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddestruel View Post
Well if the courts can interpret the supposed intent of the administration adding back on the citizenship question to the census it'd seem the same argument could be referenced for the legislatures intent of these laws.
With the notable exception that SCOTUS blocked a completely constitutional action (putting citizenship Q on census) and the CA/9CA judges are upholding unconstitutional actions (gun bans/sales restrictions). This is new levels of outrage
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 07-05-2019, 5:25 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

CRPA released an online form that people can fill out to report problems with the law/system.

https://cmpdigitalus.typeform.com/to/D3C9LA
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 07-05-2019, 8:31 PM
tehlulz tehlulz is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Would Wal-Mart ceasing sales until July 12th be an infringement of 2a rights and qualify as a valid argument?
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 07-05-2019, 10:20 PM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Spent $299 for this text!
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,970
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tehlulz View Post
Would Wal-Mart ceasing sales until July 12th be an infringement of 2a rights and qualify as a valid argument?
No. We're still waiting on a few holdout states to ratify the Constitutional amendment that requires walmart to sell ammo 24/7. Until then, Walmart is free to cease ammo sales if they'd like to.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do.


Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 07-15-2019, 8:24 PM
Roboshred Roboshred is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NOR CAL SACTO
Posts: 260
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Im no legal type but the new ammo law as Ive said before is no different than a poll tax placed on blacks years ago as it inhibits the constitutional rights of all.
I support state wide filings in small claims court and let DOJ mitigate 100k filings.. We all have a right to be heard.. Call me dreamer
__________________
"here we are now, entertain us"
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 07-15-2019, 9:35 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Any update on the request for an injunction? It was reported that there were plans to file one last week, but I haven't seen anything about it since the article.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2019...ornia-ammo-law
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 07-17-2019, 7:15 PM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 718
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Update: we had a status conference with the Court this past Monday and now have a hearing date on a preliminary injunction motion in a few weeks.
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 07-17-2019, 7:35 PM
vairox vairox is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: GB
Posts: 59
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

As a sworn LEO I have to present LE ID and a letter from my agency head which is only good for 30 days to buy ammo, but PC 30312 allows me to order ammo online and ship it to my house direct. This is criminalfornia for you.

Quote:
30312.


(a) (1) Commencing January 1, 2018, the sale of ammunition by any party shall be conducted by or processed through a licensed ammunition vendor.

(2) When neither party to an ammunition sale is a licensed ammunition vendor, the seller shall deliver the ammunition to a vendor to process the transaction. The ammunition vendor shall promptly and properly deliver the ammunition to the purchaser, if the sale is not prohibited, as if the ammunition were the vendor’s own merchandise. If the ammunition vendor cannot legally deliver the ammunition to the purchaser, the vendor shall forthwith return the ammunition to the seller. The ammunition vendor may charge the purchaser an administrative fee to process the transaction, in an amount to be set by the Department of Justice, in addition to any applicable fees that may be charged pursuant to the provisions of this title.

(b) Commencing January 1, 2018, the sale, delivery, or transfer of ownership of ammunition by any party may only occur in a face-to-face transaction with the seller, deliverer, or transferor, provided, however, that ammunition may be purchased or acquired over the Internet or through other means of remote ordering if a licensed ammunition vendor initially receives the ammunition and processes the transaction in compliance with this section and Article 3 (commencing with Section 30342) of Chapter 1 of Division 10 of Title 4 of this part.

(c) Subdivisions (a) and (b) shall not apply to the sale, delivery, or transfer of ammunition to any of the following:

(1) An authorized law enforcement representative of a city, county, city and county, or state or federal government, if the sale, delivery, or transfer is for exclusive use by that government agency and, prior to the sale, delivery, or transfer of the ammunition, written authorization from the head of the agency employing the purchaser or transferee is obtained, identifying the employee as an individual authorized to conduct the transaction, and authorizing the transaction for the exclusive use of the agency employing the individual.

(2) A sworn peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, or sworn federal law enforcement officer, who is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of the officer’s duties.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 07-18-2019, 12:49 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,475
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
Update: we had a status conference with the Court this past Monday and now have a hearing date on a preliminary injunction motion in a few weeks.
Could you provide a link to the PI? Thanks in advance.

Edit: link to the motion for PI.

Last edited by aBrowningfan; 07-18-2019 at 1:41 PM.. Reason: See Edit: above
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 07-18-2019, 1:38 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
code Monkey
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: A burned-out Best Buy
Posts: 1,675
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
Could you provide a link to the PI? Thanks in advance.
He said they have a hearing date in a few weeks regarding the motion for a PI. There has been no PI granted to which we can link.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 07-18-2019, 1:42 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,475
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenemae View Post
He said they have a hearing date in a few weeks regarding the motion for a PI. There has been no PI granted to which we can link.
I was looking for a link to the motion for PI. I have updated my post to reflect that.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 07-19-2019, 8:57 AM
Guninator's Avatar
Guninator Guninator is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: OC
Posts: 666
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vairox View Post
As a sworn LEO I have to present LE ID and a letter from my agency head which is only good for 30 days to buy ammo, but PC 30312 allows me to order ammo online and ship it to my house direct. This is criminalfornia for you.
My advice would be to tell your and other public employee unions to stop donating to and supporting Democrats. That long-time alliance is coming back to haunt police now that California is essentially a single party state and Democrats can take all of its constituencies for granted.
__________________
"The right to keep and bear arms . . . is not the only constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications. -- Justice Alito, McDonald v. Chicago

Be sure to add CRPA as your charity in Amazon Smile. $#!thead Bezos canceled it.
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 07-19-2019, 10:32 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,370
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

When is the PI getting filed?
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 07-23-2019, 2:36 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
When is the PI getting filed?
August 19th, apparently.
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 07-23-2019, 2:50 PM
MCubeiro's Avatar
MCubeiro MCubeiro is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 100
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Injunction Filed to Stop California Ammunition Sales restrictions

For Immediate Release:


Injunction Filed to Stop California Ammunition Sales restrictions


On Monday, July 22, CRPA with support of NRA filed a motion requesting an injunction against enforcement of California’s recently implemented ammunition laws. The injunction is part of the case Rhode v. Becerra, filed in April of 2018, where lead Plaintiff and gold medal Olympian shooter Kim Rhode and other Plaintiffs have asked the court to halt enforcement after a dubious roll out of the new law on July 1st.

The entire system has been shown to be an unconstitutionally excessive burden on law-abiding gun owners with little to no law enforcement value. California ammunition retailers were given little if any guidance from the state explaining the procedures for processing ammunition sales, amounting to mass confusion throughout the state.

If the court grants the Plaintiffs’ request, it will prohibit California from enforcing its ammunition sales restrictions while the Rhode case is fully litigated. A hearing on the Plaintiffs’ request is currently scheduled for August 19. A decision is expected sometime thereafter.

NRA and CRPA thank Able’s Ammo of Huntsville, Texas, and Ammunition Depot of Boca Raton, Florida, for their continued support of the Rhode lawsuit and support in filing the request for an injunction. NRA and CRPA would also like to thank the countless individuals and businesses who reached out, as well as the following California ammunition retailers who supported Monday’s filing by providing declarations regarding the effect California’s ammunition sales restrictions have had on their businesses:

Turner’s Outdoorsman (27 state-wide locations)

LAX Ammunition OC (Huntington Beach)

Norco Armory (Norco)

Foothill Ammo (Shingle Springs)

Guns, Fishing and Other Stuff (Vacaville)

Royal Loan (San Diego)

Mosquito Creek Outfitters (Placerville)

Discount Gun Mart (San Diego and Santee)

Continue to check your inbox and the California Stand and Fight webpage for updates on the Rhode​ case as well as other issues impacting your Second Amendment rights and hunting heritage in California. ​
__________________


NRA Certified Instructor- Pistol, Rifle, PPITH, PPOTH, Metallic Cartridge Reloading, Home Firearm Safety, Refuse to be a Victim
NRA Range Safety Officer

NRA Patriot Life Member - Benefactor Level
CRPA Life Member
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 07-23-2019, 3:56 PM
code_blue's Avatar
code_blue code_blue is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sac County
Posts: 3,455
iTrader: 177 / 100%
Default

Sweet! His holiness, Benitez will guide us.
__________________
Classifieds:

Radian & Aero Pistol lowers, Folsom
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 07-23-2019, 4:11 PM
Fishfearme86's Avatar
Fishfearme86 Fishfearme86 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 18
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Bravo! Bravo CRPA! Just got the email and came here to spread the news, but it's already here! You guys are awesome, keep it up! So proud I joined CRPA! Good luck and I hope Benitez rules in a similar fashion as he did with the magazine laws!
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 07-24-2019, 11:36 AM
OlderThanDirt's Avatar
OlderThanDirt OlderThanDirt is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dumbfookistan
Posts: 5,307
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

If I read between the lines and note that the case is supported by two out of state vendors, it looks the injunction would allow the resumption of direct mail order deliveries. If so, some of our brighter Congress critters might be concerned that the added weight of ammo deliveries could cause California to capsize.
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 07-24-2019, 1:08 PM
hoystory's Avatar
hoystory hoystory is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Dinuba, CA
Posts: 322
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Can someone explain to me why, according to the Brady affadavit, the Cal DOJ is of the legal opinion that FFL03 & COE holders can no longer have ammo shipped to them from out of state.

It was my understanding that was a specific allowance written into the law. Did something change or did the DOJ just decide they don't like it and don't need to follow it anymore?

Sent from my SM-T720 using Tapatalk
__________________

Editor/Founder
RestrictedArms.com
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 07-24-2019, 3:49 PM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 718
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

We asked DOJ's attorney whether DOJ recognizes that exemption and he said they do not.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 07-24-2019, 4:18 PM
OlderThanDirt's Avatar
OlderThanDirt OlderThanDirt is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dumbfookistan
Posts: 5,307
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Yup. It doesn’t mention FFL03 anywhere.😉

(6) A person who is licensed as a collector of firearms pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto, whose licensed premises are within this state, and who has a current certificate of eligibility issued by the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 26710.
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 07-24-2019, 4:35 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
code Monkey
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: A burned-out Best Buy
Posts: 1,675
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
We asked DOJ's attorney whether DOJ recognizes that exemption and he said they do not.
So CA DoJ refuses to comply with the CA penal code. Unbelieveable. We desperately need the federal government to step in and stop this insanity. Hopefully the DoJ's attitude will result in being treated more favorably by the judge (Benitez, if I recall correctly)
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 07-24-2019, 5:09 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,370
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Hearing Date: August 19, 2019
Hearing Time: 10:30 a.m.
Courtroom: 5A
Judge: Hon. Roger T. Benitez


I am going to try and make it to this. The Duncan arguments were great. I hope this will be just as good.
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato

Last edited by wolfwood; 07-24-2019 at 5:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 07-25-2019, 8:36 AM
tehDiceman tehDiceman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 109
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Hearing Date: August 19, 2019
Hearing Time: 10:30 a.m.
Courtroom: 5A
Judge: Hon. Roger T. Benitez


I am going to try and make it to this. The Duncan arguments were great. I hope this will be just as good.
Address for the courthouse in case anyone needs it.

221 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 07-25-2019, 11:59 AM
hoystory's Avatar
hoystory hoystory is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Dinuba, CA
Posts: 322
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

For those who are interested, I just posted a summary of the CRPA argument with bullet points here for those of you who don't have time to read the entire document.

Also, because I occasionally want to use that journalism degree my parents paid so much for, I filed a California Public Records Act request with the state DOJ.



I will share any information I receive with the forum.
__________________

Editor/Founder
RestrictedArms.com
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 07-25-2019, 2:10 PM
Cortelli Cortelli is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 427
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoystory View Post
Can someone explain to me why, according to the Brady affadavit, the Cal DOJ is of the legal opinion that FFL03 & COE holders can no longer have ammo shipped to them from out of state.

It was my understanding that was a specific allowance written into the law. Did something change or did the DOJ just decide they don't like it and don't need to follow it anymore?
I spent a fruitless half-hour looking for the Brady Group's affidavit on this before realizing you were referring to Sean Brady of Michel & Assoc!

These are the sorts of positions / arguments that entertain me in an otherwise serious proceeding -- I am *sooo* looking forward to DOJ's explanation of why they've taken this position that flies in the face of California law! (Assuming it is surfaced in this litigation).
__________________
I am not your lawyer. I am not providing legal advice. I am commenting on an internet forum. Should you need or want legal advice, please consult an attorney.
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 07-25-2019, 10:17 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,370
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by palacios289 View Post
I have a stupid question. Wouldn’t it be a better argument to make that if the state can do an almost immediate background check on a purchaser of ammo, than the same should apply to the purchase of a firearm? Same for buying multiple firearms in a month. Please ignore the legal ignorance. I was jut debating this with some friends and it seems the state really just backed themselves in a corner.
that sounds like the argument which was made in Silvester and that did not work out. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...016-12-14.html
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
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 2:03 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy