Injunction put in place to stop stupid, California gun ammunition law....

[2aguy]

The anti-gun extremists lost one tonight, hopefully they will lose it completely as this goes forward....

A big preliminary win for the California Rifle and Pistol Association in its fight against California’s ludicrous ammunition background check law, the case known as Rhode v. Becerra. US District Court Judge Roger Benitez — the same District Court judge who set off the week-long standard capacity magazine buying spree — has issued an injunction blocking enforcement of the law.

Benitez wrote:

Law-abiding citizens are imbued with the unalienable right to keep and bear firearms along with the ammunition to make their firearms work. That a majority today may wish it were otherwise, does not change the Constitutional right. It never has. California has tried its unprecedented experiment. The casualties suffered by law abiding citizens have been counted.

BREAKING: US District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Blocking California's Ammo Background Check Law - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ A big preliminary win for the California Rifle and Pistol Association in its fight against California’s ludicrous ammunition background check law, the case known as Rhode v. Becerra. US District Court Judge Roger Benitez — the same District Court judge who set off...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

 

[2aguy]

This is the same Federal Judge who put the injunction against the other stupid California gun law... the magazine ban....

If you want to read a Federal Judge bitch slapping anti-gun extremists.....look through this ruling...he takes apart their stupid arguments one at a time in great detail.......

Few would say that a 100 or 50-round rifle magazine in the hands of a murderer is a good idea. Yet, the “solution” for preventing a mass shooting exacts a high toll on the everyday freedom of ordinary law-abiding citizens. Many individual robberies, rapes, and shootings are not prevented by the State. Unless a law-abiding individual has a firearm for his or her own defense, the police typically arrive after it is too late. With rigor mortis setting in, they mark and bag the evidence, interview bystanders, and draw a chalk outline on the ground. But the victim, nevertheless, is dead, or raped, or robbed, or traumatized.
--------

In other words, a Californian may have a pistol with a 10-round magazine in hopes of fighting off a home invasion robbery. But if that Californian grabs a pistol containing a 17-round magazine, it is now the home-defending victim who commits a new crime.
----------

All Californians, like all citizens of the United States, have a fundamental Constitutional right to keep and bear common and dangerous arms. The nation’s Founders used arms for self-protection, for the common defense, for hunting food, and as a check against tyranny. Teixeira v. Cty. of Alameda, 873 F.3d 670, 686 (9th Cir. 2017)
-----

1. The Supreme Court’s Simple Heller Test

In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court provided a simple Second Amendment test in crystal clear language. It is a test that anyone can understand. The right to keep and bear arms is a right enjoyed by law-abiding citizens to have arms that are not unusual “in common use” “for lawful purposes like self-defense.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 624 (2008); Heller v. District of Columbia (“Heller II”), 670 F.3d 1244, 1271 (2011) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting) (“In my view, Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny.”).

It is a hardware test. Is the firearm hardware commonly owned? Is the hardware commonly owned by law-abiding citizens? Is the hardware owned by those citizens for lawful purposes? If the answers are “yes,” the test is over.

The hardware is protected. Millions of ammunition magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds are in common use by law-abiding responsible citizens for lawful uses like self-defense.

This is enough to decide that a magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds passes the Heller test and is protected by the Second Amendment. The simple test applies because a magazine is an essential mechanical part of a firearm. The size limit directly impairs one’s ability to defend one’s self.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Duncan-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0B1K9uqTLOdzJieJ6BMiBtRS0jdYT2id4OKm6suWAzGqo1V9eoe_wL9aA

 

[2aguy]

I like this part of his ruling too....

3. Lethality is Not the Test

Some say that the use of “large capacity magazines” increases the lethality of gun violence. They point out that when large capacity magazines are used in mass shootings, more shots are fired, more people are wounded, and more wounds are fatal than in other mass shootings.31 That may or may not be true. Certainly, a gun when abused is lethal. A gun holding more than 10 rounds is lethal to more people than a gun holding less than 10 rounds, but it is not constitutionally decisive. Nothing in the Second Amendment makes lethality a factor to consider because a gun’s lethality, or dangerousness, is assumed.

The Second Amendment does not exist to protect the right to bear down pillows and foam baseball bats. It protects guns and every gun is dangerous. “If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous.” Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027, 1031 (2016) (Alito, J. and Thomas, J., concurring); Maloney v. Singas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211546 *19 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2018) (striking down 1974 ban on possession of dangerous nunchaku in violation of the Second Amendment and quoting Caetano).

“[T]he relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes.” Id. California law presently permits the lethality of a gun with a 10-round magazine. In other words, a gun with an 11-round magazine or a 15-round magazine is apparently too lethal to be possessed by a law-abiding citizen. A gun with a 10-round magazine is not. Missing is a constitutionally-permissible standard for testing acceptable lethality. The Attorney General offers no objective standard. Heller sets out a commonality standard that can be applied to magazine hardware: is the size of the magazine “common”? If so, the size is constitutionally-protected. If the “too lethal” standard is followed to its logical conclusion, the government may dictate in the future that a magazine of eight rounds is too lethal. And after that, it may dictate that a gun with a magazine holding three rounds is too lethal since a person usually fires only 2.2 rounds in self-defense. This stepped-down approach may continue32 until the time comes when government declares that only guns holding a single round are sufficiently lacking in lethality that they are both “safe” to possess and powerful enough to provide a means of self-defense.3

 

[2aguy]

And this is great too...

California’s law prohibiting acquisition and possession of magazines able to hold any more than 10 rounds places a severe restriction on the core right of self-defense of the home such that it amounts to a destruction of the right and is unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny.

 

[KissMy]

BFD -
They still won't allow citizens to possess real arms, so you still can't overthrow the government.

 

[bluzman61]

The anti-gun extremists lost one tonight, hopefully they will lose it completely as this goes forward....

A big preliminary win for the California Rifle and Pistol Association in its fight against California’s ludicrous ammunition background check law, the case known as Rhode v. Becerra. US District Court Judge Roger Benitez — the same District Court judge who set off the week-long standard capacity magazine buying spree — has issued an injunction blocking enforcement of the law.

Benitez wrote:

Law-abiding citizens are imbued with the unalienable right to keep and bear firearms along with the ammunition to make their firearms work. That a majority today may wish it were otherwise, does not change the Constitutional right. It never has. California has tried its unprecedented experiment. The casualties suffered by law abiding citizens have been counted.

BREAKING: US District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Blocking California's Ammo Background Check Law - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ A big preliminary win for the California Rifle and Pistol Association in its fight against California’s ludicrous ammunition background check law, the case known as Rhode v. Becerra. US District Court Judge Roger Benitez — the same District Court judge who set off...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

Great news! It seems like California isn't TOTALLY batsh*t crazy, and this is good to hear.

 

[okfine]

This is the same Federal Judge who put the injunction against the other stupid California gun law... the magazine ban....

If you want to read a Federal Judge bitch slapping anti-gun extremists.....look through this ruling...he takes apart their stupid arguments one at a time in great detail.......

Few would say that a 100 or 50-round rifle magazine in the hands of a murderer is a good idea. Yet, the “solution” for preventing a mass shooting exacts a high toll on the everyday freedom of ordinary law-abiding citizens. Many individual robberies, rapes, and shootings are not prevented by the State. Unless a law-abiding individual has a firearm for his or her own defense, the police typically arrive after it is too late. With rigor mortis setting in, they mark and bag the evidence, interview bystanders, and draw a chalk outline on the ground. But the victim, nevertheless, is dead, or raped, or robbed, or traumatized.
--------

In other words, a Californian may have a pistol with a 10-round magazine in hopes of fighting off a home invasion robbery. But if that Californian grabs a pistol containing a 17-round magazine, it is now the home-defending victim who commits a new crime.
----------

All Californians, like all citizens of the United States, have a fundamental Constitutional right to keep and bear common and dangerous arms. The nation’s Founders used arms for self-protection, for the common defense, for hunting food, and as a check against tyranny. Teixeira v. Cty. of Alameda, 873 F.3d 670, 686 (9th Cir. 2017)
-----

1. The Supreme Court’s Simple Heller Test

In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court provided a simple Second Amendment test in crystal clear language. It is a test that anyone can understand. The right to keep and bear arms is a right enjoyed by law-abiding citizens to have arms that are not unusual “in common use” “for lawful purposes like self-defense.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 624 (2008); Heller v. District of Columbia (“Heller II”), 670 F.3d 1244, 1271 (2011) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting) (“In my view, Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny.”).

It is a hardware test. Is the firearm hardware commonly owned? Is the hardware commonly owned by law-abiding citizens? Is the hardware owned by those citizens for lawful purposes? If the answers are “yes,” the test is over.

The hardware is protected. Millions of ammunition magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds are in common use by law-abiding responsible citizens for lawful uses like self-defense.

This is enough to decide that a magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds passes the Heller test and is protected by the Second Amendment. The simple test applies because a magazine is an essential mechanical part of a firearm. The size limit directly impairs one’s ability to defend one’s self.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Duncan-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0B1K9uqTLOdzJieJ6BMiBtRS0jdYT2id4OKm6suWAzGqo1V9eoe_wL9aA

I haven't had a problem buying ammo but I know some who have. It's BS. If the assholes jack up prices again I hope they lose their asses. Will be watching this, for sure.

 

[White 6]

The anti-gun extremists lost one tonight, hopefully they will lose it completely as this goes forward....

A big preliminary win for the California Rifle and Pistol Association in its fight against California’s ludicrous ammunition background check law, the case known as Rhode v. Becerra. US District Court Judge Roger Benitez — the same District Court judge who set off the week-long standard capacity magazine buying spree — has issued an injunction blocking enforcement of the law.

Benitez wrote:

Law-abiding citizens are imbued with the unalienable right to keep and bear firearms along with the ammunition to make their firearms work. That a majority today may wish it were otherwise, does not change the Constitutional right. It never has. California has tried its unprecedented experiment. The casualties suffered by law abiding citizens have been counted.

BREAKING: US District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Blocking California's Ammo Background Check Law - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ A big preliminary win for the California Rifle and Pistol Association in its fight against California’s ludicrous ammunition background check law, the case known as Rhode v. Becerra. US District Court Judge Roger Benitez — the same District Court judge who set off...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

I am just on page 13 of the judge Benitez' decision, but that is an amazing piece of legal work. He is a brilliant jurist and Californians should be proud.

 

[satrebil]

This is the same Federal Judge who put the injunction against the other stupid California gun law... the magazine ban....

If you want to read a Federal Judge bitch slapping anti-gun extremists.....look through this ruling...he takes apart their stupid arguments one at a time in great detail.......

Few would say that a 100 or 50-round rifle magazine in the hands of a murderer is a good idea. Yet, the “solution” for preventing a mass shooting exacts a high toll on the everyday freedom of ordinary law-abiding citizens. Many individual robberies, rapes, and shootings are not prevented by the State. Unless a law-abiding individual has a firearm for his or her own defense, the police typically arrive after it is too late. With rigor mortis setting in, they mark and bag the evidence, interview bystanders, and draw a chalk outline on the ground. But the victim, nevertheless, is dead, or raped, or robbed, or traumatized.
--------

In other words, a Californian may have a pistol with a 10-round magazine in hopes of fighting off a home invasion robbery. But if that Californian grabs a pistol containing a 17-round magazine, it is now the home-defending victim who commits a new crime.
----------

All Californians, like all citizens of the United States, have a fundamental Constitutional right to keep and bear common and dangerous arms. The nation’s Founders used arms for self-protection, for the common defense, for hunting food, and as a check against tyranny. Teixeira v. Cty. of Alameda, 873 F.3d 670, 686 (9th Cir. 2017)
-----

1. The Supreme Court’s Simple Heller Test

In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court provided a simple Second Amendment test in crystal clear language. It is a test that anyone can understand. The right to keep and bear arms is a right enjoyed by law-abiding citizens to have arms that are not unusual “in common use” “for lawful purposes like self-defense.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 624 (2008); Heller v. District of Columbia (“Heller II”), 670 F.3d 1244, 1271 (2011) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting) (“In my view, Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny.”).

It is a hardware test. Is the firearm hardware commonly owned? Is the hardware commonly owned by law-abiding citizens? Is the hardware owned by those citizens for lawful purposes? If the answers are “yes,” the test is over.

The hardware is protected. Millions of ammunition magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds are in common use by law-abiding responsible citizens for lawful uses like self-defense.

This is enough to decide that a magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds passes the Heller test and is protected by the Second Amendment. The simple test applies because a magazine is an essential mechanical part of a firearm. The size limit directly impairs one’s ability to defend one’s self.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Duncan-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0B1K9uqTLOdzJieJ6BMiBtRS0jdYT2id4OKm6suWAzGqo1V9eoe_wL9aA

I like this part of his ruling too....

3. Lethality is Not the Test

Some say that the use of “large capacity magazines” increases the lethality of gun violence. They point out that when large capacity magazines are used in mass shootings, more shots are fired, more people are wounded, and more wounds are fatal than in other mass shootings.31 That may or may not be true. Certainly, a gun when abused is lethal. A gun holding more than 10 rounds is lethal to more people than a gun holding less than 10 rounds, but it is not constitutionally decisive. Nothing in the Second Amendment makes lethality a factor to consider because a gun’s lethality, or dangerousness, is assumed.

The Second Amendment does not exist to protect the right to bear down pillows and foam baseball bats. It protects guns and every gun is dangerous. “If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous.” Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027, 1031 (2016) (Alito, J. and Thomas, J., concurring); Maloney v. Singas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211546 *19 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2018) (striking down 1974 ban on possession of dangerous nunchaku in violation of the Second Amendment and quoting Caetano).

“[T]he relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes.” Id. California law presently permits the lethality of a gun with a 10-round magazine. In other words, a gun with an 11-round magazine or a 15-round magazine is apparently too lethal to be possessed by a law-abiding citizen. A gun with a 10-round magazine is not. Missing is a constitutionally-permissible standard for testing acceptable lethality. The Attorney General offers no objective standard. Heller sets out a commonality standard that can be applied to magazine hardware: is the size of the magazine “common”? If so, the size is constitutionally-protected. If the “too lethal” standard is followed to its logical conclusion, the government may dictate in the future that a magazine of eight rounds is too lethal. And after that, it may dictate that a gun with a magazine holding three rounds is too lethal since a person usually fires only 2.2 rounds in self-defense. This stepped-down approach may continue32 until the time comes when government declares that only guns holding a single round are sufficiently lacking in lethality that they are both “safe” to possess and powerful enough to provide a means of self-defense.3

Truly excellent posts. Thanks!

 

[2aguy]

If you want to see anti-gun extremism in action...how they plan on making it just about impossible for normal people to exercise their ability to own and carry guns for self defense, read the Judges opinion....he details the level of complexity created to make the journey to buying ammo next to impossible..

so when anti-gun extremist tell you they don't want to ban or confiscate guns or ammo, they just want "common sense laws..." you know they are lying.....reading this opinion will expose exactly how they are lying....they can't be trusted, they hate guns and gun owners and will create laws so full of legal peril for gun owners, the 2nd Amendment becomes a Right you cannot exercise...

If you get to the part where the Judge gives examples of the red tape of specific Americans trying to buy ammunition....you will understand why any requirement for background checks, can be used to completely deny Americans the Right to own and carry a gun.....it starts around page 23 and the Judge states it is boring, but goes through all of the hoops an innocent, law abiding citizen has to go through if there is a mistake in the background check simply because of a clerical error on the part of the state.....

So anyone who says it only makes sense to require training and background checks because it only makes sense, is naive and clueless as to the depths the anti-gun extremists will go to to block gun ownership....

And this process is simply to buy a bullet........and you can't buy even one bullet if you don't get through this background check process.........

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020-04-23-Order-Granting-MPI.pdf

California’s decision to require proof of citizenship places heavy burdens on law-abiding citizens. Today, a United States Citizen who has only a standard California-issued DL or ID will not qualify to take the first step in purchasing ammunition, i.e., the ammunition background check.8 That citizen is completely blocked. To continue the metaphor, that citizen will never be admitted through the main gate. There is no place within California where that citizen might go to buy even one round of ammunition, for anyone who sells it commits a misdemeanor. See Cal. Penal Code § 30312.9

If the citizen looks outside of California, he or she will run into the antiimportation laws. See Cal. Penal Code §§ 30312, 30314, 30370, and 30385. The California resident may try purchasing ammunition through the internet, but once again, the ammunition must first be delivered to an in-state vendor where the purchaser must qualify to pass through the main gate before choosing one of the four background check doors. Cal. Penal Code § 30312(b). Without some additional proof of citizenship, that citizen is completely blocked.
------

To be clear, as stated before, it is a laudable goal to keep ammunition out of the possession of aliens illegally or unlawfully present. But the State offers no evidence of an unlawful alien-in-possession-of-ammunition crime problem. It almost seems like a pretext for further handcuffing Second Amendment rights.

Why does California assume that all ammunition purchasers are unlawfully present aliens until proven otherwise? Other constitutional rights are not treated this way. For example, the First Amendment protects a citizen’s right to contribute money to a political candidate while aliens are prohibited from doing the same.12 Yet, federal election laws do not require a political donor to prove U.S. citizenship as a precondition to making campaign contributions.

Enforcing ammunition possession laws against aliens can be done like election laws, if and when a crime is committed

 

[Weatherman2020]

Another blow to the crime loving Demonrats who are releasing violent felons from prison.

Federal Judge Rules California Ammo Law Unconstitutional

A federal judge blocked a California law requiring background checks for every ammunition purchase on Thursday.

freebeacon.com

 

[2aguy]

The 9th circuit stopped the injunction......

Here is a quicker look at the main issue as to why you can't trust anti-gun extremists when they say all they want is "common sense," gun laws....as soon as they say that, you know they are lying....

The anti-gun extremist here on U.S.messageboard tell us.....background checks just make sense...all they want is to keep guns and ammo out of the hands of bad guys.....and they are either lying, or foolish.........

Preliminary injunction against dysfunctional California ammunition background checks

On April 23, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued a preliminary injunction against California's background…

reason.com

Judge Benitez's opinion explains the Catch-22 that California has created for persons attempting to purchase ammunition. According to California law, only citizens may purchase ammunition. But California issues drivers licenses to "illegal aliens" (the term used in federal statutes).

Millions of California citizens have drivers licenses that are indistinguishable from the drivers licenses carried by illegal aliens in California. Therefore, a standard California drivers license is insufficient for attempting to purchase ammunition.

The California citizen with a California driver's license must instead obtain and present a passport or a certified birth certificate.

Plaintiffs say that obtaining a certified birth certificate in California takes up to 22 weeks, while the California government promises delivery in less than 8 weeks. A passport would take even longer, since the application usually requires a certified birth certificate.

It is doubtful that requiring law-abiding Californians to spend weeks or months obtaining alternative identification is motivated by a sincere determination to keep ammunition out of the hands of illegal aliens. Given that the legislature has declared California to be a sanctuary state, an illegal alien who did try to illegally buy ammunition would presumably not be prosecuted.

The district court noted the plight of David Dodd, a retired veteran. Because he was adopted at a young age, and does not know his biological father's full name, he cannot obtain a certified birth certificate. And thus California prevents him from purchasing ammunition at all.

Six hundred and forty thousand Californians who apparently did have passports or certified birth certificates did attempt to purchase ammunition. Of those, 188 were properly rejected because of disqualifying condition found in the California background check database (e.g., felony conviction, certain misdemeanors, mental health holds). Additionally, 101,047 lawful applicants were improperly blocked.

In other words, 99.8% of ammunition check denials were erroneous.

Many lawful would-be buyers were blocked because they are not in California's database of gun owners. But there is no legal requirement that a person must be in the database in order to possess ammunition; the California gunowner registration database is compiled by harvesting records of firearm background checks; persons who acquired their firearms before the registration system was imposed are lawful owners who are not in the registry. (The registry was created for handguns in 1990 and for long guns in 2014.)
---

Other buyers were rejected because of identifier mismatches, such as currently living at a different address than they did when they bought a firearm years before.

It might not be accurate to consider system of mass false denials to be merely the result of incompetence. Ever since the gun control lobbies were founded in the 1970s, they have endeavored to place every possible obstacle in the way of lawful firearms ownership and use, as part of a long-term strategy to drive down the number of gun owners, as I detailed in a recent article for Colorado Politics.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Patriots these days must be as well informed legally as they are sensible and freedom loving.

 

[LuckyDuck]

BFD -
They still won't allow citizens to possess real arms, so you still can't overthrow the government.

The last I checked, a significant number of citizen fighters, armed only with AK-47's, AK-74's, some RPG's and Improvised Explosive Devices, have kept the US military with its A-10 Warthogs, F-16's, F-35's, C-130 gunship and Apache helicopters from conquering Afghanistan and even forced the US to try and work out a peace deal and the last I checked, the estimated number of Taliban fighters was only about 35,000, whereas, the number of private citizens who own firearms, is about 90 million and even if only 10% of those were to fight against a tyrannical American leftist government, that would be about 9 million fighters...oh, let's be really generous and say only half the figure of 9 million were to take up arms against the tyrannical left, that would still be 4.5 million fighters and those currently semi-automatic rifles can be modified to be fully automatic and improvising explosive devices can be easily done. Having all the fancy technical combat equipment is no guarantee of success against a people determined to be free from Authoritarian leadership.