Rhode vs Becerra - CA ammo law challenge

"... being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

A place to discuss regulation, proposed or enacted.

Moderators: admin, Inquisitor, ForumModerator, WebsiteContent

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 17758
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Rhode vs Becerra - CA ammo law challenge

Post by highdesert »

California blocked more than 100 felons and other prohibited persons from buying ammunition in the last month using a new law requiring background checks, the state attorney general said Monday.

The new figures were released just days after mass shootings in California, Texas and Ohio that left 34 people dead and dozens of others injured.

Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra reported the numbers to a federal judge in arguing against an injunction sought by gun owner rights groups to block the law requiring background checks, which was approved by voters in Proposition 63 and through legislation.

“The evidence shows that, in the absence of eligibility checks like the ones challenged here, prohibited persons regularly purchase ammunition from unwitting vendors,” said the written brief filed late Monday in federal court in San Diego. The law that took effect July 1 prevents ammo purchases by customers at gun shops if they cannot show they have a registered firearm or are on a list of felons or severely mentally ill, thus are disqualified from possessing guns.

“California has a substantial interest in increasing public safety and preventing crime, and the Ammunition Eligibility Check Laws, which prevent convicted felons and other prohibited persons from purchasing ammunition, is a reasonable fit to address that interest,” Becerra said in the filing.

The state made the claim as it fights a lawsuit by the California Rifle and Pistol Assn., the state affiliate of the National Rifle Assn., that is seeking to block enforcement of the new background checks for ammo purchasers.

Sean Brady, an attorney for the gun groups, said the state’s filing also shows that some 10,000 other ammunition purchases were not immediately approved during the first month, which he says indicates glitches in the system impacting law-abiding gun owners.

Gun shop owners say many of the other denials may be people eligible to buy ammo but whose names on their driver’s licenses do not exactly match gun registration records.

Becerra and Gov. Gavin Newsom told reporters Monday that they are hopeful the law will survive the court challenge.

“We are going to fight like the dickens,” Newsom said. “We are confident that we will prevail.” He said that the law requiring background checks for ammunition buyers is needed because guns alone don’t kill people. “Guns require a dangerous component: That’s ammunition.”

The request for an injunction was filed last month in federal court by the California Rifle and Pistol Assn., and argued that the background checks have created mass confusion and unconstitutional burden on law-abiding gun owners.

“While making sure dangerous people do not obtain weapons is a laudable goal for government, California’s scheme goes too far and must be enjoined,” the injunction request argues. “California ammunition vendors have reported as high as 60% of people who undergo California’s background check do not pass.” The law took effect July 1.

“California’s scheme imposes severe burdens on exercising the right to acquire ammunition, including effectively barring some from acquiring ammunition necessary to exercise their right to armed defense at all,” the gun group argued to the federal court.

The law challenged with the injunction filing also requires Californians buying ammunition from out of state on the internet or at gun shows to have it shipped to a licensed vendor in California where background check is required.

The injunction request was added to an earlier lawsuit by plaintiffs including Olympic medalist shooter Kim Rhode seeking to have the entire law tossed out. The court filing by Becerra comes just days after a gunman in Dayton, Ohio, killed nine people, an attacker in El Paso, Texas, killed 22 and a 19-year-old armed with an AK-47-style rifle in Gilroy, Calif., killed three.

Meanwhile, a state lawmaker on Monday reacted to three mass shootings in the previous week by saying he plans to introduce a new tax on ammunition purchased in California to pay for an expansion of violence prevention programs.

Assemblyman Marc Levine (D-San Rafael ) said he will add the bullet tax to a bill he plans to revive that would also set a $25 tax on the sale of handguns and semiautomatic rifles sold in California. The tax revenue would go to grants to local programs that seek to reduce violence in communities where gun crimes are common.

“We are not helpless or hopeless when it comes to ending gun terror in the United States,” Levine said. “A $25 tax on firearms is a small amount for gun owners to pay to stem the tragic violence guns inflict on innocent Californians and will create a permanent and desperately needed funding source to reduce gun violence in our state.”
https://www.latimes.com/california/stor ... lock-sales

http://michellawyers.com/rhode-v-becerra/
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11753
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: Rhode vs Becerra - CA ammo law challenge

Post by DispositionMatrix »

Preliminary injunction against California's ammunition background check law granted by Judge Benitez.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 5.60.0.pdf
III. CONCLUSION
Together, the background check requirement for all ammunition purchases in
California and the anti-importation provisions that prohibit direct sales to residents
often effect a complete statutory barrier to the lawful purchase of ammunition.
Moreover, the provisions are interlocking and derive from the same section of
Proposition 63. See §§ 8.1 through 8.16. The anti-importation provisions are not
severable from the ammunition background check requirements. Even if only one
part was unconstitutional both parts would need to be enjoined. But severability
does not matter here, as both parts fail constitutional muster and require injunctive
relief.

The Court does not lightly enjoin a state statute, even on a preliminary basis.
However, just as the Court is mindful that a majority of California voters approved
Proposition 63 and that government has a legitimate interest in protecting the public
from gun violence, it is equally mindful that the Constitution remains a shield from
the tyranny of the majority. As Senator Kennedy said, “[t]he judiciary is – and is
often the only – protector of individual rights that are at the heart of our
Case 3:18-cv-00802-BEN-JLB Document 60 Filed 04/23/20 PageID.2307 Page 117 of 120
democracy.”58 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. Presently, California and many
other states sit in isolation under pandemic-inspired stay-at-home orders. Schools,
parks, beaches, and countless non-essential businesses are closed. Courts are
limping by while police make arrests for only the more serious crimes. Maintaining
Second Amendment rights are especially important in times like these. Keeping
vigilant is necessary in both bad times and good, for if we let these rights lapse in
the good times, they might never be recovered in time to resist the next appearance
of criminals, terrorists, or tyrants.
It is not the Court’s role to dictate to a state how it should go about attempting
to accomplish its goal. If the state objective is to make it extremely difficult, if not
impossible, for its law-abiding citizens to purchase protected ammunition, then this
law appears to be well-drafted. However, if the genuine object is to keep
ammunition out of the hands of those who should not be able to buy it, perhaps the
State could create a database (that would include persons prohibited, i.e., aliens
unlawfully present, felons, and others) and simply make that information available
to sellers by cross-checking with the magnetic strip on a standard driver’s license
and by allowing out-of-state vendors the same ability to engage in commerce as it
does California vendors.
Might be a good time to stock up on ammo.

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11753
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: Rhode vs Becerra - CA ammo law challenge

Post by DispositionMatrix »

At least one vendor appears to be on board with shipping ammo to California.
https://twitter.com/JGSALESLTD/status/1 ... 15968?s=20

User avatar
senorgrand
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 21506
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:05 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Calif Central Coast
Contact:

Re: Rhode vs Becerra - CA ammo law challenge

Post by senorgrand »

bought from them a couple of hours ago :)
Image

"Person, woman, man, camera, TV."

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11753
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: Rhode vs Becerra - CA ammo law challenge

Post by DispositionMatrix »

Bulk?

User avatar
senorgrand
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 21506
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:05 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Calif Central Coast
Contact:

Re: Rhode vs Becerra - CA ammo law challenge

Post by senorgrand »

yup
Image

"Person, woman, man, camera, TV."

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 17758
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Rhode vs Becerra - CA ammo law challenge

Post by highdesert »

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego ruled in favor of the California Rifle & Pistol Assn., which asked him to stop the checks and related restrictions on ammo sales.

“The experiment has been tried. The casualties have been counted. California’s new ammunition background check law misfires and the Second Amendment rights of California citizens have been gravely injured,” Benitez wrote in a 120-page opinion granting the group’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
“The law’s red tape and state database errors made it impossible for hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Californians to purchase ammunition for sport or self-defense,” said Chuck Michel, the association’s general counsel. “The court found that the flimsy reasons offered by the government to justify these constitutional infringements were inadequate.”

He expected the state to appeal the ruling, but said that in the meantime “Californians can sleep a little easier tonight knowing their Constitutional rights were restored and strengthened by this decision.”
The state attorney general’s office said only that it is reviewing the decision. It did not immediately say if it will appeal or seek to stay the order, which takes effect immediately at a time when some California gun stores have been ordered shut because of the coronavirus. Among the places where the shops were not deemed essential businesses are Los Angeles and San Jose.
The lawsuit by California Rifle & Pistol Assn. was joined by out-of-state ammunition sellers and California residents, including Kim Rhode, who has won six Olympic shooting medals.
https://www.latimes.com/california/stor ... rchase-law

Hope the AG decides that his office his bigger priorities than appealing this court order.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 22604
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: Rhode vs Becerra - CA ammo law challenge

Post by CDFingers »

A lot of lawful buyers were denied for technical reasons, and not very many felons were caught. The law was not worth the hassle.

CDFingers
ImageImage
Major Domo said, "Why don't we give him rope enough to hang himself?
Don't worry 'bout the jury, they'll prolly take care of themselves."

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11753
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: Rhode vs Becerra - CA ammo law challenge

Post by DispositionMatrix »

"That a majority today may wish it were otherwise, does not change the Constitutional right. It never has."

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11753
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: Rhode vs Becerra - CA ammo law challenge

Post by DispositionMatrix »

Brady has come out against Benitez:
BRADY BLASTS TRIAL COURT RULING HALTING CALIFORNIA’S LAW ON BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR AMMUNITION PURCHASES
Brady President Kris Brown explained:

“This decision is patently wrong and we expect that it will be reversed on appeal. The Second Amendment does not provide felons or domestic abusers with the right to buy ammunition or firearms, and it does not prevent states like California from requiring background checks that screen out prohibited purchasers. An unelected judge has — temporarily — deprived Californians of an important public safety law that they want and need, claiming an unprecedented, radical revision of the Second Amendment that is contrary to what the Framers intended, and to basic principles of democracy. While this judge suggests that purchasers who must simply undergo a background check to buy ammunition are the 'casualties,' of this law, the true victims will be the people endangered by this ruling. As we saw last August, this law stopped over 100 individuals from illegally purchasing ammunition and likely deterred many more. This law works. It is constitutional. And it protects Californians.

While this injunction is a disappointment, Brady remains dedicated to ensuring the safety of Californians. We are heartened that the judicial process will continue and optimistic that the judge’s error will be corrected on appeal. In recent years, gun laws in California that have been initially struck down, including by Judge Benitez, have been upheld later on appeal. This setback is concerning, but decades of precedent and public safety laws are on our side.”

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 22604
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: Rhode vs Becerra - CA ammo law challenge

Post by CDFingers »

Actually, Kris, it says "the right of the People". This should get fun.

CDFingers
ImageImage
Major Domo said, "Why don't we give him rope enough to hang himself?
Don't worry 'bout the jury, they'll prolly take care of themselves."

User avatar
shinzen
Site Admin
Posts: 19522
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:52 pm
Location: Northern California
Contact:

Re: Rhode vs Becerra - CA ammo law challenge

Post by shinzen »

His invocation of the commerce clause is going to be an interesting thing to watch on this IMO.
“Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”
- Maya Angelou

Image

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11753
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: Rhode vs Becerra - CA ammo law challenge

Post by DispositionMatrix »

Beyond the intended burdens described above, experienced judges can also
predict unintended effects of the ammunition background check system and its
burdens. One, even more ammunition and more firearms will be bought. Human
nature and the laws of economics being what they are, law-abiding citizens will
probably delay ammunition purchases, purchase very large quantities when they do,
and stockpile their ammunition, rather than submitting to more frequent background
checks each time to buy smaller quantities as they may have need. While there are
no numerical limits on the quantity of ammunition one may buy today, Carnac the
Magnificent might easily predict that in the not-to-distant future, this will be deemed
a “loophole” that the State will endeavor to close.

Two, criminals will go underground. Prohibited persons who may be
unaware of their status will quickly learn they are prohibited22and that their
prohibitions include being prosecuted for the felony crime of possession of
ammunition. They will seek out illicit suppliers.

User avatar
YankeeTarheel
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:01 pm
Location: The Jughandle State
Contact:

Re: Rhode vs Becerra - CA ammo law challenge

Post by YankeeTarheel »

The one thing people forget is that gun sales, like liquor during Prohibition, and drug sales, particularly grass prior to many states either legalizing or decriminalize, is STILL subject the fundamental economic laws of Supply and Demand, and that includes the elasticity of both.

(ie, the responsiveness to price changes. Elastic Demand means is if the price goes up much, people don't buy or switch to cheaper alternatives, called, by economists "inferior goods"--no reflection on quality, per se. OTOH, inelastic demand, such as cigarettes, means the price increases have little impact on consumption amounts. Elastic and inelastic Supply works the same way, in reverse).

So illegal guns and ammo will, somewhat, depending on S&D, reduce consumption by criminals as the cost goes up. Of course, it won't stop them and may induce other crimes to get cash to pay the inflated price of the now-illicit good...Unintended Consequences.

DESPITE all, though, even in criminal behavior, economic modeling holds and is an effective tool of analysis. (I worked for several years in grad school for an econ prof specializing in studying all kinds of criminal behavior)
""If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." -- LBJ

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 22604
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: Rhode vs Becerra - CA ammo law challenge

Post by CDFingers »

shinzen wrote:
Fri Apr 24, 2020 9:01 am
His invocation of the commerce clause is going to be an interesting thing to watch on this IMO.
+1

I don't think cigs are a good comparison, as there is the addiction component.

Oh, wait. :yes: :clap: :roflmao: :eh:

CDFingers
ImageImage
Major Domo said, "Why don't we give him rope enough to hang himself?
Don't worry 'bout the jury, they'll prolly take care of themselves."

User avatar
YankeeTarheel
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:01 pm
Location: The Jughandle State
Contact:

Re: Rhode vs Becerra - CA ammo law challenge

Post by YankeeTarheel »

CDFingers wrote:
Fri Apr 24, 2020 9:40 am
shinzen wrote:
Fri Apr 24, 2020 9:01 am
His invocation of the commerce clause is going to be an interesting thing to watch on this IMO.
+1

I don't think cigs are a good comparison, as there is the addiction component.

Oh, wait. :yes: :clap: :roflmao: :eh:

CDFingers
:roflmao: I just used cigs as an example of an inelastic demand good.
""If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." -- LBJ

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 6742
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Rhode vs Becerra - CA ammo law challenge

Post by featureless »

State just filed a stay request. If you need it, order it NOW.
https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/up ... ng-MPI.pdf

User avatar
senorgrand
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 21506
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:05 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Calif Central Coast
Contact:

Re: Rhode vs Becerra - CA ammo law challenge

Post by senorgrand »

I got all I needed...but not all I wanted...
Image

"Person, woman, man, camera, TV."

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 6742
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Rhode vs Becerra - CA ammo law challenge

Post by featureless »

senorgrand wrote:
Fri Apr 24, 2020 3:01 pm
I got all I needed...but not all I wanted...
That's not how the lyrics go. :lol:

User avatar
senorgrand
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 21506
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:05 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Calif Central Coast
Contact:

Re: Rhode vs Becerra - CA ammo law challenge

Post by senorgrand »

CA remix
Image

"Person, woman, man, camera, TV."

User avatar
bajajoaquin
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 997
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2019 4:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Rhode vs Becerra - CA ammo law challenge

Post by bajajoaquin »

I got my order in a couple hours ago. We'll see if it gets shipped in time.

Next.... Mag capacity limits!

User avatar
senorgrand
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 21506
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:05 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Calif Central Coast
Contact:

Re: Rhode vs Becerra - CA ammo law challenge

Post by senorgrand »

We did that one...how about CA handgun roster? :)
Image

"Person, woman, man, camera, TV."

User avatar
bajajoaquin
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 997
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2019 4:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Rhode vs Becerra - CA ammo law challenge

Post by bajajoaquin »

Did I miss a permanent injunction on mag capacity? I thought there was only freedom week, and then it shut down again.

User avatar
senorgrand
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 21506
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:05 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Calif Central Coast
Contact:

Re: Rhode vs Becerra - CA ammo law challenge

Post by senorgrand »

this may well be freedom week 2
Image

"Person, woman, man, camera, TV."

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 6742
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Rhode vs Becerra - CA ammo law challenge

Post by featureless »

senorgrand wrote:
Fri Apr 24, 2020 3:49 pm
this may well be freedom week 2
?

Mag ban still in effect.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests