Doug Howlett Photo
Previous Post
Next Post

“Well, screw me!” every gun owner in California collectively said at the news U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez’s ruling just last week had been stayed by a higher court panel. Benitez had ruled that the state’s requirement people get background checks for each ammo purchase was unconstitutional. Of course, the court panel that issued the stay is none other than the infamous 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals headquartered out of San Francisco, which is so liberal, the court’s rulings typically border on enforcing near communistic doctrine. China’s Xi Jinping’s policies would get a more favorable ruling than anything draped in traditional American values.

The stay effectively allows California to again require its residents buying ammo to submit to a background check with each purchase.

The stay of the ruling in the case of Rhode v. Bonta was amazingly decided on a 2-1 vote by the three-judge panel with Circuit Judges Holly A. Thomas and Richard Clifton ordering the stay with Judge Consuelo Callahan dissenting.

In her dissenting opinion, Callahan wrote, “I would deny the motion for a stay pending appeal. I do not believe appellant has met the burden of showing a likelihood of success on the merits or that irreparable injury will occur absent a stay.” The view offers some legal hope for a path forward as lawyers supporting the Rhode case will “seek further review by a different panel of the court” according to a Reuters news report.

The case was brought against the state by Olympic shooter, Kim Rhode, a three-time gold medal winner, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association.

California voters originally approved a ballot measure in 2016 requiring gun owners to undergo an initial background check and then buy a $50, four-year permit to purchase ammunition. In 2019, state legislators amended the law to require a background check for each and every ammunition purchase. Each background check costs the buyer $1 to be paid to the state Department of Justice to cover the cost of running the instant background check. If a person has never had their background checked, they must pay $19 for a paper background check and then return a few days later if approved when they can pick up their ammunition.

According to California Waterfowl, a California-based conservation organization:

One in six (people buying ammunition), however, can’t pass the background check, and the reason for the overwhelming majority of them is rooted in records (more on that below). Of the 102,147 people this law has stopped from buying ammunition as of this writing, 758 were actually “prohibited persons.” The rest were just rejected by a system that works poorly.

No doubt, this law will continue to wind its way through the courts, potentially reaching the Supreme Court at some time with California gun owners being batted back and forth like a tennis ball with each ruling. Meanwhile, the state continues to slide into an abyss of crime, chaos, illegal immigration and homeless druggie feces because the state’s leaders refuse to enforce the real laws that would improve life for families and hard-working Californians.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. And the fight goes on (or was that the band?).

    This shouldn’t be and real shocker. California is ruled by socialists. Maybe an ar15 armed protest around the capital building would take care of this. If that doesn’t work then we can try honking our horns in unison.

    All they really need to survive is a survival rifle. of wait, they can’t have that either. Did the people of that state put these idiots in charge? Well, I guess. Someone keeps voting for Pelosi.

    • They control the voting machines and count the ballots. We mount an armed protest around the capitol and biden would gladly send armor to put us down. And all the ‘free Americans’ in ‘free states’ would stand by and watch it happen.

      Until we are a united people their tyranny will continue.

  2. This shouldn’t be and real shocker. California is ruled by the left. Maybe an ar15 armed protest around the capital building would take care of this. If that doesn’t work then we can try honking our horns in unison.

    • The hopeful good news is, Clarence Thomas is watching all this with displeasure and is making notes as to how he can express his extreme displease at this turn of events.

      At this point, it’s getting obvious the 9th won’t even respect a straightforward ‘GVR’ if one is dropped in its lap… 🙁

  3. I’d say something mean about CA and the 9th, but I think that everything that can possibly be said has already been said.

    • How about this…a relative of mine (a native born Californian who’s been here his entire life) legally purchased a handgun back in the mid-90s. Here in SoCal, via the required FFL and DROS, etc. All above board, legal, and per the State’s requirements.

      Fast forward to today. The brick-and-mortar FFL he bought it from closed up shop long ago, and CADOJ stated their efforts to populate the State’s AFS database with retroactive FFL records would only go back to 1998. So he’s stuck in a gray area in which he legally owns a handgun and has his printed copy of the now-almost-30-yrs-old DROS, but CADOJ doesn’t have record of it in its AFS, so he therefore cannot purchase ammo unless he re-registers it again. Obviously, he won’t re-register due to the possibility that he might be lucky enough to own his gun off the State’s radar (he has his printed DROS copy for proof if needed down the road), so he’s stuck.

      Is he legal? Absolutely. But CA says “no soup for you” unless he puts his private property back on the radar for them to potentially confiscate in the future if tyranny advances.

      The law is flawed from the ground up.

      Me? I have a CCW and have therefore passed at least *two* BGCs, but CA still wants me to go thru the gauntlet each time I want to buy a box of gun food. I’ve never purchased ammo in CA since the requirement went into effect in 2019. I backed up the truck before then to last me years, and I just backed it up again over the weekend to get a lot more.

      • “Is he legal? Absolutely. But CA says “no soup for you” unless he puts his private property back on the radar for them to potentially confiscate in the future if tyranny advances.”

        That really sucks for your relative, but there may be an expensive and flawed solution. Buy another gun in that caliber (the same make and model would be handy for acquiring needed spare parts), keeping the first one still ‘off the books’…

        • Then that puts him back on the CADOJ radar. Never, ever register unless you have no option otherwise.

        • It doesn’t even have to be the same gun or caliber. If he has a handgun, he could by a Ruger 10-22 and thereafter be allowed to buy any ammo in any caliber he chooses. It is only required that you have “A” gun registered to your CURRENT address. I don’t know why the DOJ keys on address , but it does. If you move, it is as if you have never owned a gun when you go to buy ammo, unless you reregister at least one of them.

  4. “California voters originally approved a ballot measure in 2016 requiring gun owners to undergo an initial background check and then buy a $50, four-year permit to purchase ammunition.”

    And there you have it, california voters are the enemies of liberty. But they do want their leg@ lized butt sex and drugs. They are comfortable pacified slaves.

      • This is the case where CA Stooped lower than a snake’s belly to cite numerous despicable Historical Racist Gun Control Laws in order to save their bacon. While the usual Gun Talkers sat deaf, dumb, and blindly oblivious to democRat CA racist maneuvers Judge Benetiz was a no can do for such Racist Gun Control filth being used in his court…

      • > I remember voting (no) on this Proposition, and the wording its advocates used to promote it was arguably misleading.

        I “did some time” in the Bay Area in the late 90’s. EVERY ELECTION there was a double wheelbarrow full of referendums. The voters guide resembled a phone book.

        I organized “voting parties” with my friends so we could decode the language in each measure. There was no requirement to agree, and we didn’t have to disclose our personal decisions to anyone. We just talked them through.

        Double negatives, word salad, half truths, pulling on heartstrings, completely lying on the financial impact of an issue. Invariably, at least one person read the language completely backwards and would have voted against their interests.

        Feature, not bug.

    • Remember when CA voters passed Prop 8?
      Remember when the state said “GFY” and ignored the vote?

      Voting, mob rule, is only important when the state gets the result it wants to get. If it doesn’t get the result it wants it’s all too happy to ignore the voters ServPro style.

      • Actually, Prop 8 was overturned by a federal court in 2010.

        Curious…ServPro is a disaster cleanup company. What does that have to do with the topic of voting?

        • The state of california refused to supply state government lawyers to defend that state law. Passed by the voters.

          But they will supply state government lawyers to work and take away your federal civil rights.

          California has no Second Amendment in its state constitution. Because the racist state of california didn’t want Mexicans and Chinese/Japanese to have guns.

          It’s all depends on whose ox is being gored.

        • CA doesn’t need a 2A. It already recognizes the USC’s 2A. Or at least does so in writing. As I’ve stated here before, Art 3 Sec 1 of the CA State Constitution consists of a single sentence:

          “The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.”

          So when Newsom and his ilk violate the 2A, not only are they violating the Supreme Law of the land, but they are also violating their oath to uphold our own State Constitution, which is inextricably tied to the Federal Constitution.

      • I was still in HS in California when Proposition 6, informally known as the Briggs Initiative, was on the ballot.

        At the time “they” said there was no reason to ban ,h0 m0 sex u@l, teachers from entering the public school class rooms.

        And that was even after a ,h 0m 0sexu @l, got himself elected to the SF school board. With the public stated goal, to end all 2A education and do away with the rifle teams in the public school system.

        It’s interesting how it’s now acceptable to purposely misspell certain words.

  5. Well that BS has come to ILLANNOY. Gordon Gecko probably called Prickster with “hey here’s an idea comrade”! Pretty sure lardo follows the Commiefornia constitution🙄😕

  6. From what I know, the only way to buy ammo is to clear the background check and if you have never purchased a firearm in that caliber in the past few decades… an ammo background check will fail.

    So let’s assume you were gifted a family heirloom back in the 1950’s, to purchase ammo for it, you would be required to register it in the CFARS database before you start the ammo background check… or the check will fail

    Again, adding to a registry which is federally illegal

    • It is not illegal to have a state registry. It is only illegal for the feds to maintain a registry. Also, as I stated above, one can by another firearm in any caliber, rifle, shotgun, or pistol, and be qualified by that purchase to buy ammo. When you move, you either have to buy another firearm or reregister one that you already have. Just one, though, not all of them.

  7. 2nd attempt to post

    quote—————–Meanwhile, the state continues to slide into an abyss of crime, chaos, illegal immigration and homeless druggie feces because the state’s leaders refuse to enforce the real laws that would improve life for families and hard-working Californians.———quote

    In reality ammo checks on the Federal Level would indeed make getting ammo for criminals much harder. Even a 5th grader who is not suffering from paranoia could understand that, its not rocket science. And selling personally owned ammo should be outlawed as well unless one transfer’s the ammo through a licensed dealer.

    As far as immigration the U.S. needs more workers that is a fact but the racist Republicans will scream “We hate brown people” and being total religious hypocrites they hate them even though most are Christians. Man the Republicans are real sicko’s.

    And it is the Republicans who block civilized Federal housing programs that would give homeless people places to live in. Let’s face facts, when smaller European countries can afford to give people places to live the lies the gangster criminal, selfish, cheap ass Republicans tell merely show what low level scum bags they all are. The Republicans are the lowest form of human filth on the planet.

    • Congrats. You’re the most ignorant poster on here.

      Perhaps you should be required to undergo a check every time you purchase lunch? I don’t think you would pass.

  8. Big P.S.: The majority granted the stay WITHOUT ISSUING AN OPINION. Just a one =line order. However, the stay can be revisited by the merits panel on the merits, and the panel has the authority to reverse the order. This has happened once before (in the Duncan case if memory serves) where the motions panel granted a stay but the merits panel reversed because neither the trial court nor the motions panel had stated any reasons or authority for the granting the stay.

    P.P.S.: The State told the motions panel that the ammo law was “long standing,” and failed to advise the Court that the law had been enacted only five years ago, 2019 to be precise. It also argued that irreparable=ble injury would result unless a stay was imposed because prohibited persons would be able to purchase ammo without a background check. The opposition noted that of all of the hundreds of denied sales to prohibited persons, the State had only prosecuted a small handful. (Less than 10)

    Hope springs eternal.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here