Ninth Circuit Grants Emergency Stay, California Ammunition Background Check Law Back In Force

The California judiciary giveth and the California judiciary taketh away. As we expected, the state filed an emergency motion to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, asking the Judge Roger Benitez’s injunction be lifted.

Benitez’s injunction issued in response to a motion in Rhode v. Becerra, had stopped enforcement of California’s ammunition background check law. That injunction allowed Golden Staters to once again buy ammo freely and out-of-state retailers to ship directly to California buyers.

But late last night, the Ninth Circuit quashed the injunction. That means it’s back to asking state permission to buy .22 LR rounds for plinking or JHPs for personal defense. Ammunition Freedom Week turned out to last less than two days.

As we’ve said before, this case still has a long way to go. Watch this space.

comments

  1. avatar Stateisevil says:

    But mY President’s aPpointees.

    1. avatar Dd says:

      Are you two? How about complete sentences and proper grammar? This isn’t kindergarten.

      1. avatar Bob says:

        You internet grammar nazis need to freak off.

        1. avatar Rich M says:

          By all means, remain illiterate. Display it proudly.

        2. avatar Divemedic says:

          Random capitalization and childish statements are not being picky about grammar. It is a request for people to actually discuss issues like adults, and not like children on the playground.

        3. avatar Nero Wolfe says:

          “…diction, not grammar…”

        4. avatar Rattlerjake says:

          Nero Wolfe, It actually is about both, but more about grammar as it pertains to writing, not use of words. In this case it is about poor sentence structure, punctuation, and poor spelling. There’s no way to tell if the effectiveness or clarity of word choice is effective without a complete sentence — [difference between grammar and diction is that grammar is a system of rules and principles for speaking and writing a language while diction is the effectiveness and degree of clarity of word choice, and presentation of said words].

          Secondly, those of you, like BOB, who insist on defending ignorance are no better than the ignorant!

      2. avatar Yankeefox says:

        bUt mY gRaMmArs

      3. avatar Hannibal says:

        ok boomer

        (since you missed the first meme I thought you deserved another)

      4. avatar BusyBeef says:

        Are you so out of touch you don’t even get the meme reference with the spelling in the original post?

        I bet you’re a NRA Life Member too.

    2. avatar Jb says:

      Did 45 appoint all the judges in the 9th circus? Honestly would love to understand your comment better because it really makes no sense and is just another “orange man bad” type of retarded chest pounding. Try pounding sand instead.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        State has been here for years. I can never remember him making a positive comment. Not once.

        He’s the life of the party.

        1. avatar Stateisevil says:

          Jwm, thing is, I’m always right. Because I understand their game. Read some contemporary history for goodness sake. Since about the Depression the court system cannot and will not help you. They are there to rubber stamp a “progressive”, positivist agenda. I wish people would grow up and realize what needs to be done. But there is no motivation to organize because, well, I get to vote and the courts are open, somebody else will fight for me. Meanwhile you will die with California being a 2nd amendment free zone.

        2. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

          “Jwm, thing is, I’m always right.”

          No, you’re *not*, as I am about to point out next.

          “Because I understand their game. Read some contemporary history for goodness sake. Since about the Depression the court system cannot and will not help you.””

          And *there* is your lie. Ready for the proof?

          Before ‘Heller v. DC’, a NYC resident didn’t have a right to keep a handgun in their NYC home. After ‘Heller v. DC’, DECIDED BY A COURT, citizens could keep a gun in their NYC home.

          You *LIED*, ‘stateisevil’.

          Now sit the fuck down, shut the fuck up, or just go away, you lying sack of shit… 🙂

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          State’s “solution” to a rat problem in your basement would involve burning down your house. How about instead of burning down the state, we burn down the Demokkkommies? Seems a simpler solution.

      2. avatar Mike M says:

        He’s just an ass fit to be ignored. Not every judge in the 9th circuit has been replaced. There are many liberal activists on that panel that need to go. That is why, more than ever, President Trump needs to be elected to a second term

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          And a third.

    3. avatar Brad Ward says:

      What’s this? A battle of wits between two unarmed opponents?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “What’s this? A battle of wits between two unarmed opponents?”

        Fair Notice…

        I’m keeping this one for my own use.

        1. avatar Rattlerjake says:

          It’s actually a spin off of the old saying, “I’d have a battle of the wits with you, but I hate to fight an unarmed man (or woman)”!

          A leftist’s brain on the edge of a razorblade is equivalent to a BB on an eight lane highway.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “It’s actually a spin off of the old saying, “I’d have a battle of the wits with you, but I hate to fight an unarmed man (or woman)”!”

          Whenever I am tweaking my brother-in-law about gun control, I always accuse him of bringing a cupcake to a knife fight.

    4. avatar Gus says:

      YOU’RE ALWAYS RIGHT! That one statement from you is all anyone and everyone needs to know about you. Once an F’stick, always an F’stick.

  2. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    Need to load up all these activist judges and ship them out to Cuba. According to the Bill of Rights, everything in the Second Amendment is off limits to any and all governing bodies in our country. These activists are either ignorant or subversive, either of which disqualifies them.

    1. avatar Vstrommer says:

      Judge Benitez is from Cuba.

      1. avatar Jeff in CO says:

        Just about choked and laughed hysterically when I saw Ed’s comment. Was about to hit reply and saw you already beat me to it!

        It’s funny how someone that came from an oppressed society appreciates our freedoms and Constitution so much. It would be great if Benetiz could be appointed to replace the next outgoing member of the 9th circuit, or RBG with SCOTIS!

    2. avatar California Richard says:

      Its amazing how fast the 9th Circus can move when it needs to save a liberal tyranny law, and how slow it will move to actually hear the law so it can proceed to SCOTUS.

  3. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

    Surprise, surprise who didn’t see this coming. By letting an injunction against ammunition background checks stand, one could potentially see such a decision endangering background checks at large for other things. Or at least in the case of where they are entertained with constitutional rights.

    1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

      *entertained=intertwined

      A minor mistake on Esoteric Inanity’s part that was exacerbated by autocorrect.

      1. avatar cgray says:

        DUCK YOU, MOTHER FURTHER!!!!!

        1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

          Duck?!?!?!

          What Duck?!?!?!

          Where Duck?!?!?!

          Why?

        2. avatar jwm says:

          Were wolf?

          There wolf.

    2. avatar Abstruse Asininity says:

      Yes, such is a good point Esoteric enlightens us with, as the proverbial “foot in the door” was noticed by Becerra, and Becerra clearly did not wish for Benitez’ logic to lead to wider implications. As Esoteric reminds us, such implications might have even included a dismantling of the argument that has so long been used to justify background checks for guns themselves. Becerra and his ilk could not permit that, and therefore worked furiously to pursue a stay of Benitez’ injunction.

      This One believes the proverbial Pandora’s Box has been indeed opened, however, and Benitez’ logic has now been formally dispensed for the world to see. The Ninth Circuit will be required to consider the entirety of the 120-page reasoning for the injunction, and any decision against it will, by necessity, therefore require a constructed logic against it. And such logic does not exist when compared to the Constitutional grounds Benitez established. All parties involved are acutely aware that if Benitez’ logic is allowed to stand, it becomes precedent for future challenges to background check requirements, be they for purchases or even perhaps for permits. This One’s mind gleefully reels at the potential liberation of our long-hobbled liberties.

      That’s all This One has to say for now.

      1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

        which one has to what? you sound like that other entity.
        when i was a kid we had a bar called esoteria out by the grand ave. cop shop.
        lotta horny broads.

        1. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

          And thank God for horny broads…

          (Especially the ‘South Pacific’ variety, “Broad, where a broad, *should* be broad”… 🙂 )

      2. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

        ” The Ninth Circuit will be required to consider the entirety of the 120-page reasoning for the injunction,…”

        At their leisure. That’s the difference, they can take their own sweet time doing it…

        1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

          Indeed, the gears of the courts can grind to a halt when it pleases their agenda. A right delayed is indeed a right denied, but if the adjudicators do not declare it to be so, then one just as well converse with a brick wall. When rights are left to the discretion of activist judges……what can one ultimately do? Unfortunately, Esoteric Inanity doesn’t have a concise answer.

      3. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

        Impressive, a very elaborate analysis on Esoteric Inanity’s initial point. Abstruse Asininity has even expanded upon points that this one hadn’t considered. Esoteric Inanity congratulates him/her. Although, the parody is a tad strong, but nonetheless flattering. Personally, this one would have gone with the handle Kabbalistic Blatherskite, but Abstruse Asininity is appropriate. Cheers.

  4. avatar LifeSavor says:

    I have never been to a shooting war, but have, for decades, been warring against chronic, pernicious health issues in my immediate family. (I, thank God, am quite healthy). Some battles, you win; some you do not. But in the war for the 2A, and in the war for health, we only lose when we stop fighting. Our 2A brothers and sisters in CA will never stop fighting. We can be confident in that.

  5. avatar What the Hell?! says:

    It’s interesting that the only thing Becerra and the state of California can do quickly is stomp on our Constitutional rights. If he would concentrate on locking up criminals, and not letting them out maybe we could all be a little more safe. I know, I know, don’t apply logic to the situation…

    1. avatar Ferg in Tahoe says:

      Well stated.

    2. avatar No one of consequence says:

      Did you perhaps mean Newsom, not Becerra?

      Becerra is the judge who lifted the ammo b/g check, not the one who put it back.

      1. avatar Bruce says:

        Benitez is the judge, Becerra is the AG.

        1. avatar No one of Consequence says:

          Yup. Thank you. I need to stop posting before coffee.

      2. avatar Samson says:

        Kind of in the same way Kevin McCarthy always calls Adam Schiff, “Adam Shift” we should call AG Becerra, “AG Basura,” because this man’s lawyering is truly garbage. This guy has barely one year of experience in the practice of law, and shouldn’t have qualified for the position.

        1. avatar 9x39 says:

          HahahaHAHA*SNORT*hahahaHA!

          Oops, laughed my azz right off. That was well worth the coffee through the nose, thnx. 😀

          Pinche humano Basura, para seguro.

    3. avatar Stan says:

      Like not being a sanctuary state and helping to deport illegal aliens?

  6. avatar D says:

    So much for Trump’s fix of the 9th circus

    1. avatar rc says:

      He’s made progress…there is still a way to go. The 9th Circus was a very deep shade of blue. But it’s still purple.

    2. avatar former water walker says:

      So it’s Trump’s fault?!? Show us where the orangeman touched you😃😏

      1. avatar GuyInWI says:

        He is about kill off the Post Office along with the mandates Repubublican Congress put in place back in 2006 that no other Federal Agency has to do. Ironically the Post Office is the only Federal Agency the Governement is specifically allowed to create in the Constitution. Republicans and Trump are trying their best to kill it off for one reason only; money. The Republican worship of making themselves rich and screwing the taxpayer is getting very old.

        I have had enough of the “Orange Mans” touching and the disregard of the Constitution by Republicans in general. His beef with Bezos is not how a grown man acts along with a lot of other things, especially one that is President. You will find no love for Republicans here and even less for the Democratic Party.

        Back on topic: As someone who has lived in both Hawaii and California let me say this; None of this should be a surprise. Both Califronia and Hawaii will continue to do whatever they want to do. Even if they manage to get the ammo law and carry laws dropped these 2 states will continue to arrest people for violating it. Rule of law means nothing in either state but they sure like to talk about it.

        When you have judges openly bragging about the suppression of peoples rights like it’s a badge of honor this is what you get. If you really wanna get pissed off, fly to Hawaii and try and leave your hotel room before the 2 week quarantine is up. The BOR is litterally null and void in either of these states.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          “Even if they manage to get the ammo law and carry laws dropped these 2 states will continue to arrest people for violating it.”

          Agree to disagree. If these two restrictions are (finally) dropped, you can bet that news of this magnitude will be quickly circulated among LE Depts across both states to avoid incidents of unlawful arrests and the lawsuits that would accompany them. No LEO wants to be on the receiving end of a lawsuit.

        2. avatar GuyInWI says:

          @ I Haz A Question: You of all people should know living in California the police have complete contempt for rule of law and the BOR there. You can’t sue someone who was “just following orders”. If anything the judge will throw it out based solely on the “right” of “public” safety.

          If they had any respect for either rule of law or the BOR neither of these cases would even be in court. Because the laws never would of been passed and the police would not be enforcing them. Again the West Coast in general has no respect for the BOR and this is not going to change. Repealing the law will only result in another possibly worse law getting passed to further suppress the rights of the people and then you begin the fight all over. This is how it works there and one of the numerous reasons I left.

        3. avatar GratiaEtVeritas says:

          GuyInWI

          Keep in mind, Barr has already signaled going after the states who violate the rights of people during quarantine. I get the feeling the only reason why NY State Mafia Don Cuomo is now citing 10th Amendment is because if the feds start poking around in NY affairs, federal interventions that would look similar to federal interventions during the US Civil Rights Movement would happen in NY. That might complicate any future aspirations he has. Turnabout is fair play.

        4. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          @Guy,

          “You can’t sue someone who was ‘just following orders’.”

          That’s generally true, though it didn’t work so well for the defendants in the Nuremberg Trials, so not always the case.

          However, your statement serves as a good reminder that we should always know our rights and be able to articulate them. Once you inform a LEO of relevant case law or sections of the Penal/Traffic Code he/she is purporting to enforce (and do so while video recording the conversation), you have effectively provided “training” to that LEO and have removed the defense/excuse of “I wasn’t aware”. Every cop car is now equipped with computers, and everyone carries smartphones with Internet access. Once informed of the relevant information, the LEOs will have opportunity to quickly and easily verify it before making a final decision to arrest. That opportunity will be used against them in a lawsuit if necessary.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “… we should always know our rights and be able to articulate them. Once you inform a LEO of relevant case law or sections of the Penal/Traffic Code he/she is purporting to enforce (and do so while video recording the conversation), you have effectively provided “training” to that LEO and have removed the defense/excuse of “I wasn’t aware”. ”

          Wish it were so. Police are not required to know “the law.” Informing police of “the law” has no legal standing as regards the “ignorance of the law” defense for police. Interestingly, the exemption for police regarding knowledge of the law probably is an effective barrier to suits based on police exceeding their “agency”. Thus suing the cop individually, for exceeding their authority, may not be a viable remedy.

        6. avatar Bemused Berserker says:

          240+ years of Postal Service mismanagement, cronyism and other scandals and F*ck Ups and it’s all of a sudden Trump’s fault? Get a life. If the US Postal Service fails, it’s entirely due to it’s own inability to adapt to a changed delivery market, and other factors where they’ve screwed the pooch.

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “If the US Postal Service fails, it’s entirely due to it’s own inability to adapt to a changed delivery market, and other factors where they’ve screwed the pooch.”

          The constitution does not provide for a US Postal Service. That fantasy/failure was created by congress, under the guise that they had the power to determine that a variation on the Post Office (US Postal Service) mandated by the constitution was a case of “separate, but equal”, i.e. a pseudo-business meets the requirement of the constitution.

          After dodging the accountability for properly funding the operation of the Post Office (the Postal Service is merely a funding artifice), the congress retained full and complete control over the operation of the pseudo-business.

          The Postal Service cannot be efficient, competitive, or, ultimately, a drain on the federal budget (the Post Office was to be completely funded in the annual budget, the Postal Service only gets emergency funding, from time-to-time). The worst mandate is that the Postal Service keep cash on hand to fully fund future retirements for 75 years in advance. No other federal agency has such a mandate.

          Congress causes the nation to reap what congress sowed.

        8. avatar jwm says:

          Guy. 2a is being framed as a civil rights issue. Which it should be. I’m old enough to remember federal troops moving into southern states to enforce civil rights laws at the point of a bayonet.

          Southern law men and pols went to federal prison for violating civil rights of people. All it would take to break the backs of the left in this country is one newsom dragged out of his office by federal lawmen and taken off to the dock for civil rights violations.

          The democrats have a huge history of violating the civil rights of American citizens. There is no difference between george wallac and gavin newsom. None.

        9. avatar Ferg in Tahoe says:

          Should’ve gotten rid of the USPS a long long time ago. As in flushed down the toilet the same way they burn thru taxpayer $$. They are a complete failure and any attempt to put any blame on President Trump is absolutely laughable.

        10. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          @Sam,

          On what planet are “Law Enforcement Officers” not required to know the very law they’re paid to enforce? For any action taken – whether arrest (felony/misdemeanor) or citation (infraction) – the Penal or Vehicle Code that the LEO claims you have violated must be referenced. Even a simple traffic ticket has the reference written on it…if it were blank how could anyone back at the courthouse know how to file it and charge you accordingly?

          I extend you this opportunity to re-phrase your comment and clarify whatever point you were wishing to make.

        11. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “On what planet are “Law Enforcement Officers” not required to know the very law they’re paid to enforce?…I extend you this opportunity to re-phrase your comment and clarify whatever point you were wishing to make.”

          Do these count?
          https://www.mintpressnews.com/court-rules-police-dont-need-know-laws-enforce/217236/

          https://thefreethoughtproject.com/court-rules-cops-laws-enforce-ignorance/

          https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/when-cops-dont-know-the-law/383861/

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heien_v._North_Carolina

          https://www.npr.org/2014/12/15/370995815/supreme-court-rules-traffic-stop-ok-despite-misunderstanding-of-law

          Sam I Am is an idiot, but, uncomfortably, often knows what he is talking about.

        12. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

          @Ferg. Even that lefty show Sienfield knew this in the early 90s

        13. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          @Sam,

          Thank you for those very helpful links. Not only was I not aware of this SCOTUS decision, I’m absolutely blown away that it was by an 8-1 margin. Even after reading the info, I’m having a difficult time digesting it. Just doesn’t make sense, so the oral arguments presented before the Court must have been verbally gymnastic to be able to convince eight Justices to opine that “ignorance of the law” pertains to you and me, but not to sworn LEOs as they stop you. Just boggles the mind.

          So, then…I have to wonder how this muddies the waters when a “fruit of the poisonous tree” defense is claimed, as it seems to completely negate it.

          Thanks a lot, Sam (sarc), you just shook up my already-fragile faith in the system.

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        In the posts on the injunction people were rushing to credit Trump despite the judge being a Bush appointee. What goes around comes around.

        Well, I guess not for a ‘leader’ that makes “I take no responsibility” his motto.

    3. avatar PATRON49IFT says:

      It’s a work in progress. Rome wasn’t built in a day. The 9th circuit will not be “corrected” overnight but when Trump is re-elected and more vacancies occur, the correction will continue.

      I truly wish we would see a viable gun case reach the Supremes and I would hope they would put an end to this piece-meal encroachment by the states on the 2nd Amendment. Maybe after a couple more Trump appointees the time will be right. A strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment from the court is the only way those in deep blue states will ever have full, unfettered access to their gun rights. I know, I know, folks say just move away to another state. Not so easy for many who have deep roots in those places and generally like it there except for the one issue. In states where Dems have a stranglehold (for various reasons) on the political landscape, we have no chance of unseating the gun grabbers despite constantly voting against them.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        “…folks say just move away to another state. Not so easy for many who have deep roots in those places and generally like it there except for the one issue.”

        Finally, someone gets it. Exactly. Many of us remain in CA because it’s our lifelong home. There are many true Americans here who continue the fight, evidenced by the efforts that have so far led to cases such as Peruta, Rhode, Duncan, and others that are all still in situ. But the advance toward a restoration of our liberties marches on. As long as there are enemies of freedom walking among us, the battle rages. And there are many enemies in office here in CA posing as friends.

    4. avatar Mike M says:

      This doesn’t happen overnight. That speaks loudly as to why President Trump needs a second term. I’m sure that’s what you meant though…

  7. avatar FedUp says:

    So a judge grants an emergency pretrial stay on enforcement of an unconstitutional law with insufferable implementation, and the court of appeals turns around and grants an emergency stay on the emergency stay?

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      Actually, this might not be such a bad turn of events. The 9th Circuit isn’t the end of the line. I’d expect an appeal to SCOTUS. They don’t have to rule on the issue’s merits; they only need to reinstate the district court’s ruling.

      The district court’s opinion was pretty well reasoned. Where’s the fire? Do we essentially forbid the sale of a Constitutionally-protected artifact to all the law-abiding citizens just because MAYBE we MIGHT impede a criminal’s act for a little while?

      Certainly the merits of the arguments on both sides need to be thoroughly thrashed-out; and, that will take years. In the mean time, what is the correct remedy? To make California like the other 49 states? Or, to allow California to suspect a Constitutional right until the courts get around to deciding whether it’s a right that really deserves to be protected?

      I think we are looking at another slam-dunk case – analogous to NYR&PA v NYC – where the outcome is nearly a foregone conclusion. And, it’s just such a case that is apt to get SCOTUS interested in ultimately resolving the merits.

      Upholding a temporary injunction ought to be a step in that direction.

      1. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

        Mark, this could be used to eventually dismantle the entire ‘purchase permit’ system they have?

  8. avatar Cowgirl says:

    I’m so glad we don’t live in California, or any other liberal state for that matter.

  9. avatar jwm says:

    Jeebus, Marty and Jobus. What a bunch of negative nancy’s. We’re watching the dying gasps of socialism in this country and you panic because they struggle against their end. You guys need to man up and not get the vapors at every twitch.

    1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      I sure hope you are right, but I fear the 2020s will be the decade socialism finally finishes it’s transformation of the US. So… I am way more negative than those other nattering nabobs of negativity:-) If Don can’t shut his frigging stupid trap, next winter we’ll end up with Biden’s VP running the country.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        I, for one, am very glad for this public metamorphosis of the Democratic Party. The entire nation can now clearly see the leaders for what they truly are, and the increased dichotomy between the two parties makes it easier for central fence-sitters to choose on Election Day. Many are ambivalent to the topic of abortion, but draw the line at the ghastly practice of Partial Birth Abortion that the Dems now vociferously support. Many were apathetic to gun ownership and likely would have never touched or owned a gun their entire lives, but recently bought their first one (or considered it) and are now aware of the infringements that treat them like default criminals – particularly in blue states – and require them to prove their innocence.

        Taxes, regulations, permits, gun control, et al…so many restrictions to our liberties. A blessing behind this COVID-19 debacle is that it’s happening within only several months before a major election, and memories of actions against our liberties will be fresh.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Just by the by, “partial birth abortion” is most likely a joke, I seriously doubt it has ever happened. Anti-choice advocates dream up such things in order to keep the fires burning without actually doing anything. Just keep the money coming in!! To change Roe v. Wade is awesomely simple. Just compose and pass a Constitutional Amendment banning it. I can guarantee if the original case had gone the other way (which I think it should have), there would be an Amendment by now permitting it.

        2. avatar Kyle in Upstate NY says:

          Third trimester abortion is where I draw the line especially. And “anti-choice” is an oversimplified term because there is also a human being in the womb that gets killed.

        3. avatar Kyle in Upstate NY says:

          People also are getting a taste of real socialism with the shelves running dry for things. Trump and the GOP should point this out.

  10. avatar Hankus says:

    The 9th Circuit needs continued enema therapy. Get the crap out.

  11. avatar Debbie W. says:

    This is a “case” of Jim Crow and Nazi Gun Control. These pompous ignorant ratbassturds who are fixated on Gun Control are no better than racists and nazis because what they are fixated on and what the 9th circuit gives merit to is Rooted in Racism and Genocide.
    Until Gun Control becomes as acceptable as lynching is to Black Americans this ridiculous tit for tat childish pissing contest with Gun Control zealots will continue.

  12. avatar forp says:

    I recently moved out of CA to TX. I really feel for the people “behind enemy lines” in CA. The state holds a heavy burden on all who reside within it’s borders. Heavy taxes and extreme 2a restrictions make life very difficult. The laws are so backwards and lawmakers walk around with blinders on.

    The ammo background check has had no statistical affect on keeping ammo out of the wrong hands. Don’t believe me? Xavier Baccera argued that by January the ban has stopped over 750 people. Let’s be fair and round that number up to 800 people. In a state that has a population of 39.5million people, you affected 0.002% of the population (not statistically relevant). Now let’s adjust some numbers here and try to be even more fair (not sure why though). According to 2016 numbers, CA has 222,557 felons. Now, felons can’t buy or obtain guns and wouldn’t be allowed to buy ammo either. So, assuming the ammo background check is flawless, if all of those 800 people who were denied to buy ammo were felons. That would be a result 0.36% of the total felon population that was denied bullets (not statistically relevant). The ammo ban would also stop people who have been convicted of domestic violence from buying ammo also. According to 2018 statistics, there were 166,890 domestic violence calls in CA. So assuming 100% of those domestic violence calls led to a conviction (not likely, but I’m trying to be extremely fair to CA here). Let’s say 800 of those people tried to buy ammo and were denied, you stopped 0.49% of all people convicted of domestic violence (still not statistically relevant). The ammo ban has been in effect for ~6 months. So let’s adjust those numbers for a whole year (1600) and be even MORE generous and say that 3000 people WOULD be stopped over the course of 1 year. Out of the entire population of CA (39.5 million) you stopped 0.01% of the total population. Out of the total felon population(222557), you stopped 1.35%. Out of the entire population of people convicted domestic violence (166890), you stopped 1.8%. I’ve been extremely fair, but cannot find a way where the ammo ban is effective.

    CA has a lot of problems that need to be remedied and the polititions need to take a different approach. Banning ammo should be on the bottom of the list of priorities.

    San Fransisco used to be a beautiful city. But now it’s a trash heap with a good view. There are only 2 types of people who can live in San Fransisco, the ultra rich who can afford the high prices, and the ultra poor who can live on the street. LA is on it’s way to becoming the next San Fran. This is due to over regulation of businesses, high taxes, revolving door jails and high drug use. California doesn’t have a gun problem, it has a criminal problem. Criminals do criminal things and without punishment, they will keep doing criminal things.

    Hopefully, my friends behind enemy lines will be able to live life freely.

    1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      the nice thing about coastal towns is the bulldozer proximity to the lake (sorry, i’m by a lake).

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Pretty good, FORP, but I think you missed the punch line. Of those 800 people, what percentage have been imprisoned, and what percentage merely needed to find another way to obtain their ammo? The law is stupid, just like the federal background checks, because there in no downside to trying, even though (in the case of the feds) there is a stated 5 years in prison for attempting to obtain a firearm while prohibited. They claim that a hundred thousand a year are “stopped”, but around 20 are actually prosecuted, the rest are either mistakes, or prosecution is too much trouble, just let them buy guns out of somebody’s trunk.

      1. avatar forp says:

        Larryin TX, I was trying to play devil’s advocate and being more than generous to CA while making the statistics. I inflated the numbers in the anti-gunners favor when I made those numbers. Almost any way you slice it, the ammo ban is a failure no matter if you’re anti-gun or pro-gun. You could add the population that has previously been imprisoned, but all it would do is dilute the actual percentages, which helps my (our) argument.

        It puts undue burden on the rest of the population because of a few bad apples. I feel that is more feature than a consequence of the ban, I.E. they knew this would make things difficult for law abiding gun owners.

        The punchline, as I understand it, is that if someone can’t buy ammo, then they can’t own a gun. So why would you prohibit someone from buying ammo for a gun they can’t own. Kind of like buying gasoline for that car you don’t have a license to drive.

        Of those ~750 people that were denied an ammo purchase, were they investigated for an illegally owned/obtained firearm? (to be clear I don’t support this)

        1. avatar MapleHillGang says:

          You’re absolutely amazing. Summed it up like a GunFreeZone as useless as Tits on a Bull. I thoroughly enjoyed that dissertation well done; well done. PS I’m from NewYawkistan so I can fully understand this commifornication of the 2a. I recall Freedom week like it was yesterday I was so pleased when it happened; then UGH 🙁 I will continue to follow in the interest of a few friends that are deep in the struggle.

        2. avatar forp says:

          MapleHillGang, thank you for the kudos. I tried to come up with something that would make sense out of all of this. Xavier Baccera was touting it as a win, ~750 people out of 39.5 million is not a win. I wanted a good way to bury Bacerras “win” through skewed (in his favor mind you) statistics.

          Don’t just take my word for the facts, I encourage everyone to look for themselves.

          I try to have conversations with anti-gunners to get their opinions on why they’re against firearms. The most important thing (in my opinion) is to listen to their arguments and not insult them in the process. I’ll gradually use some pro-gun data to conflict with their anti-gun stances.

          Both people in a 2 person argument believe themselves to be in-the-right. So if you insult someone while trying to get your point across, then you lose the ability to allow that point to sink in. If we as gun people have amicable conversations with the other side. Slowly break down their anti-gun stances with facts, then we will convert more people.

    3. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

      “San Fransisco used to be a beautiful city. But now it’s a trash heap with a good view.”

      It’s far, FAR *worse*. It’s a city where the streets are slick with human shit, and they refuse to do *anything* about it…

      1. avatar forp says:

        HAHAHA, I feel like we’re making the same point, but I like your description better!

    4. avatar R. Corrino says:

      Well, if we look at the actual truth to why all these anti-2A laws are in place in California, it was never for safety. I don’t even think it is contempt and non-belief of a law. As all things here in California, it has to do with MONEY. All these administrative fees are just to enrich Sacramento’s coffers.

      We probably would be managed better with Ferengi in charge at the capitol

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “We probably would be managed better with Ferengi in charge at the capitol.”

        Ferengi is a human word likely derived from Hindi, Urdu and Persian. The generally accepted definition appears to be “a foreigner, especially a British or white person.”
        (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/firangi)

        All things considered, I think you have achieved your goal of being managed, led, controlled by “foreigners”, or “strangers”, in Californication.

  13. avatar WI Patriot says:

    And this is a perfect example of why the legal system in this country is a joke…

    1. avatar 9x39 says:

      Exactly, and the only thing more disparately non-funny is the “justice system” moniker.

  14. avatar Sam I Am says:

    People, people….pay attention.

    The government always has a presumed compelling interest in public safety. The government decreed that the public was endangered if persons buying ammunition were prohibited persons, or persons declared dangerous (TRO), or mentally disturbed but not confined to an institution. Add to that the compelling interest that the government prevent the stress of house arrest of the public due to a killer virus from resulting in countless deaths by ammunition, and the only way to protect the public is to require background checks, well, then the government has met its burden of proof (which in one federal ruling a coupla years ago declared that if a government act made the public “feel safer”, such laws/regulations were/are constitutionally permissible).

    The 9th Circuit Court is famous for delaying action on firearms cases. While delayed, the case cannot go to the SC (which will likely deny cert because of uncertainty). IMHO, the SC does not want to deal with a never-ending stream of 2A cases, nor does it want to address 2A in the main. Heller and McDonald rulings quite neatly established the extent of the interest of the SC in treating 2A as equal to 1A…or any other constitutional provision/amendment.

    The real issue is not some inconvenience regarding acquisition of firearms, but “Shall Not Be Infringed”. Overcoming inconvenience is really not the legal equivalent of denying a person the right to firearms. If the overwhelming majority of NICS checks were denials, one might conclude that the background checks are de fact denial of a right. Any argument that NICS checks are denying a right to non-criminals is just not going to get SC attention, and that is because such a claim of denial has at its heart “Shall Not Be Infringed”, whatsoever. If one argues that prohibited persons should sensibly be denied legal purchase of firearms, then the logical requirement is that prohibited persons must be identified….and the NICS checks are a permissible means to sort out who still retains the “RTKBA”.

    Background checks on ammunition purchase are not going to be the springboard to a definitive SC ruling that the Second Amendment is absolute, and not subject to any sort of proof of innocense (which is the only thing that will end all infringements). Removal of such a test would justify legally removing, permanently, any demand for identification verification as a condition of voting in elections.

    1. avatar LifeSavor says:

      Sam,

      “Overcoming inconvenience is really not the legal equivalent of denying a person the right to firearms.”

      I get your point but CA is doing more than making ammo purchase inconvenient; essentially, they are treating gun-owners as a special class of citizen that must constantly be scrutinized as they exercise their Constitutionally protected right. I get that CA is positioning this a a public safety interest and as no more than an inconvenience. I just bristle at the assumption of guilt for all gun-owners. I know you do, also. 🔫

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “I get that CA is positioning this a a public safety interest and as no more than an inconvenience. I just bristle at the assumption of guilt for all gun-owners.”

        We agree. My point was/is “compelling government interest” has a long history of nuking civil rights, and the SC has a long history of not wanting to deal with constitutional issues preferring procedural/process issues. “Compelling government interest” is a court-invented process, and weighs heavily, especially as regards 2A. Courts should begin at the constitution, and analyze down from there. Instead, courts rule from the bottom, seeking an off ramp that will spare them the knotty questions about constitutional power of government.

        Under the constitution, the government only those interests, compelling or not, specifically (not interpretively) granted. If the SC cannot find a process issue to save them from constitutional questions, the SC will refuse cert for the inferior right of citizens to own and use firearms. And if one does not believe that the SC, at its core, is not political, then the justices should give no consideration to the outcome of their rulings, i.e. dodge a question because one faction fears the result.

        1. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

          Well, we should know more in about two months, one way or another…

        2. Perhaps one thing that we can do under the present Tyranny is to study and with rigorous
          relentless, PRACTICE, practice the Art of taking the guns out of any Agent, in or out of Uniform.
          if or when that gun is aimed at you.
          You instantly gain the upper hand.
          PRACTICE. With a friend.
          PRACTICE.

        3. When ANY Judge elevates them selves as above the Law, they are Violating their Oath of Office. The fail the Oath taken.

          We the People have NO obligation to be keeping them ON our payroll. Nor allow or permit
          them to enjoy their stay.

          This means they are engaged in Fraud, and should NOT accept their pay, their basic Health Insurance Benefits or expect to get their “Retirement” money. NO WAY.

          We the People are the government they serve. We the People are their Boss.
          ~>This mindset as outlined is just the beginning of Rejecting their Tyranny.
          And Oath Violators ARE the problem.

    2. avatar GratiaEtVeritas says:

      Not sure if I agree with all of that. My guess is that the lack of 2A cases until recently was because of an uncertain majority beyond handguns in the home and formally adding 2A to incorporation. There was tension between Stevens and the pro 2A block and that played out over Kennedy. The Pro 2A block, knowing time was mostly on their side, decided to not chance it and hold off on cases since they knew the wrong precedent would be used to bludgeon gun owners over the head. Perhaps this was intended as a defensive move at the time, now with the change in the judiciary due to Trump’s appointments, 2A advocates can go on the offensive.

      The value of precedent, I’d imagine, is that if someone can match the circumstances of the original plaintiff who’s rights were infringed and prevailed in court, it makes little sense for pushing a legal rock uphill barring a change in the role of stare decisis in the courts. Even then its subject to the whims of the people on the court. The judiciary folks who arbitrarily change opinion could be seen as incompetent and possibly ripe for removal.

      I do think that the issue that is at hand is “the standard of review”, which you indicate regarding how the court will deal with “shall not be infringed”. Right now, some federal courts are just looking for a basic “sanity check” of any 2A infringing laws (rational basis) and trying to pass it off as intermediate scrutiny. Benitez has actually bothered in the past to go through each standard of review and say laws in CA would fail under any standard of review. Benitez is a one man army behind “enemy lines” wreaking as much havoc as possible to show how the 9th circuit has fallen asleep on doing reviews while letting judicial activism be the guide for abridging peoples rights.The signal is officially open that the 2A advocates have a forum to plea their case in the 9th circuit. Given that the 9th circuit is almost 50-50 in terms of Red Vs Blue appointees (and possibly changing the balance should Trump get a 2nd term and retain the senate), CA is going to have to expend more in its enforcement of gun control. This is not legal advice but given freedom week last year, possession of modern era magazines of standard capacity are no longer prima facie evidence of criminal behavior. I’m sure the thugs with the CA DOJ APPS team will see otherwise, but

      If its any consolation, typically anytime a case that has a solid chance of being granted cert by SCOTUS (DC Concealed Carry, NYSRPA) or actually granted cert since Heller, the anti gunners have immediately tried to avoid getting the case to SCOTUS (DC fell on the sword and went to shall issue) or trying to render the case moot (NYC and NYS regarding transport laws). While I do have doubts about Roberts, I can’t imagine he will look at mootness attempts favorably given that it will open the door to ALOT of wasted time in the courts. As garbage as the ACA mandate issue was, I blame the dishonesty of Obama and the Dems for selling it as “not a tax” then doing an about face in court and arguing “it was a tax”. What matters is what a party puts in a legal argument, everything else is just noise. As studied as Roberts is, he has to be able to read the federalist papers and see where it leads him. The language itself indicates an extremely high standard to meet in terms of infringement. Given he has signed onto Heller, given that Heller’s finding is that 2A is an individual right, I don’t see how he comes away with anything less than strict scrutiny. Should NYSRPA case go to merits and Thomas writes the majority opinion, I’m quitting work early that day and popping bottles.

      I do think the issue of ID to exercise a right is something will be in the minds of SCOTUS justices when deciding 2A cases. With that said, SCOTUS will kick back redistricting if things are weighted unfairly. I somehow doubt SCOTUS would view a defense of said engineered district by saying “No one is prohibited to vote” as an acceptable defense.Even if the background check system is somehow deemed to be “constitutional”, a crazy high rejection rate would indicate that the implementation of said system creates an undue burden on the core of a right.I I believe that was a point of Benitez in his injunction.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        As per the ACA, I seem to recall the Dems continued all the way that it was “not a tax”, the Chief Justice simply decided all by his lonesome that it was “a tax”. Really close to grounds for impeachment, if you ask me, especially since no one on either side had entertained that argument, and the Justices are supposedly required to judge the case in front of them, not introduce their own arguments.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Even if the background check system is somehow deemed to be “constitutional”, a crazy high rejection rate would indicate that the implementation of said system creates an undue burden on the core of a right.I I believe that was a point of Benitez in his injunction.”

        Agree, regarding Benitez. The thrust of the comment was the latent cowardice of SC justices. There should never be a consideration of outcome in reviewing a contested issue. Outcome is the territory of the legislature. If justices are basing decisions on “outcomes”, then the court is nothing more than an un-elected supra-legislature, and plain evidence that we are a nation ruled by personal considerations of the judiciary. With such a Supreme Court, the legislature (Congress) is, and should be, relegated to an advisory body to the SC, proposing laws for judicial review prior to actual passage.

        1. avatar GratiaEtVeritas says:

          @Sam I Am

          Don’t get me wrong, I’m in favor of the judiciary actually judging the law itself. With that being said, I think the judiciary knows that the state of modern judicial affairs is beyond what was scoped for them in the founding. Some fully embrace that scope creep and use it to remake society and to “punish” lawmakers for what they perceive as bigotry, idiocy, cowardice, etc. Others are simply in damage control mode seeking to preserve liberty until larger structural changes to the system can occur (amendments to the constitution, convention of the states, etc). I do think that the start of the long correction in judicial activism is coming, but we won’t see its fruits until decades from now. Honestly though, the system of bribes that the current ruling class relies upon to maintain power might fall apart before the correction in the courts occurs.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Oh, I agree. Judging the law, regardless of outcomes is the gold standard, but living in Realsville, one must really understand that “real” is not really the real the gold standard.

      3. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

        “Should NYSRPA case go to merits and Thomas writes the majority opinion, I’m quitting work early that day and popping bottles.”

        If it does, I’m hopping off the proverbial wagon for one bottle of *very* top-shelf bourbon, and enjoying it while giggling like an 8 year-old Japanese schoolgirl… 😉

        1. avatar PMinFl says:

          Oh! the picture that you just painted………………………………….

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Sam, before “shall not be infringed” comes “the right of the people”, notably not followed by “who are not prohibited by almighty government”. 2A does not allow for exceptions, there is no such thing as a prohibited person.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “2A does not allow for exceptions, there is n such thing as a prohibited person.”

        No disagreement, here. Was accommodating those who note the BOR does provide for depriving a person of rights as a result of “due process”. I maintain even prisoners cannot be denied their right to weapons for self-defense. But that stance must bump up against the reality that the right of “liberty” can be denied, after “due process”, evidenced by the fact that prisons exist, filled with prisoners. Even the right to life can be denied; capital punishment.

    4. avatar Sian says:

      “Overcoming inconvenience is really not the legal equivalent of denying a person the right to firearms.”

      Now apply the same inconvenience to voting and try to explain yourself over the cries of “Racist!”

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Now apply the same inconvenience to voting and try to explain yourself over the cries of “Racist!” ”

        Have been surveying the legal landscape for an organization willing to raise the issue in a law suit. If restrictions on “arms” can be “reasonable”, then restrictions on voting can be “reasonable”. Nothing in the constitution declares that, regarding the right to vote, “Inconvenience shall not be tolerated”.

        As to disputing cries of “racism”, people making such claim, and those believing such claim is valid, are not amenable to discussion. Thus, attempting such is pointless.

  15. avatar Tim says:

    9th Circus of Hell still the 9th Circus of Hell.

  16. avatar Jason says:

    Link to the full text please if anyone has it.

    1. avatar Darkman says:

      The twitter link is the full text.

  17. avatar Jeff says:

    When is Judge Benitez’s ruling expected? Does a stay of his injunction make ot harder for him to rule on the case? Did the ninth circuit write anything along with the stay of his injunction?

  18. avatar Darkman says:

    List of 9th Circuit judges and who appointed them.Judges – Seniority List
    https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view_seniority_list.php?pk_id=0000000035

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Very interesting.
      The Nixon and Bush Sr. appointees should retire soon. There’s an opportunity to replace them with young conservatives. Out of the Carter and Clinton appointees, there are some pretty old folks: 80, 85, 88, 90, and 91. It’s absurd that these people are still clinging to their jobs.

  19. avatar SomeDudeThatHasAnAssloadOfGreentip says:

    Leftist pieces of shit, including the entirety of the state of California government are the enemy. They are subhuman scum. It is well past time to end this shit. These fucking shitbags, deserve to have the same fate as those in the lubyanka.

    Every single one deserves this fate.

    The left is the enemy. They deserve no peace or quarter.

  20. avatar Paladin says:

    Classic Commifornia, tyranny needs correcting! Infringement is a crime against our rights! They show they can’t run things, except into the ground!
    🖕dems and libs!

  21. avatar HEGEMON says:

    “Judge” Mary H.Murguia is an UBER leftist appointed to the court by Imam 0bama. She freed a domestic terrorist in 2011 who later in 2015 was killed in Texas while committing a terrorist act. SHOCKA! Moreover, Muguia has a sister who works for the racist organization LA RAZA. This decision should come as no surprise to anyone. All of 0bama’s judicial appointees are Constitutionally challenged. Given the opportunity Murguia would make sure that you don’t have any gun rights at all.

  22. avatar Steve says:

    Dan, maybe you can get an answer. What happens to shipments already processed and enroute by FedEx or UPS? I have a shipping notice email but then the 9th did this late Friday. What happens to shipments? Are the delivered or does the CA end of those shippers halt delivery and bollux up our order?

    1. I’m not an attorney, but I expect that anything that shipped prior to the Ninth Circuit’s stay should be legal. That said, talk to a real lawyer if you want to be sure.

      1. avatar Steve says:

        Thanks Dan. Maybe an attorney will chime in. I checked on Calguns but found nobody discussing other than the announcement. Maybe CRPA will pump out some emails.

    2. avatar forp says:

      I can only comment on my experience during “freedom week” last year.

      I bought some standard capacity magazines off of brownells the last day of freedom week. The order was “processing” a few days and was shipped out the next week (freedom week now being over). I received the magazines after freedom week was over.

      I would hope they would honor the purchase because it was technically legal at the time.

      1. avatar Steve says:

        Thanks! That’s helpful. Another day in Kommiefornia…

        1. avatar forp says:

          No problem, best of luck.

    3. avatar Hannibal says:

      I’m also interested in that answer… although I question what, if any, jurisdiction the communist republic of california has over ammo producers shipping from other states that have no physical presence inside their territory, anyway.

  23. avatar John Kent says:

    Mary H Murguia Nominated to the Federal Court b Bill Clinton in 2000 and to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals by Barack Obama in 2010.

    Mark J. Bennett was nominated to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals by Donald Trump in 2018.
    All 27 votes against his confirmation came from Republican Senators due to his stance on firearms.[

    1. avatar Mirv says:

      Yeah, that Trump nomination of Bennett was a bad one. The fact that he was unanimously confirmed by all Democrat senators tells you something. The fact that he was born/raised in NY, HI District Court Judge, and HI Attorney General were red flags before being nominated. Backroom politics and quid pro quo, maybe?

    2. avatar GS650G says:

      So, no pro gun judges were available for a district known for stomping on the 2nd amendment?

  24. avatar Dennis says:

    Sometime before November, ya gotta disband that gang of traitors! Win, lose or draw.

  25. avatar GS650G says:

    Called this when the judge blocked their law. In 2 days it’s back on. So much for remaking the 9th.

  26. avatar Ironicatbest says:

    . Statistics show most po peeps are more prone to be involved with confrontational encounters with a firearm So to save lives, okay.. It’s all there, the rich and powerful. All the way back to the American Revolution with, All Men Are Created Equal and then,”Now cracker, get them nggrs back to work and run them savages out of the tobacco ” perhaps the Constitution is like the Bible

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Perhaps you can actually read and study both of them in their correct contexts before commenting?

      The majority of Founders who crafted the Constitution were against slavery. The entire reason for the “3/5 Compromise” was due to the fact that some of them refused to sign the document unless they could (artificially) bolster their states’ populations by including slaves, to put them on more even ground with the populations of northern states. The southern states did not want to allow their slaves to vote, but wanted to count them as eligible for census (and therefore legislative representation) purposes. The Founders then found a compromise that was only intended to last for twenty years, but successive legislators used future events to extend it well beyond, and the problem continued through the Antebellum Period leading up to the Civil War. Then, and only then, was the abolition of slavery finally achieved, though it took the blood of many men. But most Founders were against slavery from the very beginning.

      The Bible has never condoned slavery. Portions of Scripture refer to it because the social construct was present at the time those portions were written. Slavery was an existing reality that was addressed, though never ever condoned.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “The majority of Founders who crafted the Constitution were against slavery. The entire reason for the “3/5 Compromise” was due to the fact that some of them refused to sign the document unless they could (artificially) bolster their states’ populations by including slaves, to put them on more even ground with the populations of northern states. ”

        Yeah? Just keep selling that fact-based historical crap. I believe what I believe, and what I believe is truth over fact. You think being able to remember and accurately identify what happened long ago makes any difference today? What did you do; read the letters and writings of the framers? You can take your facts and sit on it.

        Power to the People !! No peace, no justice of the peace ! Any peace but Katie’s piece !

  27. avatar Rachel says:

    My whole life I was for gun control. Lived in San Francisco, saw zero reason why modern guns shouldn’t be illegal. Then I moved to Arizona and saw first hand how naive and ignorant I was to believe a law would protect people from guns. I feel so much safer now that I’m somewhere in which all the law abiding citizens are armed, and all the criminals go out of their way to avoid being in the same area as a gun in order to stay out of jail. I just wish I hadn’t grown up terrified of them so I could protect myself like those who didn’t grow up under California’s broken system. every time I was around a gun in California, it was in the presence of felons and extremely stressful. Thats all they have accomplished with their laws

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email