Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

VICTORY~!!! Judge rules on California ammo law


Recommended Posts

WE WIN!!  (For now, anyway!)

 

CRPA WINS PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION CHALLENGING CALIFORNIA’S AMMUNITION RESTRICTIONS

 

More Here:  JUDGE TOSSES CALIFORNIA AMMUNITION PURCHASE LAW

 

Quote

 

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

 

Benitez called the ammunition background check law “onerous and convoluted” and “constitutionally defective.”

 

“Criminals, tyrants, and terrorists don’t do background checks,” he wrote. “The background check experiment defies common sense while unduly and severely burdening the Second Amendment rights of every responsible, gun-owning citizen desiring to lawfully buy ammunition."

 

 Moreover, he ruled that the state's ban on importing ammunition from outside California violates federal interstate commerce laws.

 

 

 

 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe, go to your room.  :lol:

 

I suspect that if they overturned Benitez they're likely to get their hands judiciously slapped.  Again.  

 

And remember... ten of the 29 judges on the Ninth are Trump appointees.

 

Might be be colorful (expect absurd liberal rants), but the good guys should prevail.  :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting that. I've been avoiding anything related to news to try and undamage my calm.

So does this mean that at this very moment we can go and buy ammo without a background check?

Sort of like "Freedom Week" on standard capacity magazines. Or are we still background checking until

this ruling hits the 9th Circus?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dubious Don #56333 said:

Well. Will wonders ever cease? I shall be interested to see what the ninth does with this. They have had some um...personnel changes so we shall see. Ultimately, all of these laws may end up in front of the SC.

 

I gotta say that I'm dubious,  Don.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the downside at the moment is that the online ammo suppliers I used before the law hit the streets are out of what I usually buy.

Prices seem to have increased, too. Stupid Covid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Dubious Don #56333 said:

Ultimately, all of these laws may end up in front of the SC.

No, they don’t. The Supreme Court “chooses” what cases they will hear. 
 

Edit:

Oops...you said “may”. Sorry...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, yesterday I got an email from LAX Ammo telling me about this. They also announced a “sale” which included 9mm ammo that’s 8 cents per round higher than the average prices were in January... :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 said:

Joe, go to your room.  :lol:

 

I suspect that if they overturned Benitez they're likely to get their hands judiciously slapped.  Again.  

 

And remember... ten of the 29 judges on the Ninth are Trump appointees.

 

Might be be colorful (expect absurd liberal rants), but the good guys should prevail.  :rolleyes:

 

Was this judge a Trump appointee? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ramblin Gambler said:

 

Was this judge a Trump appointee? 

 

 

Hon. Roger T. Benitez, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

 

Nominated/Appointed by George W. Bush, 17 June, 2004.

 

Assumed Senior Status, December 31, 2017.

 

Born in Havana, Cuba....  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Clay Mosby said:

Stay tuned, the sycophant to Gruesom mayor of LA got an emergency injunction or something to re-instate it. The battle ain't over.

 

Do you have a link to that injunction?  Does it only apply to Los Angeles or is it statewide?  

Found it over in TEAM SASS:   https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5614/attachments/original/1587793502/2020-4-24-ca9-order-granting-stay.pdf?1587793502

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KIM RHODE; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, Defendant-Appellant. No. 20-55437 D.C. No. 3:18-cv-00802-BEN-JLB Southern District of California, San Diego ORDER Before: MURGUIA and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. The court has received appellant’s emergency motion for a stay. The request for an immediate administrative stay is granted. The district court’s April 23, 2020 preliminary injunction order is temporarily stayed pending further court order. The court will address the emergency stay motion by separate order.

 

Didn't take Newsom and his Sacramento Reichstag long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how long is this expected to take to run it's course?  Seems like we're still waiting for the magazine issue to be resolved.  <_<

 

I'm hoping (aren't we all!) to see Messrs Becerra and Newsom get some comeuppance.  :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.