En Banc...

[Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967]

So I just watched the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals eb banc hearing of the Rhode v Bonta challenge:  [ Rode v Bonta is a lawsuit in which a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 3-judge panel upheld U. S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez's ruling that California's requirement for background checks on every ammunition purchase is unconstitutional - the state of california appealed, hence the en banc review.]

 

I am not a lawyer.  Heck, I rarely watch "lawyer shows" on TV.  This is lengthy, but worth watching, if you have the patience - the result could be far-reaching, well beyond this state's boundaries. 

 

A couple of thoughts: 

 

- First, I'm hopeful.  I wish I could say I'm confident of a positive outcome, but the best I can do is "hopeful."

 

- Second, if the court should rule in "our" favor and uphold the previous ruling, I AM confident that the state will respond with something at least equally oppressive.   

 

For instance - when Prop 63 was first passed ten years ago, it called for a 4-year renewable, $50 permit to buy ammunition.  This was changed by the legislature to the current "background check" requirement.  I'd expect to see it resurrected, likely in an even darker form.

 

Grab some popcorn and... well, if not enjoy, at least watch:  

 

 

 

[Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967]

William ("Will") of Copper Jacket TV gives a pretty good synopsis.  Sadly, it seems that his take mirrors my own.  And, as much as I hate to say it, I think the Rhode attorney could have presented herself better; I found her delivery to be shrill and less professional than Bonta's representative.

 

 

 

 

[Subdeacon Joe]

It's almost like a game for the Sacramento Supreme Soviet, "How can we circumvent the Constitution and the United States Supreme Court?"

[Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967]

As I noted above, the original Prop 63 called for a residents to acquire a four-year, $50 permit to buy ammunition; after the proposition passed, the legislature changed it to the current "background check" scheme.  I suspect that if they had let it stand, it would have been successfully overturned in the courts - undoubtedly after a lengthy series of legal challenges and counter-challenges, as we're seeing with this issue.  After all, what other Constitutional Rights require a license?  Remember the "Poll Taxes" that were once levied by Southern states?  Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional for Federal elections in 1964, and for ALL elections in 1966.

 

Many do not realize that it also forbids "mail order" ammunition without going through an FFL; a california resident is forbidden from buying ammunition in another state and trasporting home (of course, this NEVER happens!).  Residents are also forbidden from giving ammunition to others without going through an FFL.   Residents of other states travelling to california for any shooting sports are forbidden from buying ammunition in the state, and are required to bring all ammunition with them.  If they run out while here... oh, well!  From Idaho and participating in a Cowboy shoot in california, one round short on a stage, someone hands you a round and you accept it... you've both just broken the law.  Dove hunting... run out, your local buddy hands you a couple of shells... same thing.  (I'm sure glad I don't know any crooks! )

 

This abomination needs to go.  Hopefully, to be quickly follwed by a repeal of california's equally egregious 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition.  Wouldn't it be ironic, though, if the "Bondanistas" cited the 11% Pittman-Robertson tax* as a precedent...?  I would expect it.  

 

     *The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 is a federal excise tax [11% on long guns/amunition/archery; 10% on handguns] on firearms manufacturers that funds state wildlife conservation, habitat restoration, and hunter education programs.  This is a GOOD tax that we've all happily paid for the last 89 years.

Edited April 1 by Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967

[J.D. Daily]

If the majority of the judges on the en banc panel's opinion rejects CA DOJ's historical tradition citations because they aren't from the required historical period, through 1791,  Any work around  by the hoplophobes in the asylum under the golden dome in Sacramento will suffer the same fate in the 9th Circus.  Ammo acquisition or equivalents are modern inventions.  However; states have cited restrictions on storing powder with little success; since, the regulations are for fire safety and keeping & bearing bearable arms by individual members of  "the people" shall not be infringed per 2008's Heller v. DC.