Bruen decision may mark an end to CA ammunition restriction

[LiveLife]

Moderator edit: thread title was originally "Supreme Court decision may mark an end to California ammo restriction"
Edited, after OP's request to do so

The Supreme Court's ruling in NYSRPA v Bruen resulted in a new challenge to the California ammunition sales/transfer restriction case Rhode v Bonta and Proposition 63/SB 1235 which was stayed by 9th Circuit - https://www.nraila.org/articles/202...ues-preliminary-injunction-in-rhode-v-becerra

• CA law requires law-abiding citizens to undergo background checks when purchasing ammunition
• Online sales must be shipped to a licensed ammunition vendor
• All ammunition transactions must occur in-person through a licensed ammunition vendor

9th Circuit used the "two step" approach for Rhode which the recent Supreme Court ruling for Bruen eliminated and challenge to Rhode could end the CA ammunition sales/transfer restrictions.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

If they don't just ignore it like NY.

 

[luzyfuerza]

The three-judge panel in the Ninth Circuit which is hearing the appeal in Rhode is simply asking for new briefs in light of Bruen.

This is a required, but small, step.

The title of this thread and the associated video is misleading. A favorable RULING might mark the end of the ammo background check regime. But not this minor procedural action.

 

[LiveLife]

The title of this thread and the associated video is misleading.

I added "may" to the title.

 

[Capybara]

It will fall, we just don't know how long it will take to become the reality.

 

[Electrod47]

Just another excuse to pass more draconian rules. The 2A doesn't guarantee anybody ammunition. Instead of regulation, they'll just ban ammo from this guy or that guy til its impossible to obtain.

 

[denton]

Ammunition is protected by 2A. Everything necessary to a right is as protected as the right itself. In the end, as in Brown v Board of education, those who defy SCOTUS can be punished for contempt of court.

 

[LiveLife]

The 2A doesn't guarantee anybody ammunition.

Ammunition is protected by 2A.

Actually, 2A does protect ammunition.

At the time of the Bill of Rights writing, it was common practice and expectation to "keep and bear arms" with enough ammunition (lead ball, powder, patch, etc.) for several hundred reloads at home and carried sufficient amount of components for numerous reloads (Our founding fathers would laugh at our magazine capacity limitation of 7/10 rounds ).

And as reaffirmed in the recent Supreme Court ruling for Bruen, justice Thomas expressed and justice Kavanaugh supported that modern types of semi-auto "arms" that use magazines to hold ammunition are protected by 2A as already ruled in Caetano v Massachusetts that ammunition holding devices such as magazines are protected by 2A. Caetano ruling was reaffirmed by judge Benitez in Duncan v Bonta that magazines are indeed "arms" and protected by 2A and cannot be limited in capacity as limiting ammunition quantity in the magazine could cause "lethal pause" for the gun owners during reloads.

 

[Mark_Mark]

GOOD LUCK California! the whole country is rooting for you! And remember, elections have consequences and benefits. Thank DJT for the appointment of 3 pro American, pro 2A, pro freedom loving justices!!!!

 

[Electrod47]

Quoting Livelife: "Actually, 2A does protect ammunition."

Buddy your making a lot of good points, and I wish the system works like you say. My point is the degree of attention the whole SCOTUS ruling is garnering has set in motion a deluge of petty rules and new regulations that could have never been imagined in the 1700's. People who currently reside in firearm friendly states will be left unscathed and have a feel good moment, a vindication, so to speak. Our friends in unfriendly firearm states are gonna catch hell for the foreseeable future. I don't think SCOTUS is going to clear their docket every year to rule on every single obstacle set in motion. As far as guaranteed ammunition? We have all seen how easy it is to tip that apple cart over and you don'r even need a bad law to do it.

 

[LiveLife]

... your making a lot of good points, and I wish the system works like you say.

... I don't think SCOTUS is going to clear their docket every year to rule on every single obstacle set in motion..

And that's precisely why our founders, who had just fought off a tyrannical "foreign" power, chose a "republic" as form of government instead of pure "democracy" so the will of the majority could not be imposed on the rights of the minority (And in 2022, that's exactly what is happening/attempted by the majority on the rights of the minority gun owners).

And the founders divided the government power into three branches (executive, legislative and judicial) because founders feared tyrannical imposition on "We the People" could come from "domestic" powers (state/federal governments) in the future.

Supreme Court justices are well aware of "separation of powers" and originalist justices will rise to the occasion to protect the rights of "We the People" (As demonstrated by "originalist" justices in recent years with latest being Bruen case ruling opined by justice Thomas supported by justice Kavanaugh), especially the rights of the minority, when executive and legislative branches fail to uphold the constitution, which is happening now as states are willfully passing "unconstitutional" laws and being sued left and right.

Don't be surprised by what's happening as our founders understood human nature and foresaw the future of this young nation. And "We the People" still have the final say as we can vote in/out our legislative and executive representatives (Hence why there is so much "rigging" of elections and votes ).

When Neil Gorsuch became Supreme Court justice, he explained the "originalist" thinking and the primary mission of the judicial branch - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...with-question-on-the-second-amendment.856201/

"I am an originalist ... We have a written constitution that our founder wrote down ... They made a charter among 'We the people' ... This is what we agreed to as to what the government's powers are and what they are not ... What our rights are. Originalists ... honor what's written there. Honor those words ... Don't make stuff up and don't take things away. That's the idea."

... "Bill of Rights and liberty ... Bill of Right is a set of promises on paper ... What makes a promise worth the words on paper is the enforcement mechanisms behind it [And "We the People" vote in the enforcement every 2/4 years] ... Our Bill of Rights is excellent.

... Judges are the backstop to ensure rights and liberties, that is our job"

"My business is your rights, ALL OF THEM, are enforced"

"The original Constitution now includes 27 amendments passed by the 'We the People' ... 'We the People' amended the Constitution, ... to fix the injustices... improved the Constitution, made it a better document. And that is the proper process to do that"
​

He then does a great job of explaining the meaning of "Originalism".

At 30:10 minute of video, interviewer says, "Now there are solid 5 conservative members on the court. Something has changed."

You bet "something" has changed.

 

[Poper]

as in Brown v Board of education, those who defy SCOTUS can be punished for contempt of court.

That is something I would like to see. I'm not holding my breath, though,

 

[BryanDavis]

Quoting Livelife: "Actually, 2A does protect ammunition."

Buddy your making a lot of good points, and I wish the system works like you say. My point is the degree of attention the whole SCOTUS ruling is garnering has set in motion a deluge of petty rules and new regulations that could have never been imagined in the 1700's. People who currently reside in firearm friendly states will be left unscathed and have a feel good moment, a vindication, so to speak. Our friends in unfriendly firearm states are gonna catch hell for the foreseeable future. I don't think SCOTUS is going to clear their docket every year to rule on every single obstacle set in motion. As far as guaranteed ammunition? We have all seen how easy it is to tip that apple cart over and you don'r even need a bad law to do it.

You guys may have missed this:

I'm a New Yorker. New York Governor Kathy Hochul basically just banned carry outside the home in her "Concealed Carry Improvement Act". ( https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/go...-strengthen-gun-laws-and-bolster-restrictions ) It's a spit in the face of SCOTUS and basic rule of law.

But, what I can see happening is that the lower courts will uphold Bruen (as in the above tweet) because they're judges too. The cops will uphold the lower judges because they need their cooperation to function. And the people will cooperate with the cops because they have no choice. System works. Sunrise, sunset. Yadda yadda yadda.

Problem is this will take many years. And yeah some people like myself are going to catch hell in the meantime.

Anyways, that's my take on it. I am not a lawyer. And still haven't finished reading Bruen. But, what we're talking about here isn't really Bruen itself it's more along the lines of how democracies continue to exist. (Not that I know of any of this for sure.)

-Bryan

 

[BryanDavis]

And here is how the legislative branch is going to have its arms twisted until they comply:







You can find the full conversation on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1552744405555093510


Bruen is turning out to be a Godsend. It's a beautiful thing, gentlemen. It's a beautiful thing.

And this pretty much wraps up the whole, "How is this going to be enforced?" bit. Far as I can tell.

You guys worry too much.

-Bryan

 

[LiveLife]

lower courts will uphold Bruen

Lower courts will uphold the Supreme Court ruling. And if they don't, then cases will be appealed to the Supreme Court to be ruled for the entire country to follow, not just for that particular district of several states (Like Bruen ruling ... now the entire country is going "shall issue" instead of some of the states before the Supreme Court ruling). And the district court judge Raymond Moore who made the TRO ruling for Superior, CO is an Obama appointee ... says a lot about how Supreme Court ruling will be followed by lower courts.

Problem is this will take many years.

Immediately following Supreme Court's Bruen ruling, many "may issue" states announced they are becoming "shall issue", even the CA's DOJ.

... what we're talking about here ... how democracies continue to exist

Since many Democrats are gun owners and supporters of gun rights/2A, let's use the term "Antis ... Anti-gun".

 

[LiveLife]

And here is how the legislative branch is going to have its arms twisted until they comply ... Bruen is turning out to be a Godsend.

And this pretty much wraps up the whole, "How is this going to be enforced?"

Our founders set up the government with three branches and checks and balances.

Legislative and executive branches will continue to do what they do, but what we are seeing is the judicial branch doing the job of checking the other two branches and ruling that laws they passed are unconstitutional (Yes, "We the People" elected president who appointed hundreds of judges and three justices and now these judges and justices will rule for their entire lives spanning decades and generations ... Elections have consequences, so vote. ).

And when "We the People" vote in 2022 to turn the legislative branch and in 2024 to turn the executive branch, Supreme Court's Bruen ruling and full extent of justice Thomas' words will be fully enforced as "Originalist" justice Gorsuch eloquently stated ... "Our Bill of Rights is perfect".

 

[LiveLife]

lower courts will uphold Bruen

Lower courts will uphold the Supreme Court ruling. And if they don't, then cases will be appealed to the Supreme Court to be ruled for the entire country to follow, not just for that particular district of several states ... Like Bruen ruling

And here's update to Rhode v Bonta (CA ammunition ban) -

Attorney's update and discussion on the Rhode v. Bonta California ammunition ban case. The state of California is now arguing Bruen has no impact on this case and that the 9th Circuit should remand the case back to judge Benitez - https://rumble.com/v1grbmg-supreme-courts-6-3-decision-creates-an-end-to-california-ammo-ban.html

• CA is taking the position the right to purchase ammunition is not protected by the 2A, therefore Bruen ruling has no impact on the case
• Judge Benitez already used "Text informed by history" and simple "Heller test" to rule the ammunition ban unconstitutional
• Judge Benitez stated background check for ammunition purchase has no historical pedigree and in fact, has never been implemented before by any other state
• Judge Benitez ruling already met the Supreme Court's position even before the Bruen ruling was issued
• Judge Benitez ruling was appealed to the 9th Circuit and sought emergency stay which was granted by the 9th Circuit panel
• Ruling by the panel was put on hold until the Supreme Court Bruen ruling was resolved and after the Bruen ruling, panel requested supplemental briefs as to how the case would be affected by the Bruen ruling
• CA filed supplemental brief arguing the case does not implicate the 2A and 9th Circuit should remand the case back to district judge Benitez for reconsideration in light of Supreme Court Bruen ruling
  
• Supplemental brief by CA was really painful to read because it is chock full of horrible arguments where CA is claiming since the ban is not a total ban on ammunition, the requirement does not implicate the 2A and trying to avoid the burden of historical basis for the ammunition restriction going back to the ratification of the 2A
• CA is arguing your right to purchase ammunition is not justified by the 2A [Wow, judge Benitez already ruled that magazines are "arms" protected by the 2A ... So, that also means being able to obtain/purchase ammunition is protected by the 2A to this layperson. ]
• Interesting thing is CA already admitted being able to acquire and keep ammunition is protected by the 2A [What? ] but AG Bonta argues that background check and using FFLs is lawful regulation and do not violate the 2A because it is not a total ban
• CA does not want the case to be resolved by the 9th Circuit, rather want the case sent back to judge Benitez at district court level even thought they know judge Benitez will rule unconstitutional again because they want to stall the case as long as possible (Like Miller and Duncan cases)

 

[buck460XVR]

it's more along the lines of how democracies continue to exist.

Since many Democrats are gun owners and supporters of gun rights/2A, let's use the term "Antis ... Anti-gun".

There's a difference between "democracies" and "Democrats". With the increase in the last coupla years from 35% to 50% of Republicans supporting stricter gun control laws, the continued insistence to suggest that support for more gun control in the general public is all along party lines, is hogwash. The majority of Americans identify as "Independent" when voting....but yet we never hear them being criticized for their stand on gun control on this forum. As you said, many Democrats support the 2nd. We need to alienating fellow gun owners because we don't like their political affiliation.

 

[MEHavey]

There's enough Difference (Red/Blue) that some generalizations are still applicable.

See https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/gun-control-polling-2022/

 

[LiveLife]

There's a difference between "democracies" and "Democrats"

You are correct.

There's enough Difference (Red/Blue) that some generalizations are still applicable.

See https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/gun-control-polling-2022/

And this thread is about the state's attempt to regulate gun owners' right to obtain/purchase ammunition where a federal district court judge already ruled it unconstitutional and right to obtain/purchase ammunition is protected under the 2A in light of Supreme Court's Bruen ruling.

Let's stay focused on the OP topic of discussion.

Thank you.

 

[irishlad]

You are correct.


And this thread is about the state's attempt to regulate gun owners' right to obtain/purchase ammunition where a federal district court judge already ruled it unconstitutional and right to obtain/purchase ammunition is protected under the 2A in light of Supreme Court's Bruen ruling.

Let's stay focused on the OP topic of discussion.

Thank you.

LiveLife,

Thank you for the updates on California gun cases. I grew up there, left over 20 years ago, partly due to the stupid gun laws.

 

[Capybara]

AG Bonta also just put out a memo that essentially backs his and Gav Boy's stance that the Supreme Court's NYSRPA Opinion is inapplicable to California. They are passing SB-918 this week which also basically makes CCW against the law.
As I've always said, I don't live in the United States. I live in enemy territory called California.

 

[PapaG]

Gonna take a major victory at SC level saying, affirming, codifying that "shall not be infringed" means what it says. Hell, I'm in Illinois, the home of major infringement. Foid. CCW with prints, training, etc, and now background check for ammo purchase.

 

[Caplock]

When I visit California and am not allowed to buy ammo period....that violates my rights.

 

[Weflyfast]

The great Hochol of NY got spanked by the SC- now she is passing more restrictive more unconstitutional crap laws like a vindictive kid that got caught with their hand in the cookie jar- now after you jump through all list of very restrictive hoops to get a carry permit .....there is NO place in public you can actually carry!
....and if you leave it in your vehicle to go into a public place and don't unload- and put a trigger lock on it - and put it in a locked safe.....you are a felon.
The courts move too slowly....and she knows it.