Bruen decision may mark an end to CA ammunition restriction

[LiveLife]

DOJ notice sent out to FFLs due to Rhode v Bonta ruling with judgement - https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1753103781389385729

 

[Beck]

Very good news... for now. But I wonder how long this game of ping pong between St. Benitez and the 9th will go on before SCOTUS does their job and sets the people free. I see no end to it until that happens.

https://www.latimes.com/california/...i-importation-rules-for-ammo-unconstitutional

This is an exceptionally profound post... I like it!

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Rhode v Bonta (CA ammunition ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ition-restriction.907903/page-2#post-12822073

As anticipated, after less than a week of "Freedom Week", 9th Circuit 3 judge panel ruled 2-1 and stayed judge Benitez's permanent injunction and judgement - https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...ranting-Mtn-to-Stay-District-Court-Ruling.pdf

Before: CLIFTON, CALLAHAN, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Order by Judges CLIFTON and H.A. THOMAS; Dissent by Judge CALLAHAN.​

​

The motion to stay the district court’s January 30, 2024 permanent injunction and judgment is granted.​

 

[rsrocket1]

looks like I picked the wrong week to escape Komifornia...
Then again, no.

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Rhode v Bonta (CA ammunition ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...a-ammunition-restriction.907903/post-12826326

Oral arguments scheduled for December 2024 - https://michellawyers.com/rhode-v-becerra/

Docket Text: NOTICE: This case is being considered for an upcoming oral argument calendar in Pasadena. Please review the Pasadena sitting dates for December 2024 and the subsequent sitting month in that location at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/court_sessions. Absent an irreconcilable conflict, the court expects you to appear and argue your case during one of these two months.​

​

If you have an irreconcilable conflict on any of the dates, please consult with opposing counsel to propose an alternate date and/or location and file Form 32 (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/forms/form32.pdf) within 3 business days of this notice using the ACMS filing type Response to Case Being Considered for Oral Argument. Please follow the form’s instructions (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/forms/form32instructions.pdf) carefully.​

​

If the parties wish to discuss settlement before an argument date is set, they should jointly request referral to the mediation unit by filing a motion within 3 business days of this notice, using the filing type: Motion to Refer to Mediation. You will receive notice that your case has been assigned to a calendar approximately 10 weeks before the scheduled oral argument date. [24-542] [Entered: 08/09/2024 11:42 AM]​

 

[Basura Blanca]

What's the update exactly? Not seeing anything really new here.

The last document on Chuck Michels' list is the state response from a month ago. Once again, they make cogent arguments that Bruen (now reinforced by Rahimi) allow for the regulation of ammo purchases because of a generalized tradition of doing so in other areas with respect to the 2A. That's nothing new. It's the trend in every case which the courts are largely accepting, save for the few pre-Rahimi cases where we temporarily prevailed.

The only thing that stood out in the state's reply (pg 32 pdf) was on the last point. In a nutshell, they claim that because they made a state law making it illegal to import unauthorized (non-background checked) ammunition into the state, the preemption claim is invalid because it's similarly accepted by our side, when it comes to importing firearms from out of state as per longstanding law. It's circular logic to its extreme but we've seen the courts accept much worse in the recent past.

 

[LiveLife]

we've seen the courts accept much worse in the recent past.

And I am curious how the 9th Circuit "properly" applies Bruen methodology with burden shifting to states/government for Rhode v Bonta (CA ammunition ban) as usually anti-2A 9th Circuit recently ruled after "properly" applying Brueth methodology in Carralero v. Bonta (CA public carry ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...apply-to-future-2a-cases.931586/post-12974769

Defendants [CA] to identify historical regulations similar in number and time frame to the regulations that the Supreme Court cited as justification for designating other places as sensitive. For places that are newer, Defendants must point to regulations that are analogous to the regulations cited by the Supreme Court, taking into account that it is illogical to expect a government to regulate a place before it existed in its modern form. Historical regulations need not be a close match to the challenged law; they need only evince a principle underpinning our Nation’s historical tradition of regulating firearms in places relevantly similar to those covered by the challenged law​

 

[Basura Blanca]

The best guess is they (the ninth circuit) won't since they haven't so far.
"Historical tradition of regulating firearms" is what plagues us in all these cases, including Carralero, which applied similarly tortured logic and got us mixed results.

But is there no other update to Rhode? --because I was asking that in earnest. I'm not seeing anything other than the latest salvo from the state.

 

[LiveLife]

But is there no other update to Rhode? --because I was asking that in earnest. I'm not seeing anything other than the latest salvo from the state.

I don't think so ... I think we are set for oral arguments to be held in December and it's just waiting game now - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...a-ammunition-restriction.907903/post-12993937

Oral arguments scheduled for December 2024 - https://michellawyers.com/rhode-v-becerra/

​

If you have an irreconcilable conflict on any of the dates, please consult with opposing counsel to propose an alternate date and/or location and file Form 32 (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/forms/form32.pdf) within 3 business days of this notice using the ACMS filing type Response to Case Being Considered for Oral Argument. Please follow the form’s instructions (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/forms/form32instructions.pdf) carefully.​

 

[Mal H]

Thread closed at OP's request.