Categories
Category: California
Yosemite National Park & the fools it attracts!
What a waste of some good looking Hot Links is all I can say! Grumpy
Injunction To Be Filed In Lawsuit Challenging California Ammo-Law Train-Wreck
California – -(AmmoLand.com)- The problems encountered since the new ammunition background check system was put into effect on July 1st 2019, have far surpassed what we predicted, and we predicted a train wreck.
The approval process takes over a half hour per customer, instead of the promised two minutes. DOJ is imposing unnecessary and costly requirements on vendors.
Countless customers are being turned down by DOJ for lack of ID even if they have a California driver’s license. Law abiding people cannot get ammunition they need for sport or self-defense. Businesses may have to close as a result of this extreme regulatory burden.
“Newsom’s Prop 63 law is a business killing nightmare and a red-tape charade that is useless as a crime prevention measure,” said CRPA President Chuck Michel.
“This law puts a ridiculously excessive burden on Second Amendment rights and was designed to make it practically impossible for gun stores to make a profit or for people to use a gun for sport or self-defense. It’s part of Newsom’s effort to eliminate the “gun culture” – which he hates.” said Michel.
“We are going to ask the Court to put a stop to it immediately.”
CRPA, with NRA’s support, challenged the ammunition background check law in court months ago. The lead plaintiff in the case is gold medal-winning Olympic shooter Kim Rhode.
The CRPA legal team already got a favorable ruling in the Rhode case – which is being heard by the same judge who ruled in the Duncan 10+ magazine lawsuit.
We had to wait for the ammo law to take effect to seek an injunction, but now that the law has gone into effect and the infringements have been documented, CRPA plans to seek an injunction in the Rhode case next week.
If you’ve had problems buying ammunition, and particularly if you are an ammunition sales vendor having problems, please email us at ammosnafu@michellawyers.com so we can add your experience to the mountain of evidence documenting how this law has failed.
To review all of the materials that NRA and CRPA have put together about what these laws require and the lawsuit challenging them, visitmichellawyers.com/ammunition-california-laws-and-regulations/.
Gun rights supporters should not support other 2A groups promising to file their own legal challenges to the new ammo laws.
Although these may just be list building promotions for use in their future fundraising appeals, any new redundant lawsuit that might be filed would be duplicative, would complicate the legal process, greatly risks having a different (likely hostile) judge second-guess the good ruling we already got in the Rhode case, and jeopardizes the potential success of CRPA’s existing lawsuit.
https://youtu.be/7RBWuYFeg9Y
And some folks wonder why I want to leave this place. Grumpy PS where in the Hell were the Cops or at least security?
Now do not get me wrong. If it was legal then I would not want one. But it really sets me on a slow burn. When somebody in Power says that I can not have one! Grumpy
California’s mandatory background check law to buy ammo went into effect on Monday, and it’s not going well. The system is reportedly running very slowly with no customer support.
“I’ve had one customer, and I had to turn them away because I couldn’t get into the system,” Don Reed, owner of DGS Ammo & Airguns in Sacramento, told ABC News. “He seemed a little bit perturbed. … There’s a lot of people feel like they’re being held hostage suddenly — punishing the people who’ve been doing it the right way.”
“So far it doesn’t work at all. My system doesn’t let me access it,” said Steve Converse of Ade’s Gun Shop.
“I can’t believe the amount of paper it wastes,” remarked Scott Emmett, the manager of the Ammo Bros store in San Diego. “This one transaction for two types of ammo was almost eight pages long.”
Emmett said the system was down for the first 45 minutes and there was no support. “I sat on the phone for about 40 minutes and no one answered.”
In 2016, California voters approved the law and it’s just now coming into play. The law requires background checks for all ammo sales, and there are three kinds of checks.
Here’s the breakdown from the California Department of Justice, which administers the law.
- Standard Ammunition Eligibility Check: This eligibility check can be used by an individual whose information matches an entry in the Automated Firearms System and does not fall within a class of persons who are prohibited from owning or possessing ammunition. A determination may be completed in approximately 2 minutes. The fee for a Standard Ammunition Eligibility Check is $1.00.
- Certificate of Eligibility Verification Check: This eligibility check may be used by individuals who have a current Certificate of Eligibility to acquire or possess firearms. A determination may be completed in approximately 2 minutes. The fee for a Certificate of Eligibility Verification Check is $1.00.
- Basic Ammunition Eligibility Check: This eligibility check can be used by individuals who do not possess a current Certificate of Eligibility to acquire or possess firearms, or do not already have information entered in the Automated Firearm System. A determination may take several days to complete. The fee for the Basic Ammunition Eligibility Check is $19.00.
If you’ve registered a firearm in California, then you’ll probably qualify for one of the first two checks that cost just $1. You’ll need a valid California Driver’s License.
But, if you’re a new shooter you’ll be waiting days to get your bullets. Oh, and you’ll have to add $19 to the cost of that box of $6 shells. At least you’ll be able to buy more ammo under the same check for 30 days.
If you’re an out-of-stater, you simply cannot buy ammo in California.
The California DOJ says the law should keep ammo out of the hands of those deemed unfit. “The eligibility checks ensure purchasers are not prohibited from owning or possessing ammunition due to a felony and/or violent misdemeanor conviction or warrant, domestic violence restraining order, or mental health issue.”
The California Rifle and Pistol Association says they are “working in the field and in the courtroom to stop these ridiculous laws.” They have filed an active lawsuit against the Attorney General, Rhode v. Becerra.
Kim Rhode, an Olympic gold medal shooter who shoots thousands of rounds every week and is negatively affected by this law, is listed as the plaintiff in the case. The National Rifle Association is also involved in this suit.
This background check law was joined on July 1st by the law banning all lead from hunting use, though it can still be used for target shooting and self-defense.
With this huge impediment to purchasing ammo, how will the Pitman-Robertson revenues be affected? If you and I go to the range, and you give me some shells to shoot, is that an illegal transfer? Will this law lead to stockpiling ammo and illegally bringing ammo across state lines?
Last September, California passed a law raising the minimum age to own a firearm from 18 to 21. This highly problematic law was bound for one or more challenges from the moment it was proposed and now that’s come to pass. Multiple plaintiffs have come forward asking for the law to be struck down as it infringes on their Second Amendment rights. More coverage from the Sacramento Bee.
A coalition of California gun rights groups has sued the state in federal court to prevent the enactment of a law prohibiting people younger than 21 from buying firearms.
“Once individuals turn 18, they are adults in the eyes of the law,” said Carlsbad attorney John W. Dillon, lead counsel for the plaintiffs. “Law-abiding adults are entitled to fully exercise all of their fundamental rights, including their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for all lawful purposes, not just hunting or sport.”
The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. That’s the same district where Judge Roger Benitez struck down California’s ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines earlier this year.
In an effort to make the bill a bit more palatable to gun owners, there were several exceptions built into it, one of which renders it almost toothless. Under this law you could still own a firearm at the age of 18 if you were serving in the military, a law enforcement officer or had a hunting license. That last exception was the real kicker because all you’d really have to do is apply for a hunting license, bring it with you and you could get around the law. You didn’t even have to actually go hunting. You just needed the license.
But as the attorney for one of the plaintiffs is pointing out, that shouldn’t make any difference. First of all, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, nor is gun ownership reserved to those who choose to hunt. Once you turn 18 you are legally considered an adult, with all the same rights and privileges as anyone else. (Assuming you’ve managed to avoid becoming a felon and haven’t been adjudicated as being mentally unstable.) The plaintiff, in this case, is 20 and has no interest in hunting. He just wants a firearm for home defense.
One important point is brought up by those claiming that states regularly pass laws restricting the sale of alcohol and tobacco to those under the age of 21. That’s very true, but there’s a key difference here. You don’t have a constitutional right to booze or smokes, so the state can regulate them as it chooses. You do, however, have the right to keep and bear arms, and that right fully engages when you become an adult.
This has cropped up in other cases and it’s always a source of frustration. It’s bad enough that we can’t seem to agree as a society what the age of adulthood really is and what it entails. You can enlist in the military at the age of 17 (with parental consent) and head out to fight America’s enemies on the battlefield. But you can’t defend your own home until you are three years older? Hopefully, the courts will see the lack of logic in this argument.
You go right ahead and do that.
Below are screenshots from the Nevada County California Sheriff’s Office Booking Report
(courtesy of Elmo) showing 3 arrests for smuggling in fireworks.
If you’ll notice, the three arrests that I screenshotted took place at the I-80 Agriculture Inspection Station – you know, the one that nobody ever gets stopped at.
From Elmo’s email:
Below are screenshots from the Nevada County California Sheriff’s Office Booking Report
(courtesy of Elmo) showing 3 arrests for smuggling in fireworks.
If you’ll notice, the three arrests that I screenshotted took place at the I-80 Agriculture Inspection Station – you know, the one that nobody ever gets stopped at.
From Elmo’s email:
Over the last two weeks, CalFire LEOs have made at least 15 and possibly as many as 20 arrests on identical charges, one of which is Possession of Dangerous Fireworks, a felony.
These arrests have been made by at least 8 different badge numbers and all but 2 of them occurred at the “I-80 Ag Station”.
The other 2 were made at Soda Springs. The people arrested have been from the Sacramento and Bay areas and the San Juaquin Valley.
I believe this is a precursor to what the CA DOJ will be doing with people who transport ‘contraband’ ammunition later this summer. I find it completely foolish that some people still believe they’re going to be able to run over to Cabela’s or to the Big Gun Show and stock up. They’re risking a lot to take that chance, including the loss of their right to own a firearm.
Here’s your screenshots:
All I’ve got to say is buyer beware.