CA ammo ban and ammo background check "unconstitutional"

M

Metal god

New member
Today A federal district court in CA struck down Prop 63 which is/was a ban on importing ammo unless through a licensed FFL and requiring a ammo purchase card that last 4 years after approval/background check .
https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2024-01-31-Decision.pdf

Shortly after prop 63 passed the legislature amended the law getting rid of the 4yr card eligibility
and instead required every ammo purchase needing a background check .

The system to do so got off to a rocky start denying people with similar names , purchaser not having a record of owning a firearm among other things , It was somewhere in the teens of a % that were being wrongfully denied . It finally settled in at 11% of all purchasers wrongfully being denied there ammo purchase/s .

There is already a denial of a stay by the ruling judge and would appear the state will be looking to the 9th circuit for an emergency stay . Out of state ammo venders are already taking orders and will ship directly to CA until otherwise ordered not to . That said no local vendors or stores are selling ammo without a background check at this time and many online out of state vendors are refusing as well .

Interesting side note . I personally know one of the named Plaintiffs . They went into a local gun store this afternoon with court order in hand along with ID showing they were a named plaintiff and the local store refused the sale , said they need official word from DOJ . haha

Oh well , thought I'd let ya'll know :-)

MG
 
Can't really fault the store too much, they're in a tough spot, right now, its a legal quagmire and turning down the sale puts them at the least potential risk.
 
Yeeeehhhhhhhhhh!

I've refused to buy any ammo since this went into effect. I may have to celebrate soon and buy some ammo!
 
Yeah they had no explanation that they would be allowed the sale with out a background check . They just thought it would be fun to ask and see what happens seeing they are a named plaintiff in the case . The thought was , yeah sure you can’t sell to Joe Shmoe but maybe since the court order directly effects the plaintiffs. The store may do it . Nope haha

No big deal , totally understandable and is why I will not name the store either .
 
Last edited:
I have been wanting to order some ammo, but after hearing about the decision, I decided to wait. I'm sure that there are tons of CA gun owners buying up ammo online right now, and I don't want to stand in the way of that. They (CA gun owners) are in a tough spot.
 
yet the people of cali keep voting for the same asshats election after election, they don,t seem to see cause and efect.
 
voting

I suspect that CA suffers the same problem that some other notorious states do....the large urban centers drive politics due to high voter numbers. Large urban centers tend to lean a certain direction in politics and vote accordingly. As a result, the views, lifestyles and politics/voting patterns of those living in rural areas never get traction.

PA and NY are i good example of the situation.
 
Bam you are correct . Im in san diego and in the city you see yes on prop A signs everywhere . Drive only 13 miles east and all you see is no on prop A signs But the inner city has maybe triple the amount of people . Simple math really . LA , SF and pretty much most of the coast line has all the population of CA . Seriously , you get 30 to 40 mile from the coast in CA and the politics change drastically . The issue is nobody lives in the east part of CA , not compared to the west end anyways .
 
Its simply a numbers game, and they have more. This is the flaw in democracy. Its not about the rightness or wrongness of an idea its about how many people vote which way.

Three Wolves and a Sheep voting on what to have for dinner is democracy, but its not such a good thing, if you are the Sheep.
 
"Democracy, even with its flaws, beats any other system devised by far, to this point in history."

Except we're supposed to be a republic, not a democracy. :mad:
Paul B.
 
To minimize the flaws in pure democracy, our founders chose a democratic REPUBLIC over a democracy. There is a significant difference.

But even a republic has flaws and can be manipulated by those in power for their own ends.
Pure democracy works best in small communities where nearly everyone has some personal stake in nearly every issue.

It works less well in larger populations where significant numbers of people with no personal stake in a given issue have the same voice as those who do.

Is there any nation today that operates as a pure democracy? I'm not aware of any who do.
 
a democratically elected republic. Our representatives are democratically elected to represent us. Two notable exceptions to being a democratically elected republic being the US Senate, where states with 1 million in population get the same number of representative as those with 29 million, and the electoral college.

A pure democracy would be where everyone gets to vote on every issue, law, etc. which of course would be quite unwieldly, although If Elon Musk keeps putting chips in peoples brains, who knows.
 
The U.S. Senate is a mixed metaphor. The House of Representatives is supposed to represent the people of the several states. The Senate is supposed to represent the states themselves. Originally, senators weren't elected by direct election, they were elected by the respective state legislatures. The change was made by the 17th amendment to the Constitution, adopted in 1913.
 
The state of California had less than 6 million people in 1930 based on births and immigration from other states like Oklahoma. Following the great depression CONSERVATIVE FDR Democrats dominated California politics even in the rural areas. Hunting was a popular family past time with fathers, sons, uncles, cousins and grampas all getting together to hunt as the women socialized in the home. Now California is dominated by a foreign born population with over 50% of residents having been born someplace else in the world. Just about everyone living outside of the cities have at least 1 gun for pest control, hunting and self defense but most family farms have been gobbled up by large agricultural corporations owning thousands of acres of land. If you look at the number of actual hunting licenses sold in California they are down to about 225000 out of a population of around 40 million. Assuming that there were at least 300,000 hunting licenses sold in California around 1930 over 5% of the population actively hunted. Now that is down to less than about 1/2%. A 2018 U.C. Davis study claims only 14% of the population has guns, but I think this estimate is bunk based only upon available gun registration data or a very small sample size. I suspect around 50% of households have at least 1 gun with less than 14% of privately owned guns being used on a regular basis.
 
MidwayUSA now shipping Ammo to California buyers

"Details on Policy Change
Dear Customer,
We are now able to legally ship ammo directly to most retail Customers in California. "
 
Last edited:
Yeah I had to laugh this afternoon. I received emails this morning from Midway USA and I think two other out-of-state online stores. All stating they will now ship to California. Only to have the 9th circuit. Stay the ruling hours later.
 
Interestingly, there was a dissent on whether or not to issue a stay. In my (perhaps faulty) memory, that's very unusual in the 9th on 2A cases. Maybe unheard-of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top