California restrictions for purchasing ammunition online have been temporarily suspended!

Thanks ammunitiondepot , I'm sure you were told a few days ago like we were this was about to happen ? It was hard to stay quite until the order was given .

By the way I went onto your website to buy some ammo but all I could see for sale were cases of ammo . Do you only sell in bulk or can I buy individual boxes of ammo . I want the vendors that were in the law suite to get my money first . I already tried the others but it appears there system does not allow for shipping to residents yet only FFL right now .
 
> If the state objective is to make it extremely difficult, if not impossible,
> for its law-abiding citizens to purchase protected ammunition, then
> this law appears to be well-drafted.
Click to expand...

IMHO, Judge Benitez was remarkably brutal in slapping down California's "experiment"
 
not living there, so not having a dog directly in the fight I wonder, what. if anything, prevents the CA gov from "judge shopping" until they find one who will overrule this one so the gov gets their way, again??
 
I wonder, what. if anything, prevents the CA gov from "judge shopping" until they find one who will overrule this one so the gov gets their way, again??
__________________
Click to expand...

That’s what we did , this judge was not the original judge for the case . This case falls closely under other Second Amendment cases he is hearing right now . I think he’s hearing three of them right now , one of those is the 30 round magazine restriction . This is the judge that gave California what we now call freedom week . California citizens had seven days to order and or buy magazines that held more than 10 rounds because he ordered a preliminary injunction in that case . The state started to freak out when they heard the numbers of 30 round magazine’s being bought ( I personally bought "standard" cap mags for every firearm I own during that week ) and coming into the State and ask for an emergency stay which he granted .
 
Last edited:
The state ask for a stay and it has been denied and the state has already appealed to the 9th circuit I believe there's already a case number at the 9th for it . Wow this stuff sure moves fast when it's against us . I wonder if are side was asking for all this , how fast it would be moving ???
 
Last edited:
Now the question is who does it get assigned to? Three years ago that question barely mattered as the uberlibs had a +11 advantage. These days they are only +3.
 
Wasn't Freedom Day great?

It didn't do me any good, because when I tried to order ammo online during Freedom Day, it turned out that my county had enacted a similar law. So even though the state law was ruled unconstitutional, the county law wasn't subject to the injunction. So I didn't get any ammo.
 
https://dl.airtable.com/.attachment...55f7ca/e19ca2c1/RhodevBecerraMotiontoStay.pdf

(3) Why the Motion Could Not Have Been Filed Earlier (9th Cir. R. 27-3(c)(iii)):
The preliminary injunction was issued on April 23, 2020. The Attorney
General this emergency motion on April 24, 2020. I notified the Ninth Circuit
court staff by voicemail and e-mail prior to filing this emergency motion.
Click to expand...

This is from the states appeal for the stay . Is it normal for plaintiffs or defendants to contact the court before any official paperwork is filed ? This sounds like collusion to me ? Am I right in thinking the AG contacted the 9th through unofficial channels ( meaning not recorded for the record ) and asked them to get ready for there appeal ? How do we know what was said and or asked for in the email or voicemail . Would that have been CC to all involved ?

Is this normal ? Would it have been excepted that Heller contacted SCOTUS before filing to give them a heads up so they could start preparing for something they had NO official documentation on . Maybe this ain't fishy but it sure smells fishy .
 
Last edited:
This is from the states appeal for the stay . Is it normal for plaintiffs or defendants to contact the court before any official paperwork is filed ? This sounds like collusion to me ? Am I right in thinking the AG contacted the 9th through unofficial channels ( meaning not recorded for the record ) and asked them to get ready for there appeal ?

Is this normal ? Would it have been excepted that Heller contacted SCOTUS before filing to give them a heads up so they could start preparing for something they had NO official documentation on . Maybe this ain't fishy but it sure smells fishy .
Click to expand...
This type of thing is neither unusual nor unethical. There can be ex parte communication between an attorney and a judge on purely ministerial matters. Here, I bet the AG's office didn't contact the judge's' offices directly, but probably contacted the clerk's office to give the court a heads-up so they would be expecting an emergency motion.
 
Almost any time a court sides with our side . At least in CA it seems that way . The interesting part about the states “emergency” stay argument is it actual shows the opposite of what they are trying to say/claim . If all these crimnals or prohibited people were going to all of a sudden start buying ammo cus it’s leagal to do so now just like what happen with freedom week and the mags . Doesn’t that actually show the citizens are and have been following the law which by definition shows how much law abiding citizens are harmed by these laws .

Seriously do they realy think criminals were like YES I can finally get those bullets I needed . Better order a few thousand so I’ll have enough for my lifetime of crime . :rolleyes:

I believe the judge showed 16% of law abiding citizens who should not be prohibited failed there back ground check and something like out of 650,000 checks they stopped “770” prohibited persons . So if my calculations are correct, over 100,000 law abiding citizens were deprived of there constitutional rights to stop 770 from breaking the law . Can someone name me another law that kind of ratio would be excepted ?

This is an EMERGENCY???? For like 200 years citizens of CA could buy ammo with out a background check . Now after less then a year of this law being in place , if they don’t keep it in place there’s going to be blood in streets ????? This whole thing stinks of something vile .
 
Last edited:
if they don’t keep it in place there’s going to be blood in streets ????? This whole thing stinks of something vile.
Click to expand...

It never ceases to amaze me how ridiculous the anti-gun folk can be.

I've told this story before (and undoubtedly will tell it again) but when Minnesota was in the process of getting concealed carry laws passed opponents of liberalizing the laws donned a big blue bomb disposal vest, with the high collar around the throat, before they spoke against the law railing that there would be "BLOOD IN THE STREETS!!" (maybe the anti-gun folk should trademark that phrase) and that we'd be turned into the Wild West and that they would NEVER patronize an establishment that DID NOT have the "Gun Free" signage out front. That was many years ago and SURPRISE, none of their predictions came true.
 
Well we just lost in everything last week . The stay was granted and the states extension request was also granted . The saddest part appears the judge in San Diego and the judges granting the stay could not be further from each other as it pertains to the "facts" . The way the appeals court wrote there opinion as to why they granted it reads as if they didn't even read the judges opinion on why he granted it . It look like they just read the states request and said wow you're the state you must be right .

Order granting Prelim.-Injunction
https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020-04-23-Order-Granting-MPI.pdf

Emergency motion to stay Prelim.-Injunction
https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...y-Prelim.-Injunction-Order-Pending-Appeal.pdf

court granting stay on Prelim.-Injunction
https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...-05-14-Order-Granting-Stay-Pending-Appeal.pdf

From link above said:
As the Supreme Court recognized in Heller,
Second Amendment rights are not unlimited. See District of Columbia v. Heller,
554 U.S. 570, 626-27 (2008)
Click to expand...

Oh how I'm sick of them throwing that in are face . The SCOTUS needs to clarify that sentence . I think we all know that was included so to not undue the NFA and other such laws already on the books . It's the very reason the in common use was added as well . IMHO they go together , the judges were saying yes it's not unlimited but it's also time to stop writing more and more laws infringing on the right . If they're already doing it or have it , LEAVE THEM BE !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top