9th Circuit revives California law requiring background checks for ammo purchases

[Dvrjon]

When buying that specific ammo or just in general? I boughten handguns since 2000 but no long guns after 2014.

Neither the type nor the amount of ammunition is considered in the process. The process is to submit to be approved to purchase ammunition. If approved, you can buy as many different calibers in whatever quantities you can afford. And, you don’t need to own a gun in the caliber which you are buying.

 

[Deleted member 31158]

And with what high crimes and misdemeanors will Congress charge them? Is it a crime that you don’t agree with them?

Here’s the list of all federal judges impeached. The first was in 1804 and the last was 2010. There are 15 of them and none was impeached for “somebody didn’t agree with their opinions”. https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/impeachments-federal-judges

Siding with illegal aliens. Releasing murderers. Not upholding the laws they swore to uphold. Crapping on the Constitution. Being politically biased when they’re supposed to be politically neutral, etc etc. Unfortunately though, Congress doesn’t have the guts to do anything, nor does SCOTUS it seems, so the beatings will continue until morale improves so to speak.

 

[SomeOne]

Siding with illegal aliens. Releasing murderers. Not upholding the laws they swore to uphold. Crapping on the Constitution. Being politically biased when they’re supposed to be politically neutral, etc etc.

All of this starts with SCOTUS letting judges purposely misinterpret the laws and SCOTUS opinions. If SCOTUS swiftly slapped them back, that would fix the issue. Not to mention, the judges need to be dismantled for making the "creative" decisions. That would immediately apply to the majority of 9CA.

 

[MattB]

And with what high crimes and misdemeanors will Congress charge them? Is it a crime that you don’t agree with them?

Here’s the list of all federal judges impeached. The first was in 1804 and the last was 2010. There are 15 of them and none was impeached for “somebody didn’t agree with their opinions”. https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/impeachments-federal-judges

Now I’m no lawyer, but I would say a blatant disregard for the constitution is at least a misdemeanor. The second amendment says “shall not be infringed.” California infringes, therefore their laws are unconstitutional and should be voided. The 9th circus disregards the plain text of the constitution by upholding unconstitutional laws. How is that not grounds for removal?

 

[Dvrjon]

Now I’m no lawyer, but I would say a blatant disregard for the constitution is at least a misdemeanor.

I browsed the list of Federal Misdemeanors and couldn’t find that. (I’m not a lawyer, either, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn and kept the robe, so I got that going for me).

The second amendment says “shall not be infringed.” California infringes, therefore their laws are unconstitutional and should be voided. The 9th circus disregards the plain text of the constitution by upholding unconstitutional laws. How is that not grounds for removal?

I dunno, but since you pointed out you’re not a lawyer you need to make your case to these folks. They’re the ones you gotta convince.

Best.

 

[Hamburger Monster]

Now I’m no lawyer, but I would say a blatant disregard for the constitution is at least a misdemeanor. The second amendment says “shall not be infringed.” California infringes, therefore their laws are unconstitutional and should be voided. The 9th circus disregards the plain text of the constitution by upholding unconstitutional laws. How is that not grounds for removal?

From what I've gathered, there is no means of removing a judge based solely on how they rule. It's only on conduct, and specifically, off duty.

The process is impeachment. I imagine a judge could be arrested for breaking the law like a DUI, shop lifting, murder, etc. basically anything any regular citizen could be put in jail or prison for. But if whatever they are doing is part of their official job as a judge, then no, you can't remove or arrest them for the way they rule. That would not make them impartial and could easily sway the way a judge rules based on what political party is in power at the time. They are supposed to be insulated from the changes in politics

 

[GoldensRule]

Yeah, the one they leaked to the universe a few years ago. They did say "Ooops, we're really sorry". That one?

As there is no constitutional right to privacy, I learned a LONG time ago that any information the government or anyone else has about you can and will be made public at sometime in your life. Now, with the literal power of AI crawling through every possible record in every possible database they can gain access to, legally and not, none of us has a prayer, going forward, of keeping our "affairs" private. I feel really bad for future generations and I hope THEY are smart enough to add a privacy amendment to the bill of rights because we (those of us currently alive) certainly haven't been smart enough to do it and as a result, we have sold our souls to the "company store".

That said, I'm not familiar with the leak you mentioned but, it doesn't surprise me.

 

[GoldensRule]

And with what high crimes and misdemeanors will Congress charge them?

Legislative impeachment is one of a number of major things the authors of the constitution royally screwed-the-pooch on. Not to lump all the blame on the founders, none of us in the ensuing 237 years has been smart enough to change the process so it is easier to rid ourselves of incompetent / tyrannical / criminal and traitorous executives, jurists and legislators.

One possible way to fix this problem would be to amend the unamendable constitution to provide for the recall of any of the above people by "We the People" without the consent of any state or federal legislators or executives.

Specifically about your comment, impeachment is a political process and there is literally no definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" in our constitution. If congress were to grow a pair then impeach and convict, let's say an obviously corrupt SCOTUS justice, for any reason, that person is out and there is literally no appeal. No court, not even SCOTUS could overturn such an impeachment. I just don't know what would unify the members of the two parties to do this. It appears that even if it were discovered that a Justice were literally a sock puppet of Vladimir Putin that our elected representatives would just dismiss it as long as that justice ruled the way one party or the other wants them to.

It's a travesty of our "Democratic Republic".

 

[Dvrjon]

Specifically about your comment, impeachment is a political process and there is literally no definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" in our constitution. If congress were to grow a pair then impeach and convict, let's say an obviously corrupt SCOTUS justice, for any reason, that person is out and there is literally no appeal. No court, not even SCOTUS could overturn such an impeachment. I just don't know what would unify the members of the two parties to do this.

Post 25, above, provides a link to all of the federal judges impeached and either acquitted or removed for their specific acts. That should give one a sense of what has risen to "high crimes and misdemeanors" under this rubric.

A Recap:

Acquittals:
-on charges of arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials; Acquitted
-on charges of abuse of the contempt power; Acquitted
-on charges of abuse of contempt power and other misuses of office; Acquitted
-on charges of favoritism in the appointment of bankruptcy receivers; Acquitted

Removals
-on charges of mental instability and intoxication on the bench; Convicted
-on charges of refusing to hold court and waging war against the U.S. government; Convicted
-on charges of intoxication on the bench; Resigned from office, December 12, 1873, before opening of trial in the U.S. Senate.
-on charges of improper business relationship with litigants; Convicted
-on charges of abuse of power; Resigned
-on charges of favoritism in the appointment of bankruptcy receivers and practicing law while sitting as a judge; Convicted
-on charges of income tax evasion and of remaining on the bench following criminal conviction; Convicted
-on charges of perjury and conspiring to solicit a bribe; Convicted
-on charges of perjury before a federal grand jury; Convicted
-on charges of sexual assault, obstructing and impeding an official proceeding, and making false and misleading statements; Resigned
-on charges of accepting bribes and making false statements under penalty of perjury; Convicted

None was impeached for their legal theories or decisions or politics.

 

[peskywabbit]

I would never advocate or admit to breaking the law, but if you are ever in Tahoe, have ammo shipped to a Mailboxes in Nevada before your trip and pick it up. Also save the extra tax.

 

[Dvrjon]

I would never advocate or admit to breaking the law, but if you are ever in Tahoe, have ammo shipped to a Mailboxes in Nevada before your trip and pick it up. Also save the extra tax.

That doesn’t violate the statute, but you have to convince a vendor to ship to a box. If you subsequently bring any of that ammo back into CA then you will have violated the law.

 

[GoldensRule]

None was impeached for their legal theories or decisions or politics.

Rest assured, politics was a factor in the vast majority of the impeachments you listed. Of course the people doing the impeaching would never just come out and say that or make it part of the record. Remember, those people were politicians and those impeached were not convicted in a court of law they were convicted by a jury of politicians, not their peers and they were only removed from their positions on the bench, they were not sent to prison by congress.

Additionally, things were somewhat different in the past. Our representatives wanted to, at least, present an air of fairness and justice. Those days are gone, at least for now. Currently, it's a giant East Texas, Friday night football game where all that matters is that your side wins and that end justifies any means used to get there.

 

[Jimi Jah]

When the constitution was written and judges were appointed for life the average lifespan was quite short compared to today.

Most would not serve until death like RBG, they would retire because of age related problems and a lack of modern medical cures.

Now they tend to remain in office until they die, late 80's or longer. Same with Senators like Feinstein. Strom Thurmond lasted over 100 years. That is because of the 17th amendment that changed the state appointed senate to direct elections. Before that senators were commonly changed when the other party took control of a state's electors. There was good reason why the founders made the senate an appointed job.

With "safe" one party states like California the senate is a lifetime gig.

 

[Dvrjon]

Rest assured, politics was a factor in the vast majority of the impeachments you listed. Of course the people doing the impeaching would never just come out and say that or make it part of the record. Remember, those people were politicians and those impeached were not convicted in a court of law they were convicted by a jury of politicians, not their peers and they were only removed from their positions on the bench, they were not sent to prison by congress.

Rest assured that someone will find every act by a politician a “political act”, but as not all acts by priests are priestly acts, not all acts by politicians are politic. Also, the fact those impeached weren’t sent to prison by Congress is irrelevant and reveals a deep misunderstanding of impeachment.

However, I believe your concerns can be alleviated by a quick review of the facts surrounding Congressional impeachment proceedings. (Others might also find this informative).

Impeachment is a Constitutional Act undertaken, per force, by politicians. (While all authority can be abused that is not the issue at hand). The basics are this (See: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-1/):

Article I, Section 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

That sets the stage.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5.
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

That sets the authority for “those people (who) were politicians” to bring impeachment articles. In fact, their position as politicians is the very basis for their authority to act, much like a Grand Jury or a District Attorney’s charge. There is no “peer” relationship involved in any of those actions. {Note for all spelling aficionados out there, “chuse” is the original spelling within the Constitution}.

Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Thus ends the “jury of peers” argument.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

And finally, the impeachments can’t send the subjects to prison. They can only remove them from office. However, based on the character of the transgression, the individuals can subsequently be indicted within the judicial system. That’s where they can find their non-politician jury of peers.

Hopefully, the above will quell anxieties regarding federal judicial impeachments and allow all to rest comfortably as we return to the issue of Rhode v. Becerra/Bonta.

Although that will make this a dreary thread since En Banc oral argument won’t take place until the week of March 23, 2026. SCOTUS will have a number of 2A cases this session, so the Court may decide to delay hearing (or certainly publishing a Decision) until after the SCOTUS session ends in June. At which time 9 CA will kick the can back down the hill upon remand.

Best.

 

[Dvrjon]

So we have something to go forward with, here is what has happened in Rhode since being remanded to District Court for review under Bruen.

What we can expect to see in the next few months will be letters to the Court asking for judicial notice of current cases/decisions pending or decided within the 9CA area or in other circuits or at SCOTUS. The court may also request parties to submit briefs on cases brought to their attention and how they may impact this case. Other than that, we are on hold.

1 Dec 2025: 9 CA Order (See: https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...-Order-Setting-Date-for-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf)

En banc oral argument will take place during the week of March 23, 2026, in Pasadena, California. The date and time will be determined by separate order.

1 Dec 2025: 9 CA Approval of En Banc (See: https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-12-01-Order-Granting-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf )

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(c) and Circuit Rule 40-3. The three-judge panel opinion is vacated.

29 Aug 2025: CRPA Response Opposing En Banc Rehearing: (See: https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...Response-in-Opp-to-Petition-for-Rehearing.pdf)

The panel faithfully applied this Court’s precedents at each stage of the Second Amendment inquiry…

7 Aug 2025: State Petition for En Banc Rehearing. (See: https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...t-Defendants-Petition-for-Panel-Rehearing.pdf)

The panel’s conclusion…conflicts with the precedent and distorts Bruen.

24 Jul 2025: 9 CA Panel (See: https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2025-07-24-Opinion.pdf

Affirming the district court’s grant of a permanent injunction, the panel held that California’s ammunition background check regime, which requires firearm owners to complete background checks before each ammunition purchase, facially violates the Second Amendment.

24 May 2024: CRPA Opening Brief. (See: https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2024-05-24-Appellants-Opening-Brief.pdf)

Background checks have long been used to prevent persons who are legally prohibited from possessing firearms from doing so. The Supreme Court has endorsed background checks as a legitimate means “to ensure” that “those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens.’” New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 38 n.9 (2022) (quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 635 (2008)).The Court has also recognized that the Second Amendment does not bar “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” which are “presumptively lawful.” Heller, 554U.S. at 626-627 & n.26. Consistent with those principles, state and federal law have for decades required licensed vendors to conduct background checks and to comply with related regulatory requirements for firearms sales.

5 Feb 2024: 9 CA Panel Grants Stay of District Court Permanent Injunction (See: https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...ranting-Mtn-to-Stay-District-Court-Ruling.pdf)

The motion to stay the district court’s January 30, 2024 permanent injunction and judgment (Docket Entry No. 4) is granted. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009) (defining standard for stay pending appeal).
The existing briefing schedule remains in effect. CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
I would deny the motion for a stay pending appeal. I do not believe appellant has met his burden of showing a likelihood of success on the merits or that irreparable injury will occur absent a stay.

1 Feb 2024: CRPA Response in Opposition to Motion for Emergency Stay (See: https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...p-to-Emergency-Mtn-to-Stay-Pending-Appeal.pdf)

The State has failed to meet its burden to establish that the extraordinary reliefof a stay on the district court’s injunction is warranted here. It has not—and cannot—establish that it will suffer any real harm absent a stay.

31 Jan 2024: State Petition for Emergency Appeal (See: https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...ncy-Mtn-for-Immediate-Stay-Pending-Appeal.pdf)

The district court’s judgment would make it possible for such individuals to purchase ammunition for the first time in years.

30 Jan 2024. U.S. District Court Ruling Against Ammunition Laws - Second time after remand for Bruen. (See: https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2024-01-31-Decision.pdf)

Accordingly, the Court permanently enjoins the State of California from enforcing the ammunition sales background check provisions found in California Penal Code §§30352 and 30370(a) through (e), and the ammunition anti-importation provisions found in §§ 30312(a) and (b) and 30314(a). Criminal enforcement of California Penal Code §§30312(d), 30314(c), and 30365(a) by the Attorney General and all other law enforcement defendants is permanently enjoined.

 

[NorCalBusa]

As there is no constitutional right to privacy, I learned a LONG time ago that any information the government or anyone else has about you can and will be made public at sometime in your life. Now, with the literal power of AI crawling through every possible record in every possible database they can gain access to, legally and not, none of us has a prayer, going forward, of keeping our "affairs" private. I feel really bad for future generations and I hope THEY are smart enough to add a privacy amendment to the bill of rights because we (those of us currently alive) certainly haven't been smart enough to do it and as a result, we have sold our souls to the "company store".

That said, I'm not familiar with the leak you mentioned but, it doesn't surprise me.

In June 2022, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) experienced a significant data leak from its new Firearms Dashboard Portal, unintentionally exposing personal information of approximately 192,000 concealed weapon (CCW) permit applicants/holders, including names, addresses, birth dates, driver's license numbers, and criminal histories, affecting judges, law enforcement, and domestic violence victims. The breach happened during a website update, making data publicly accessible for under 24 hours before being taken offline, leading to lawsuits and an internal investigation that found failures in training and oversight, with the DOJ offering credit monitoring to affected individuals.

What happened?

• Data Exposed: Names, DOBs, addresses, driver's license numbers, gender, race, and criminal histories for CCW applicants (2012-2021).
• Scope: Affected about 192,000 people, including high-profile individuals in sensitive roles, and data from other gun databases (Assault Weapon Registry, Dealer Record of Sale, etc.).
• Cause: An ill-trained technician, lack of oversight, and poor procedures during a website update, not a malicious hack.
• Duration: Data was publicly accessible for less than 24 hours (June 27-28, 2022) before the portal was shut down.

Aftermath & Response:

• Investigation: CalMatters conducted an independent review, citing "unintentional" errors but noting severe lapses in security and training.
• Action: The State of California - Department of Justice (oag.ca.gov) notified affected individuals and offered free credit monitoring.
• Legal Action: Lawsuits were filed against AG Bonta.

Key Takeaway:
This was a major breach of trust caused by internal operational failures, not external hacking, compromising sensitive information for gun owners across California.

California Department of Justice Releases Results of Indepen…

• Nov 30, 2022 — California Department of Justice Releases Results of Independent Investigation of Firearms Dashboard Data Exposure. Pr...
  
  State of California - Department of Justice (.gov)
  
  
  
• Lawsuit Filed Over Massive California DOJ Data Leak
  Jul 19, 2022 — A lawsuit has been filed against California Attorney General Rob Bonta over a leak of personal data from the Departmen...
  
  GovTech
  
  
  
  
• How did confidential gun permit data get leaked? - CalMatters
  Dec 5, 2022 — However, website users discovered that they could access confidential personal information about gun permit applicants ...
  
  CalMatters
  
  
  

 

[GoldensRule]

In June 2022, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) experienced a significant data leak from its new Firearms Dashboard Portal, unintentionally exposing personal information of approximately 192,000 concealed weapon (CCW) permit applicants/holders, including names, addresses, birth dates, driver's license numbers, and criminal histories, affecting judges, law enforcement, and domestic violence victims. The breach happened during a website update, making data publicly accessible for under 24 hours before being taken offline, leading to lawsuits and an internal investigation that found failures in training and oversight, with the DOJ offering credit monitoring to affected individuals.

Thanks for that information. Like I said, I'm not surprised and I am positive this problem is going to increase exponentially with the advent of AI. We are going to see Blackhat AI dueling with government security AI for access to every piece of information possible. Everything from our medical records to the strategic patrol areas of our SSBNs. Just wait until we have quantum AI, we might all be enslaved by the machines...