Feedback Ammunition Sales - Rhode v. Bonta

[Dvrjon]

This thread is for the general discussion of the Article Ammunition Sales - Rhode v. Bonta. Please add to the discussion here.

 

[Chewy19]

All I can say is that I shot skeet on the same range and talked with Rhodes a couple of times; once about the ammunition issue, and she is very nice. No, I am no way a shooter like Kim and never shot with her, but from what I saw she sometimes took pity on us poor mortals and invited one to shoot a round with her.

 

[Dvrjon]

On January 5, 2026:

Federal DOJ filed an Amicus brief in support of Rhode.

Twenty-six states filed a joint Amicus brief supporting Rhode.

En Banc with the 9 CA is still set for the week of 23 March 2026 in Pasadena. (Date and time not yet determined).

 

[rfgCA]

On January 5, 2026:

Federal DOJ filed an Amicus brief in support of Rhode.

Twenty-six states filed a joint Amicus brief supporting Rhode.

En Banc with the 9 CA is still set for the week of 23 March 2026 in Pasadena. (Date and time not yet determined).

Thank you Dvrjon - I appreciate you sharing these updates a lot, I'll be looking forward to March, fingers crossed and hope to be buying online again.

 

[Dvrjon]

January 8, 2026 update:

As noted above, on Jan 5, 2026, the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) filed an Amicus brief in support of our cause in Rhode.

On Jan 8, the USDOJ petitioned the 9 CA to participate in oral arguments during the en banc hearing. Our side has agreed to cede 5 minutes to USDOJ and the state has taken no position on it.

Essentially, USDOJ wants to talk to the en banc panel.

 

[ShootFirstFirster]

January 8, 2026 update:

As noted above, on Jan 5, 2026, the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) filed an Amicus brief in support of our cause in Rhode.

On Jan 8, the USDOJ petitioned the 9 CA to participate in oral arguments during the en banc hearing. Our side has agreed to cede 5 minutes to USDOJ and the state has taken no position on it.

Essentially, USDOJ wants to talk to the en banc panel.

Hopefully threaten to charge them with constitutional and civil rights violations or at a minimum disbarment process.

 

[Dvrjon]

I doubt that the process allows the USDOJ to “charge” the judiciary. However, if one reads the Amicus Brief, it makes their viewpoint clear.

Page 7:


We’re coming in without the consent of the parties OR the 9 CA!

Page 10:



I’m not sure how to sugar-coat that. USDOJ is flat calling out CA Legislature for “Judicial Animus”.

From the AI Bot:

Judicial animus
refers to a legal principle, especially in U.S. constitutional law, where government action is deemed unconstitutional if it's motivated by hostility, prejudice, or ill will (animus) toward a specific, often politically unpopular or protected group, rather than a legitimate governmental purpose…

The inference clearly is that if 9 CA doesn’t support this appeal, they are supporting judicial animus of the state. And if USDOJ showed up here to support us, if needed, they’ll be at SCOTUS for the appeal.

 

[ShootFirstFirster]

I doubt that the process allows the USDOJ to “charge” the judiciary. However, if one reads the Amicus Brief, it makes their viewpoint clear.

Page 7:
View attachment 135493

We’re coming in without the consent of the parties OR the 9 CA!

Page 10:

View attachment 135494

I’m not sure how to sugar-coat that. USDOJ is flat calling out CA Legislature for “Judicial Animus”.

From the AI Bot:

The inference clearly is that if 9 CA doesn’t support this appeal, they are supporting judicial animus of the state. And if USDOJ showed up here to support us, if needed, they’ll be at SCOTUS for the appeal.

charge YES prove and convict DIFFICULT

Judicial animus (improper bias or ill will) isn't typically a crime in itself, but if a judge's animus leads to a decision violating someone's constitutional rights, it can invalidate the ruling, and if severe enough, acts by officials driven by animus might fall under federal civil rights laws (like 18 U.S.C. § 242) for depriving rights under color of law, making it a potential crime, though proving malicious intent for criminal charges is difficult.

They've done this enough times that there is enough proof.

 

[Dvrjon]

charge YES prove and convict DIFFICULT

Thus, no charge. One does not indict without being able to win. Both sides are learning this.

 

[ShootFirstFirster]

Thus, no charge. One does not indict without being able to win. Both sides are learning this.

The process allows for it.