Law Appeals Court Blocks California’s Background Checks for Ammunition Buyers - (7-24-2025)

[SLORNR]

So in other words, tell me you did not participate in past freedom "events" without telling me.

My whole life is a freedom event brother.

 

[Randomdudewithguns]

Shot a match yesterday. The ruling was a much discussed topic with a LOT of the non reloaders talking about how many cases of ammo they've already ordered. People are ordering like crazy. Hope ammo sellers across the country need to restock soon as that means Ca shooters are doing damage to inventory and are NOT afraid to order from out of state. Keep going my shooting brethren

 

[SLORNR]

To me it also seems like the imposing of an 11% tax that hinges on a paper trail supplied by the background check is also very relevant to the case. I don't see that being argued at all though.

Couple that with fact that the ridiculous 11% tax essentially has created a black market akin to American Prohibition 1920-1933. CA has an enormous border to states that sell ammunition. I’m sure CADOJ is chomping at the bit to make an example of at least 1 person. That poor soul is going to spend 10 years in prison as an example to all. That’s how the t keep the pissant in line.

 

[skb720]

Question for our more learned friends: as I understand it, the state can request an en banc appeal, but it is not automatic (though very, very likely given the split decision in the 3-judge panel and the 9th's record on gun cases). The stay on the injunction while the 9th considers whether to hear an appeal, and then actually holds the proceeding (if that happens) is also not automatic (again, as I understand it). Would the state's recent increase, quintupling the fee charged on the ammo background checks, weigh into the consideration of a stay?

Judge Bybee in his dissent specifically called out that the "One Dollar" fee does not "Impede" people's access to ammunition. I think he shot himself in the foot (pun intended). Now that the fee is Five Dollars. I hope the CRPA attorneys calls him out on that one. If One Dollar does not Impede, does Five Dollars do it? How to quantify "Impede" monetarily.

 

[Dvrjon]

Couple that with fact that the ridiculous 11% tax essentially has created a black market akin to American Prohibition 1920-1933. CA has an enormous border to states that sell ammunition. I’m sure CADOJ is chomping at the bit to make an example of at least 1 person. That poor soul is going to spend 10 years in prison as an example to all. That’s how the t keep the pissant in line.

What charge under the ammunition laws would result in a 10-year prison sentence? A Penal Code citation to reference would be appreciated.

 

[SLORNR]

Judge Bybee in his dissent specifically called out that the "One Dollar" fee does not "Impede" people's access to ammunition. I think he shot himself in the foot (pun intended). Now that the fee is Five Dollars. I hope the CRPA attorneys calls him out on that one. If One Dollar does not Impede, does Five Dollars do it? How to quantify "Impede" monetarily.

While I 100% agree, we must not forget who we are dealing with in CA.

The anti gun have no problem moving the goal post when it is convenient for them to do so. You will find no system more hypocritical than that created by the left. The ends will always justify the means in their world. This is why all these so called “victories” are hollow. While gun owners are celebrating, the left is moving the goal post. While some are jubilant to receive crumbs because they are starving, the left will proceed to remove those crumbs from ones plate after they have taken a few bites.

 

[SLORNR]

What charge under the ammunition laws would result in a 10-year prison sentence? A Penal Code citation to reference would be appreciated.

I was speaking in a hypothetical that could be a future likely scenario in CA.

 

[treelogger]

Would the state's recent increase, quintupling the fee charged on the ammo background checks, weigh into the consideration of a stay?

To me it also seems like the imposing of an 11% tax that hinges on a paper trail supplied by the background check is also very relevant to the case. I don't see that being argued at all though.

Probably neither. The question the 9CA opinion addresses (and I've only read the summaries) is: Is the background check system constitutional? Their answer is no, it is not. The $5 fee increases the cost of a typical ammo purchase (say two boxes of 9mm = about $20) by "only" 25%, and the excise tax "only" by 11%. Neither number is prohibitively large, in particular compared to the price swings ammo has had over the last 10 years. Note that I said "prohibitively", meaning makes it de-facto impossible for many to buy ammo, such as a 1000% tax would.

Does this mean we can legally order ammo online again?

My understanding: No, we legally can not, but everyone is doing it already, and the out-of-state vendors are shipping it. It is a point of discussion whether the CA DoJ will go after buyers (more likely) or sellers (less likely), but in practice the risk for an individual buyer is not large.

 

[SLORNR]

Interesting. So is this an admission you bring non-compliant mags from out of state? If fear mongering, between the people who order ammo online to home vs. you, I'd be worried about you.

You are making an inference of which you have zero evidence or proof of occurrence, and of which isn’t remotely based in fact or truth. No one is fear mongering. I simply pose questions that any firearms owner who has lived in CA an extended amount of time should ask based on the history of firearms ownership within this states borders. How you equate that to “fear mongering” is a mystery to me. There was a time when owning magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds was perfectly legal. How many years in a CA Prison will that land someone today? If your objective was to prove my point, mission accomplished.

 

[shooter556]

I remember all the debbie downers during the last freedom week. They all swore CA DOJ was going to intercept the packages, were going to request all sales invoices, tracking numbers, of ALL shipments during freedom week. Did they? I don't think they did. So either buy, or don't buy. It's that simple.

 

[SLORNR]

You yourself said you had no need to participate in any "freedom" events, and yet here you are trying to preach that CADOJ is going to go after taxes and discourage gunowners from participating this Freedom event.

Could you guess the number of legal gunowners that CADoJ tracked to a address to arrest a gunowner at their doorstep after Freedom Week ended for ordering mags online?

Could you guess the number of legal gunowners that CADoJ tracked to a address to arrest a gunowner at their doorstep after Freedom Day ended for ordering ammo online?

You wouldn't know would ya? Since none of CA laws mattered to you in the first place (also said by you.).

I dunno, you seem pretty adamant in pushing that trouble will befall on a legal gunowner for legal purchasing ammo to his or her home.

Just saying.

In any case, lets everyone enjoy this freedom while it lasts.

Not at all. I am more in tune with warning CA gun owners to be cautious when it comes to the anti gun running the state. They are most definitely wanting to harm gun owners by any and every way they possibly can. And if you don’t believe that, you are most certainly in a state of denial. For those willing to fight it in court, no matter how unlikely, that’s perfectly fine. Roll the dice.

 

[SLORNR]

Oh, it's being sold. Bought by people too scared to take advantage of this freedom, to the fear-mongering people, most likely the same people that shown negative energy during 1st Freedom Week.

In my opinion, free people don’t celebrate crumbs.

 

[BigBlaze]

Couple that with fact that the ridiculous 11% tax essentially has created a black market akin to American Prohibition 1920-1933. CA has an enormous border to states that sell ammunition. I’m sure CADOJ is chomping at the bit to make an example of at least 1 person. That poor soul is going to spend 10 years in prison as an example to all. That’s how the t keep the pissant in line.

What charge under the ammunition laws would result in a 10-year prison sentence? A Penal Code citation to reference would be appreciated.

I was speaking in a hypothetical that could be a future likely scenario in CA.

So, hypothetical fud. LOL

 

[SLORNR]

So, hypothetical fud. LOL

Just like all the current restrictions in CA, of which are substantial. It’s all FUD!

When some see opinions they don’t like, they scream “FUD!” Where has that gotten you?

Do better.

 

[Wolkenflieger]

It is also that this Freedom is causing a ruckus amongst FFL01, etc. store owners and ammo vendors. As they cannot be considered competitive at all and considered overcharging.

Most if not all CA store owners are still charging excise tax, this Freedom gave more reason for smart gunowners to buy elsewhere.

In my opinion, there are store owners and FFL03 holders extremely not happy about this Freedom, and thus try to throw fudd onto forums and social media to discourage you from enjoying your Freedom.

Yea. This Freedom won't last, but don't account for these fudd comments keeping you from enjoying your Freedom.

Not even a little bit. The timing is just funny...we go through the research and effort of applying for an FFL03/COE and some of us saw the restriction lift on the day of our first order.

However, given the volatile nature of lawsuits, judgments, appeals, stays, en banc review....having the FFL03 is still a net benefit because we can keep ordering ammo after the appeal, stay, en banc, etc. Everyone else has to dance around the ever-changing law around ordering ammo from out-of-state and having it shipped to their homes in California.

Having this little bit of freedom restored doesn't hurt FFL03 holders at all but for the silly timing some of us are experiencing, but that would not have stopped me from getting the FFL03/COE anyway.

Granted, we should NOT have to jump through these hoops for our 2A rights to be upheld!

 

[Khellen27]

Even if they do go after you, it's an infraction . Read the penal code and even then a good lawyer can argue on the merits of last week's ruling.

 

[cali_jazz]

Feels like FFL03 holders are disgruntled by this Freedom Day, Week, or Month.. wonder why?

Why would it be an issue for FFL-03 holders? I'm an FFL-03 holder, I've been able to have ammo shipped to my house for a while. That continues (unless something else changes) regardless of if the stay is lifted or not. Personally I'm thrilled the law was found unconstitutional and my gun brothers and sisters may be able to purchase ammo as if they were in a free state.

*Edit - you clarified ammo resellers after I posted this. I suppose this is possible, have you seen any specific ammo resellers posting fud here?

 

[Seeed]

Feels like FFL03 holders are disgruntled by this Freedom Day, Week, or Month.. wonder why?

I have my FFL03/COE and I'm not disgruntled whatsoever.

 

[Wolkenflieger]

I meant for the 03 ammo resellers could be disgruntled in the marketplace listings.

One cannot resell ammo with an FFL03, as far as I know.

 

[SLORNR]

Well that’s blatant fear mongering . Breaking that law “was” an infraction . Take your 10 years and stuff it

The point of my post sailed right over your head.