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

[JR9800]

I guess we'll see if Target Sports and Outdoor Limited ship what I ordered.

That’s where I ordered from also had great deals.

 

[Enthused]

Reno May's response:

Freedom week is officially OVER.

If you already ordered, shut up about it.
If you are thinking about ordering, don't do it.

 

[Enthused]

Fortunately, most online retailers don’t really care about the CA DOJ’s opinion. That’s what happens when an entire state government earns a reputation as a gun-grabbing entity. 2A-supporting retailers are more interested in actual law and rights guaranteed in the Constitution, and until the 9th Circuit clarifies the status of the appeal that its panel just ruled on, I have a feeling that business will continue as it has been.

While I do agree with you, I think Reno May is right on the money here.

Before this clarification by the CADOJ today, there was a big element of benefit of the doubt. It was more or less a gray area, with some compelling arguments on both sides.

But now? The benefit of the doubt is gone. I'm not a lawyer, but this is just my opinion.

 

[Hit Factor]

While I do agree with you, I think Reno May is right on the money here.

Before this clarification by the CADOJ today, there was a big element of benefit of the doubt. It was more or less a gray area, with some compelling arguments on both sides.

But now? The benefit of the doubt is gone. I'm not a lawyer, but this is just my opinion.

The CA DOJ is the appellant. They’re not only an interested party, they are the ones who are directly responsible for the stay pending appeal being issued on the district court’s injunction. Of course they’re going to say they think the stay pending appeal is still in effect, even though the case is no longer pending appeal.

The “benefit of the doubt” won’t be gone until the appellate court that the CA DOJ appealed to, and requested the stay pending appeal from, says itself that the injunction will continue to be stayed pending a second bite of the appellate apple from an en banc panel (or an appeal to the Supreme Court, which the state won’t do for fear of an even more sweeping ruling that will dismantle even more of the state’s gun-grabbing efforts).

 

[SLORNR]

While I do agree with you, I think Reno May is right on the money here.

Before this clarification by the CADOJ today, there was a big element of benefit of the doubt. It was more or less a gray area, with some compelling arguments on both sides.

But now? The benefit of the doubt is gone. I'm not a lawyer, but this is just my opinion.

Business will definitely continue as it has been the better part of 45 years, with CA gun owners taking it in shorts by a corrupt state government and a feckless federal judiciary that will do nothing to stop them. It’s a vicious cycle, but one that has played out for decades in the state, much to the dismay of gun owners here.

 

[SoCal43]

I guess we'll see if Target Sports and Outdoor Limited ship what I ordered.

I ordered from them and haven't heard back about a shipment. I ordered from them a month ago and it took them 4 days to ship the ammo to an FFL. I think we will get our orders shipped

 

[Yoteassasin]

The point of my post sailed right over your head.

Nope . You said what you said .

 

[SLORNR]

Nope . You said what you said .

And I will say it again.

 

[arm3drv]

Reno May's response:

Freedom week is officially OVER.

If you already ordered, shut up about it.
If you are thinking about ordering, don't do it.

Bravo If you got the order in keep on the DL…If you plan on ordering now, might not be a good idea….If you could care less about these unconstitutional laws, order some more As always be safe and stay Arm3d

 

[treelogger]

Let's assume the current ruling by the 3-judge appeals panel stands, and is either confirmed en banc, or no en banc or SCOTUS appeals happens.

Prior to this ruling, an FFL03+COE holder (or anyone) could sell ammo to an FFL03+COE holder. They could also sell to non-licensees, but they would have needed to use an ammunition vendor. If they wanted to sell more than 500 rounds per month, they would have needed an ammunition vendor license, themselves.

If the stay is truly lifted (and a new stay pending en banc appeal isn't put in place), then everybody can sell to everybody else through Face-to-Face transactions. While the constraint on selling no more than 500 rounds without the AV license remains in place, it would seem to be rendered moot by the provisions which appear to have killed AV requirements for transfers.

This is a very important point, but your "mootness" argument is not quite as easy at it seems.

PC Section 30342 is not invalidated by this ruling, and remains in place. Selling more than 500 rounds per month continues to require a license. Note that there is no exception for sales to FFL03+CoE holders! Now, transferring the sold ammunition to the buyer no longer requires the background check, but you still can't sell over 500 rounds.

Now, one might argue: without the background check requirement, it's really hard to get caught, if one sells only 500 rounds to each buyer per month, and buyers don't communicate with each other. That's indeed true. But as usual there is a fly in the ointment, which is 22LR ammo: It typically comes in 5000-round boxes (I have a handful of those boxes at home), and I do mean five thousand rounds. And under the PC, selling one box is a misdemeanor (up to 1 year in jail). So to sell them, one has to be 110% sure the buyer is not an undercover cop.

Another way to get caught would be to sell lots of ammo through an easily searchable online forum, such as ... oops. I love having this forum, because (a) it works well, and (b) the people here are a bit friendlier than usual. But the good search feature might come back to haunt people who abuse it to do stuff that is illegal, even if it seems moot.

 

[SLORNR]

Let me get this straight. You will misrepresent the penalty for an infraction @10years …. Again ?
Wow I guess im confused by your tactics

No, you are just confused by hyperbole. It’s ok, it happens. Just know that what I wrote wasn’t to anger you, nor was it even directed at you.

 

[sonofeugene]

Took long enough.

And I believe this ruling portends the elimination of all the other stupid laws regarding firearms in this state. It will just take time.

 

[Dvrjon]

This is a very important point, but your "mootness" argument is not quite as easy at it seems.

PC Section 30342 is not invalidated by this ruling, and remains in place. Selling more than 500 rounds per month continues to require a license. Note that there is no exception for sales to FFL03+CoE holders! Now, transferring the sold ammunition to the buyer no longer requires the background check, but you still can't sell over 500 rounds.

I agree, and that’s why I phrased it as, “it would seem to be rendered moot.” The legal requirement to have an AV License to sell more than 500 rds/month is still in force, but the requirement to use an AV licensed dealer is gone since the sole purpose of the AV was to execute a background check and to collect and report ammo sales info. A bit of messy grey-area conundrum in not challenging every specific aspect of the law, but a necessary strategy to focus the argument against the greater ill.

 

[SLORNR]

Took long enough.

And I believe this ruling portends the elimination of all the other stupid laws regarding firearms in this state. It will just take time.

The state will do what it always does.

The real question is will the federal judiciary actually hold the state accountable to the ruling? We see rulings but no follow through. It’s a lot of smoke and mirrors, like Hollywood. It has been happening for decades, meanwhile we have fewer and fewer gun rights in CA with every passing year.

 

[treelogger]

The real question is will the federal judiciary actually hold the state accountable to the ruling?

The state is exactly following the ruling, as it should. The opinion of the 3 judge panel is not in force yet, until ... (details like mandate and en banc omitted). Can you give an example from gun law where the state violated a federal court order? I don't know of one.

 

[SLORNR]

The state is exactly following the ruling, as it should. The opinion of the 3 judge panel is not in force yet, until ... (details like mandate and en banc omitted). Can you give an example from gun law where the state violated a federal court order? I don't know of one.

More specifically, when the 3 judge panel opinion is in force. How ever long that will take. Then we will have to contend with what ever diabolical regulation the state comes up with next to further infringe on our 2A rights. The state usually responds with a vengeance. As previously stated, it is a vicious cycle, one that has been in play for decades. The state gets away with this criminal behavior time and time again.

With that, CA has more unconstitutional gun laws than one can shake a stick at. Many of the state laws should have been struck down for being unconstitutional decades ago by the federal courts. I am sure many gun owners in CA share in this frustration.

 

[SLORNR]

Took long enough.

And I believe this ruling portends the elimination of all the other stupid laws regarding firearms in this state. It will just take time.

There in lies the real problem. There are so many unconstitutional gun laws in CA that it has given way to the states perpetual notion that they can keep piling them on until even finger guns will be highly taxed, regulated to no more than 2 fingers, with a ban on using the thumb. This has been in play for to long, it should be recognized for what it is. Criminal.

 

[phred]

Reno May's response:

Freedom week is officially OVER.

If you already ordered, shut up about it.
If you are thinking about ordering, don't do it.

so my question. How come it took so long for the CADOJ to issue this statement. It baffles me that they weren't prepared with that on Thursday afternoon when the decision was announced? Not complaining, just surprised they weren't prepared.

 

[Seeed]

And the one that started it all,
begins the fall:

 

[mblat1968]

so my question. How come it took so long for the CADOJ to issue this statement. It baffles me that they weren't prepared with that on Thursday afternoon when the decision was announced? Not complaining, just surprised they weren't prepared.

For government work? That was fast