California Still Enforcing Ammo Background Check Law After 9th Circuit Court Ruling

California Still Enforcing Ammo Background Check Law After 9th Circuit Court Ruling​

---

Despite the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruling California’s law requiring background checks for ammunition purchases to be unconstitutional, gun owners in the Golden State are still having to live with the onerous provision.

On July 24, the court ruled in the case Rhode v. Bonta that the ammo background check law violated the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms, and affirmed a district court’s order granting a permanent injunction against enforcement of the law.

In the ruling, the 9th Circuit determined that the background check requirement regulates conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text, because it meaningfully constrains the right to keep operable arms. Additionally, the court concluded that the background check regime is inconsistent with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation since no such law or analogous law was ever enacted before the twentieth century.

The ruling prompted several mail-order ammunition retailers to announce that they were once again shipping to California customers. But that plan was quickly scuttled by anti-gun state Attorney General Rob Bonta, who announced he plans to continue enforcing the law until the Ninth Circuit specifically tells him to stop.....

MORE

 

[RickD427]

Colonel,

I'm assuming from your screen name that you are a Retired Marine Corps Colonel.

If that is the case, you should be well familiar with the difference between a "Warning Order" and an order to execute. The appellate courts do essentially the same with their decisions. When the Appellate Court issues a decision, as the Ninth Circuit did in this case on July 24th, the decision is first issued as a "Warning Order." It has no execution authority. The reason that it is given as a "Warning Order" is so that the parties can exercise their rights to seek further review before the decision is executed. In this case both the State of California, and/or a judge of the Circuit Court can call for an "en banc" rehearing. There is a brief period of time allowed for that to occur.

Once that brief period has run, the court then issues its "Mandate" on the decision. It is the "Mandate" on the decision that is the authority that executes the decision, and we're not there yet.

Please refer to Rule 41 of the FRAP for the specifics.

If there is no action taken toward further review, the "Mandate" should follow on August 7.

 

[USMC06RET]

Colonel,

I'm assuming from your screen name that you are a Retired Marine Corps Colonel.

If that is the case, you should be well familiar with the difference between a "Warning Order" and an order to execute. The appellate courts do essentially the same with their decisions. When the Appellate Court issues a decision, as the Ninth Circuit did in this case on July 24th, the decision is first issued as a "Warning Order." It has no execution authority. The reason that it is given as a "Warning Order" is so that the parties can exercise their rights to seek further review before the decision is executed. In this case both the State of California, and/or a judge of the Circuit Court can call for an "en banc" rehearing. There is a brief period of time allowed for that to occur.

Once that brief period has run, the court then issues its "Mandate" on the decision. It is the "Mandate" on the decision that is the authority that executes the decision, and we're not there yet.

Please refer to Rule 41 of the FRAP for the specifics.

If there is no action taken toward further review, the "Mandate" should follow on August 7.

Thanks for the information. However, you are pretty much covering what the article covered, if you read it through, you'll see that. Additionally, the appeals court mandate basically returns the case to the lower court where the lower court implements the appeals court's decision. Your WARNORD and EXORD analogy is clumsy especially when the process can be explained more simply.

Lastly, the actual mandate deadline is 14 August. 7 August is the deadline for the state of California to request a rehearing or a delay.

 

[jarhead714]

Careful who you counterpoint with…SIR. RickD will eat you alive.

 

[bergmen]

Got an e-mail from Midway on the day the 9th ruled. I immediately ordered 500 rounds of CCI Maxi-Mag .22 WMR ammo. It shipped on the 26th and after UPS delivered it to the wrong house I finally got it when the neighbor drove over and handed it to me. No background check, nothing. Midway rescinded their position on the 29th because of DOJ complications.

Dan