18+ Content Warning

By clicking Enter, you confirm you are 18 years of age or older and agree to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws.

Notice: Any content or member activity - including anything you may buy, sell, transfer, or discuss - must comply with current and upcoming laws.

Members are encouraged to stay informed: California Firearm Laws: 2026 Outlook & 2025 Recap . Responsibility for compliance rests solely with the individual member.

caguns.net

Welcome to CAguns.net!
Join our growing community where you can ask questions, share knowledge, or browse our classifieds section.

Sign up for a free account today and unlock full access! Once registered, you can search, post, and take advantage of exclusive features unavailable to guests.

A note on why more of the site now requires an account: automated scrapers and AI systems have been crawling our forums and classifieds at a scale. Requiring sign-in for those sections is the most effective tool we have. It takes a minute to register, it's free, and it keeps what happens here between actual members.

New to California gun ownership or trying to keep up with the changing laws? Check out our sister site CA2A.com — free courses, plain-English legal updates, and step-by-step guides built for California owners.

Advanced features are available only to registered members. Register today!

Rhode v Bonta

I always read the Dissenting opinion first, because dig into the other side's argument gives us insights of opposing perspectives and their intuition (or lack of). Judge Bybee interestingly explicitly calls out (on page 2 of his dissent) that California's One Dollar fee does not "impede" ammunition access. I wonder if he now wants to eat his own words that the fee is now $5.
 
Does this affect the 500 round monthly limit on private ammunition sales? I think that is still in force.
 
I always read the Dissenting opinion first, because dig into the other side's argument gives us insights of opposing perspectives and their intuition (or lack of). Judge Bybee interestingly explicitly calls out (on page 2 of his dissent) that California's One Dollar fee does not "impede" ammunition access. I wonder if he now wants to eat his own words that the fee is now $5.
And he completely misses the point. It’s not about the $1. It’s about the state requiring payment and permission to exercise a right. It’s about the state keeping a log of who is exercising their rights and in what quantities. This law was garbage and I’m happy to see it go down in court.
 
There was also a pretty large percentage of sales that should have been processed but were blocked by the initial implementation of the software. I haven't seen any stats on whether that improved.

Of course "improved" is in the eye of the beholder. The state may consider blocking all ammunition sales an "improvement"... maybe that's what the additional $4 is for??
 
We wait. I'll be long gone before any of these court cases are resolved.

The way it works here is Excremento passes marginal gun laws. They get several useful years out of them before they are overturned, if at all.

If overturned a new law is passed to replace the overturned law with minor changes.

Then Excremento gets a few more years out of them. None of use will live long enough to see these laws resolved. Excremento knows this better than anyone.
 
We wait. I'll be long gone before any of these court cases are resolved.

The way it works here is Excremento passes marginal gun laws. They get several useful years out of them before they are overturned, if at all.

If overturned a new law is passed to replace the overturned law with minor changes.

Then Excremento gets a few more years out of them. None of use will live long enough to see these laws resolved. Excremento knows this better than anyone.
Pretty much they know how to work the courts and continue to do so
 
Bybee's dissent is intellectually dishonest. What other rights require a background check, and a $5 fee each time? California specifically prohibits any identification for voting purposes.
The California lawyers made ridiculous arguments in front of Judge Benitez. We were fortunate to have such an honest and knowledgeable judge as Benitez, Ikuta, and Bade making decisions regarding this situation.
 
No sales to New York, Maine, California, Massachusetts, Alaska, Hawaii, Washington DC, or City of Chicago. No exceptions.

Looks like SG Ammo aren't shipping to California. Pity. I bought a lot from them back before the ban. Good prices.
 
Back
Top Bottom