Law Appeals Court Blocks California’s Background Checks for Ammunition Buyers - (7-24-2025)
- Thread starter Seeed
- Start date
Had to join the party so I just got some cci 22 mini mags from Target Sports! Did a quick check and some noted venues were sold out or more expensive. Had to pay tax n shipping. No excise tax. I don't mind patronizing them again.
Don't really need the stuff ,but feels good!
Don't really need the stuff ,but feels good!
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,264
This was not a trial on the merits of the case…this was an appeal of the order staying the Decision of the district court. The District Court enjoined (last page)
the, "...background check provisions found in California Penal Code §§ 30352 and 30370(a) through (e), and the ammunition anti-importation provisions found in §§ 30312(a) and (b) and 30314(a), as well as the criminal enforcement of California Penal Code §§ 30312(d), 30314(c), and 30365(a)."
They 9CA Opinion held, "...the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a permanent injunction."
That would indicate that the Stay of the injunction for the purposes of this appeal is lifted and the permanent injunction of the district court is again in force. The question now is whether the Panel decision also lifts the stay or if there is another action (9CA mandate) required for that. At this time, the laws are still on the books, but since the 9CA established the stay pending appeal, and the 9CA has issued the Decision, arguably the stay is gone and the statutes are not enforceable.
Also, as a followup action, the State can request an appeal en banc and would most certainly ask for a stay pending that appeal.
With that, the following appears to be the impact of the Decision:
The decision included prohibitions on provisions found in California Penal Code §§:
- 30352 (Sale data records)
- 30370(a) through (e) (Electronic approvals and collection of fees)
- 30312(a) and (b) (Ammo Vendor use; Face-to-Face and Internet sales requirements)
- 30314(a) (Importing ammunition from out-of-state)
- 30312(d), 30314(c), and 30365(a) (Enforcement)
What wasn’t touched:
-California Penal Code § 30342(a): The need to have an Ammunition Vendor License to sell more than 500 rounds/month. This was not a part of the suit and does not appear to be rescinded in the action.
However, this seems moot as the decision on 30312(a) and 30314(a) prohibit the need for an Ammunition Vendor license for transfer of Face-to-Face sales.
-California Department of Tax and Fee Administration code section 36011 imposing an 11% excise tax on retail sales. This was not a part of the suit and does not appear to be rescinded in the action.
How merchants respond to the issues not addressed in this suit is entirely up to them.
the, "...background check provisions found in California Penal Code §§ 30352 and 30370(a) through (e), and the ammunition anti-importation provisions found in §§ 30312(a) and (b) and 30314(a), as well as the criminal enforcement of California Penal Code §§ 30312(d), 30314(c), and 30365(a)."
They 9CA Opinion held, "...the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a permanent injunction."
That would indicate that the Stay of the injunction for the purposes of this appeal is lifted and the permanent injunction of the district court is again in force. The question now is whether the Panel decision also lifts the stay or if there is another action (9CA mandate) required for that. At this time, the laws are still on the books, but since the 9CA established the stay pending appeal, and the 9CA has issued the Decision, arguably the stay is gone and the statutes are not enforceable.
Also, as a followup action, the State can request an appeal en banc and would most certainly ask for a stay pending that appeal.
With that, the following appears to be the impact of the Decision:
The decision included prohibitions on provisions found in California Penal Code §§:
- 30352 (Sale data records)
- 30370(a) through (e) (Electronic approvals and collection of fees)
- 30312(a) and (b) (Ammo Vendor use; Face-to-Face and Internet sales requirements)
- 30314(a) (Importing ammunition from out-of-state)
- 30312(d), 30314(c), and 30365(a) (Enforcement)
What wasn’t touched:
-California Penal Code § 30342(a): The need to have an Ammunition Vendor License to sell more than 500 rounds/month. This was not a part of the suit and does not appear to be rescinded in the action.
However, this seems moot as the decision on 30312(a) and 30314(a) prohibit the need for an Ammunition Vendor license for transfer of Face-to-Face sales.
-California Department of Tax and Fee Administration code section 36011 imposing an 11% excise tax on retail sales. This was not a part of the suit and does not appear to be rescinded in the action.
How merchants respond to the issues not addressed in this suit is entirely up to them.
Hit Factor
Well-known member
- Messages
- 972
^^Agreed.
- Messages
- 1,264
With all respect, it's not.This law talk is so confusing
The various levels of the judicial process are convoluted, Byzantine and arcane and the general populace is not trained to deal with it. (And I am, by decision and design, part of that populace).
- Messages
- 1,464
- Classified ads
- 2
Lol it is. Many things in life my brain can process just fine. Law takes a lot more effort with this language. It's not easy for me.
skb720
Well-known member
- Messages
- 200
My conclusion from what ChatGPT says below, is that the "freedom window" was opened right after the 3-judge panel decision was issued, and it will end when State files the En Banc appeal.
Here's what ChatGPT says:
Once the three-judge panel issues its decision affirming the permanent injunction, the stay pending appeal typically lifts automatically after the mandate issues (more on that below).
However, there's a procedural nuance:
Here's what ChatGPT says:
Once the three-judge panel issues its decision affirming the permanent injunction, the stay pending appeal typically lifts automatically after the mandate issues (more on that below).
However, there's a procedural nuance:
- A stay pending appeal is just that — it stays in effect while the appeal is pending.
- Once the appellate court issues a decision, that ends the appeal at the panel level.
- Unless a party moves for rehearing en banc or petitions the Supreme Court, the appeal is considered resolved.
- A petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc is filed.
- A stay of the mandate is granted.
- The stay may still be technically in effect, depending on the terms of the appellate stay order.
- Messages
- 528
- Classified ads
- 2
Perhaps it's not for you; folks' heads are wired differently.
Deadcoyote
Well-known member
- Messages
- 223
The 
ty thing is I love my local gun shop. Went in to still do business with them and asked if I didn’t have to do ammo background any longer and they told me they’d contacted CA DOJ who told them this injunction won’t last so keeping them and they decided to be ‘good Germans’ as it were.
ty thing is I love my local gun shop. Went in to still do business with them and asked if I didn’t have to do ammo background any longer and they told me they’d contacted CA DOJ who told them this injunction won’t last so keeping them and they decided to be ‘good Germans’ as it were.
And that is the unfortunate reality of living in CA.
- Messages
- 1,907
- Classified ads
- 1
I don’t have an FFL03 and I never will.
I’m definitely not disgruntled. I have played this game a while. In CA you can never get comfortable. The forces of evil here will not sleep until the only gun a citizen can own is a pop gun. The plastic straw laws have already outlawed spit ball guns. Gun owners should refrain from doing a victory dance in the end zone. This game is far from over and we are still way down on the scoreboard.
Last edited:
“Short term victories” are not victories.
As someone who also owns a home outside the state, I retreat to freedom on a regular basis. I do not subjugate myself to the lunacy that are anti 2A gun laws. I exercise my 2A to the maximum and without the
constraint. I will live no other way. I do vote in CA, even though it is like pissing into a 100MPH wind.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?
oneaudiopro
Member
- Messages
- 62
Does this mean we can legally order ammo online again?
I don't know how long it will last but I ordered a case of 9mm ammo from Target Sports this morning. Did I need it? Not really, I have plenty of ammo and can reload when I want to. But at $0.24 a round after everything, it was too good to pass up.