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

[denpython]

Target Sports USA is good to go!! Remember mag freedom week. Many vendors honored order date vs ship date!

 

[denpython]

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!

 

[Dvrjon]

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 This was not a part of the suit and does not appear to be rescinded in the action.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.

 

[Hit Factor]

. . . 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.

^^Agreed.

 

[M_N04H]

This law talk is so confusing

 

[Dvrjon]

This law talk is so confusing

With all respect, it's not.

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).

 

[M_N04H]

With all respect, it's not.

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).

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]

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:

• 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.

Yes. The appellate panel’s decision is not yet final until the mandate issues — usually 21 days after the panel’s opinion unless:

• A petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc is filed.
• A stay of the mandate is granted.

So during that interim 21-day period:

• The stay may still be technically in effect, depending on the terms of the appellate stay order.

 

[PlinkyDinky]

With all respect, it's not.

Perhaps it's not for you; folks' heads are wired differently.

 

[Deadcoyote]

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.

 

[Enthused]

Well it's really not that big a deal because ammo Freedom Week is almost certainly coming to a quick end, and with it will be the end of this thread/topic for now.

 

[SLORNR]

Well it's really not that big a deal because ammo Freedom Week is almost certainly coming to a quick end, and with it will be the end of this thread/topic for now.

And that is the unfortunate reality of living in CA.

 

[Wolkenflieger]

I'm starting to feel like I *didn't* waste my time getting the FFL03/COE, though I shouldn't need special licensing to have ammo sent to my doorstep! While we're at it, let's get rid of the roster and mag restrictions too!

 

[SLORNR]

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

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.

 

[SLORNR]

Were you a gunowner, and/or were you upto date on litigations, to be able to enjoy the last 2 "Freedoms."

You talk as if you don't/no one remember 1st Freedom week.

We still talking about using our Freedom week mags, it was a short term victory, but a victory nonetheless.

“Short term victories” are not victories.

 

[SLORNR]

Well I'm enjoying my Freedom week/day acquisitions. It was a victory to many that are able to. Guess you didn't participate or buy during those times?

Remember all those St. Benitez candles, shirts, what not? It lasted for a year or so even after the end of Freedom week. People that were able to get it were lovin' it.

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.

 

[1911-CV]

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?

 

[Pythonfan]

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.

 

[oneaudiopro]

Does this mean we can legally order ammo online again?

 

[vplaza96]

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.