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

[SLORNR]

En banced
.

https://imgur.com/BX6UvZN

ZERO Surprises.

 

[SLORNR]

Knew it was coming, still a bitter pill. The bull is existentially exhausting. Anyway...

F-.

This.

State.

Unfortunately even if we get on the other side of this with a win, the state is just going to throw something else at us. It has been that way for decades. They want gun owners to be treated like pariahs, and as heavily burdened as possible.

 

[Dvrjon]

I have been out of the country without internet for several weeks. I only heard about the ruling, and just now that Bonta just filed for en banc re-hearing.
My apologies, as I do not have the time nor energy to read through 23 pages of posts, especially with the complaints I saw about many posts going way off topic.
Straight to the point: Is there a "freedom week" still in effect at this moment?

No.

ETA: just saw Rick’s excellent reply, above.

 

[Dvrjon]

I realize they are arguing against the panel's opinion. It doesn't make their argument valid, just because they say it.
They want to pick and choose from Heller, and ignore Bruen.
Do you think their statement is valid?
ETA: they are trying to use "interest balancing" here.

What I think about their statement is irrelevant as I’m not wearing a black robe. What I disagree with is your understanding of what went on and labeling it “lying”. They are arguing the point that the appellants didn’t make their case. That’s how the system is designed.

Go ahead and hate on it as it is frustrating.

 

[Dvrjon]

With the Petition filed:

Judges have 21 days to either:
- do nothing,
- “stop the clock” for a 14‐day extension of time,
- ask the original 3‐judge panel as to whether they want to rehear the case (“a 5.4(b) notice request”), or
- call for an en banc vote (a call is very rarely made before a 5.4(b) request though).

 

[Hit Factor]

They are arguing the point that the appellants didn’t make their case.

The State of California IS the appellant. Every court that has heard the case has found the state’s law to be unconstitutional. The plaintiffs (now appellees) have made their case every time.

 

[Dvrjon]

The State of California IS the appellant. Every court that has heard the case has found the state’s law to be unconstitutional. The plaintiffs (now appellees) have made their case every time.

Yup. Sorry. Wrong label.

 

[eaglemike]

What I think about their statement is irrelevant as I’m not wearing a black robe. What I disagree with is your understanding of what went on and labeling it “lying”. They are arguing the point that the appellants didn’t make their case. That’s how the system is designed.

Go ahead and hate on it as it is frustrating.

I was able to see some of the ridiculous arguments they made to Judge B. I think there were 3 or 4 of us CGN'rs there. They misrepresented old laws early and often. Calling black powder storage requirements limits on ownership, rather that what they were - storage requirements for safety. That is only 1 example. Judge B asked them to come up with spreadsheets of analogous laws, and again they misrepresented things. Misrepresentation is usually considered a form of lying. Judge B called them out in the gentlest possible manner. We are fortunate he was there at that time. It was actually pretty funny in one way. He made it clear that the session was ending, and yet the DOJ lawyers were "but, but, but...." even though they clearly been out of ammunition for a while. (pun intended)
I have respect for honest judges and honest attorneys. I don't believe the DOJ attorneys are honest. It might be accurate say they are arguing from a position without good logic, and doing their best to support the political leaders' leanings.

 

[Warpspeed]

Please stay on topic -

This thread is for the discussion of the Appeals Court decision on 7/24 and the subsequent events.

It is not to discuss CA politics nor how much a UPS drive does or does not get paid.

 

[mblat1968]

What is timeline for the decision on rehearing?

 

[GoldensRule]

What is timeline for the decision on rehearing?

This answer to your question comes directly from:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the NINTH CIRCUIT
Office of the Clerk

Frequently Asked Questions

19. Q: How long does it take to decide a petition for panel rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc?

19 A: The Court has no time limit. A decision on a petition for rehearing en banc may take a few months or longer.

 

[Dvrjon]

I was able to see some of the ridiculous arguments they made to Judge B. I think there were 3 or 4 of us CGN'rs there. They misrepresented old laws early and often. Calling black powder storage requirements limits on ownership, rather that what they were - storage requirements for safety. That is only 1 example. Judge B asked them to come up with spreadsheets of analogous laws, and again they misrepresented things. Misrepresentation is usually considered a form of lying. Judge B called them out in the gentlest possible manner. We are fortunate he was there at that time. It was actually pretty funny in one way. He made it clear that the session was ending, and yet the DOJ lawyers were "but, but, but...." even though they clearly been out of ammunition for a while. (pun intended)
I have respect for honest judges and honest attorneys. I don't believe the DOJ attorneys are honest. It might be accurate say they are arguing from a position without good logic, and doing their best to support the political leaders' leanings.

Lawyers are paid to support their client’s position. It’s not because they are stupid, it’s their job.

 

[Dvrjon]

What is timeline for the decision on rehearing?

From Michel and Associates: 9 CA Appeals Flowchart

 

[captainkelp]

I dont understand how this stay defaults to the defendant. Two courts have said that it is unconstitutional so in a just world, shouldn't the stay be lifted until an en banc panel overturns the 3 person appeals decision? So why we wait for them to decide if they are going to hear it, we continue to be denied our constitutional rights?

And yes, I know how the law is written, I am just saying I think it is BS and the law should be changed to favor the plaintiff since two courts have already ruled on this.

 

[-D.M.-]

I dont understand how this stay defaults to the defendant. Two courts have said that it is unconstitutional so in a just world, shouldn't the stay be lifted until an en banc panel overturns the 3 person appeals decision? So why we wait for them to decide if they are going to hear it, we continue to be denied our constitutional rights?

And yes, I know how the law is written, I am just saying I think it is BS and the law should be changed to favor the plaintiff since two courts have already ruled on this.

https://imgur.com/5HaQ1ZP

 

[Dvrjon]

I dont understand how this stay defaults to the defendant. Two courts have said that it is unconstitutional so in a just world, shouldn't the stay be lifted until an en banc panel overturns the 3 person appeals decision? So why we wait for them to decide if they are going to hear it, we continue to be denied our constitutional rights?

And yes, I know how the law is written, I am just saying I think it is BS and the law should be changed to favor the plaintiff since two courts have already ruled on this.

If you were on trial for murder with a death sentence imposed by two courts, wouldn’t you want the sentence stayed until you have time to exhaust all appeals? The same principle applies here. The stay of judgement “freezes” the status quo until all rights to appeal are explored.

 

[GoldensRule]

If you were on trial for murder with a death sentence imposed by two courts, wouldn’t you want the sentence stayed until you have time to exhaust all appeals? The same principle applies here. The stay of judgement “freezes” the status quo until all rights to appeal are explored.

This is a good analogy.

 

[Jericho9]

So can we still buy ammo online and have it shipped????

 

[captainkelp]

This is a good analogy.

I disagree. If you are on trial for murder, then probable cause existed for the arrest. I dont understand your analogy at all. One has to do with criminality and one has to do rights under the 2A.

 

[Deleted member 12066]

So can we still buy ammo online and have it shipped????

Can you? Probably.
Should you? Probably not.