They don’t have to be prepared. They simply move the goal post in which ever way that suits them. If or when there is an actual invalidation we can fully expect to have another unconstitutional 2A crisis to deal with in its place, in the coming years. The goal is and has always been to slowly erode the 2A rights over time. Thus far it has worked for them.
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!
Law Appeals Court Blocks California’s Background Checks for Ammunition Buyers - (7-24-2025)
- Thread starter Seeed
- Start date
- Messages
- 250
- Classified ads
- 1
Similar thing happened during the first “Ammo Freedom Week”……would be interesting to find out once again which retailers will fulfill orders
Appreciate the update 
skb720
Well-known member
- Messages
- 194
I think I remember the first trip to this circus back in was it March 2020? When Judge Benitez first issued his injunction and stayed his own decision, the State overnight requested an emergency appeal. That was fast! Even during the peak of the pandemic.
They can move the goal post any way they like. It is about as criminal as a syndicate can get.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 16
Midway stopped. Got an email. Target Sports pulled their Welcome California banner down.
VelocityNerd
⚠️ New Member | No Deposits ☢️
- Messages
- 1
Policy Update from MidwayUSA this morning (07/29/2025). I was unable to find the "clarification". Anyone know anything about this?
Dear Customer,
Although the 9th circuit ruled the California ammunition background check law to be unconstitutional on 7/24/2025, the CA Dept. of Justice issued a clarification on 7/28/2025 that there were several procedural steps that needed to take place before the law was actually invalidated. Unfortunately, we are not able to ship ammunition direct to your residence at this time. We are actively monitoring the situation and will update you via email when we know more.
We’re sorry for the inconvenience,
MidwayUSA Customer Service
Dear Customer,
Although the 9th circuit ruled the California ammunition background check law to be unconstitutional on 7/24/2025, the CA Dept. of Justice issued a clarification on 7/28/2025 that there were several procedural steps that needed to take place before the law was actually invalidated. Unfortunately, we are not able to ship ammunition direct to your residence at this time. We are actively monitoring the situation and will update you via email when we know more.
We’re sorry for the inconvenience,
MidwayUSA Customer Service
I hope they have good lawyers on retainer. They just put a large target on their back. It is probably better not to call them out by name for the time being. Makes you wonder who CADOJ has threatened up to this point? More than likely Midway USA got the call.
The worst part is that our tax dollars may potentially to be used to take these pro 2A business down and destroy the livelihood of folks doing their best to service the pro 2A consumers.
- Messages
- 257
Nobody put a target on anybody's back. Someone just took the time to figure out the rules of appellate practice.
Rule 41 of the FRAP has been around as long as I can remember. Even the dumbest lawyer on Midway's staff should understand what Rule 41 provides. Nothing new here.
“Clarification” is probably code for a threat they received from CADOJ.
If you know anything about CADOJ, they have a hard on for threats, be they legal threats or sending a SWAT Team into someone’s home if they suspect they may have CA Contraband. A magazine over 10rds? An AR15 that isn’t CA neutered? They will send their ninja’s in and they will violate you in every way possible. The CADOJ Stasi jack booted thugs would like nothing better than to take pro gun entities down. They absolutely live, breathe, and exist for it. That is the enemy we are dealing with. To assume otherwise is pure naivety (+denial) at this point.
- Messages
- 264
DES notice - swiped from Reddit: https://i.redd.it/ylldva8yzoff1.jpeg
- Messages
- 1,369
- Classified ads
- 2
Rights infringed to the very last second
I have a ffl03/coe so they can ship to me legally anyways. Palmetto though wouldnt ship at all to CA. This was a chance to get some stuff I wanted from their Aac brand.
- Messages
- 1,257
I have posted this before as an attempt to outline what the appellate process looks like and to head off the non-sensical rants about “changing goal posts”, etc. The 9 CA is governed by operating procedures which detail actions and timeframes for those actions.
We have to remember, that the current situation is a 9CA panel ruled on the Stay of the injunction levied by the District Court. They DID NOT rule on the merits of the lower court’s ruling which found the ammo provisions unconstitutional. The chart begins with an action (any action) by a 9CA, 3-judge panel.
Upon publication of the Decision, the losing party has 14 days from the panel decision date to petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. That clock started on 24 July and runs out on 7 Aug. A 9 CA judge may act within 7 days of that expiration to request en banc.
The astute observer will note that the bottom of each page indicates the current en banc coordinator to be Judge Sydney Runyon Thomas, however Thomas has retired and the coordinator is Chief Judge Mary Muguia.
If charts scare you, here are words explaining the process.
We have to remember, that the current situation is a 9CA panel ruled on the Stay of the injunction levied by the District Court. They DID NOT rule on the merits of the lower court’s ruling which found the ammo provisions unconstitutional. The chart begins with an action (any action) by a 9CA, 3-judge panel.
Upon publication of the Decision, the losing party has 14 days from the panel decision date to petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. That clock started on 24 July and runs out on 7 Aug. A 9 CA judge may act within 7 days of that expiration to request en banc.
The astute observer will note that the bottom of each page indicates the current en banc coordinator to be Judge Sydney Runyon Thomas, however Thomas has retired and the coordinator is Chief Judge Mary Muguia.
To save electrons and bandwidth, here’s a link to the chart.If charts scare you, here are words explaining the process.
Libertyvirgins
⚠️ New Member | No Deposits ☢️
- Messages
- 4
You fudds that are trying to cancel your orders are ruining it for the rest of us. You think harrassing vendors that jumped to support us is a good idea? I can’t stand fair weather patriots. I don’t blame vendors for writing off this state.
It is what they do.
That is the effect when the state moves the goal post, only in CA. I wonder what the state will pull next, before or after 7 Aug? Nothing should shock us at this point.
Last edited:
They write off this state because it isn’t worth them going to court over. Despite the huge market here, the safe play is to fold. Vendors have more to lose than to gain. That’s exactly how the system was designed to be in CA. It is criminal.