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

[Dvrjon]

Gentlemen, can we please get back on topic here? I am looking to this thread for updates on Rhodes v. Bonta. Sorry for being selfish. T
here are other threads for Off Topic stuff.

This is how CalGuns died. Wasted bandwidth and the inability to track the issue due to low signal/noise ratio.

 

[Misterclick]

Checking in to see if the deadline of today will either be a mandate from the 9th circus or more shell game bull from newscum and his F-tard buddy bonta.

Today is the 14th day. But I was reading that since the state is involved they could file any time within the next 45 days which would be like 9/7.

 

[Dvrjon]

Post 295

NINTH CIRCUIT 3-JUDGE PANEL DECISION

Losing party must file petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc within 14 days after the panel decision.

If the petition is filed, then:

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).

The State has 14 days to file. That isn't "Close of Business" today. In the past, we've seen the close be 11:59 p.m.

 

[vplaza96]

Closing the loop....FedEx delivered the goodies today. Very happy today. Got everything expected.

 

[skb720]

Bonta just filed their petition for re-hearing or hearing En Banc. Mods, please close this thread and let us start a new one for this topic. Thanks!

 

[L4Dtwo]

If there's a term i've come to despise the most over the years its "en banc".

 

[eaglemike]

If there's a term i've come to despise the most over the years its "en banc".

We had to know it was coming. They know they will lose in the end when it gets to SCOTUS. It doesn't matter to them. The only skin in the game for them is ego, and desire to control. No worries about time, money, or loss of rights. Taxes paid by the average decent citizen? No problem! Tax a Constitutional Right? No problem.

 

[Misterclick]

Welp. We knew it was coming, just hoped it wouldn't.

 

[Dvrjon]

The Filing.
Argument
I. The panel’s decision abrogates Bruen’s first step
II. The panel’s decision disregards the Supreme Court’s guidanceconcerning shall-issue licensing regulations
III. This case presents questions of exceptional importance ...............................17

 

[eaglemike]

The Filing.
Argument
I. The panel’s decision abrogates Bruen’s first step
II. The panel’s decision disregards the Supreme Court’s guidanceconcerning shall-issue licensing regulations
III. This case presents questions of exceptional importance ...............................17

They start off with lies, IMHO. Here is a quote from the first page "To the contrary, a plaintiff must establish that the challenged law “meaningfully constrains” the right to keep and bear arms, before the burden shifts to the government to justify the regulation with reference to historical tradition. Id. at 119. "
The government must show that the laws are in agreement with the laws in force and understood to align with the 2A at the time of signing. I'm blanking on the exact terminology right now. The above sentence, through, is not in agreement with the "Bruen" decision as I understand it.
What do you think?

ETA: the new gun laws have to be analgous - to be an analogue with the laws understood to agree with the 2A at the time of signing. In agreement. That was the term used by the great Judge Benitez.

 

[Dvrjon]

They start off with lies, IMHO. Here is a quote from the first page "To the contrary, a plaintiff must establish that the challenged law “meaningfully constrains” the right to keep and bear arms, before the burden shifts to the government to justify the regulation with reference to historical tradition. Id. at 119. "
The government must show that the laws are in agreement with the laws in force and understood to align with the 2A at the time of signing. I'm blanking on the exact terminology right now. The above sentence, through, is not in agreement with the "Bruen" decision as I understand it.
What do you think?

ETA: the new gun laws have to be analgous - to be an analogue with the laws understood to agree with the 2A at the time of signing. In agreement. That was the term used by the great Judge Benitez.

They are not lying; they are arguing against the Panel's Opinion. From the Panel Opinion (First and second pages):

The panel applied the two-step framework set forth in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), in assessing plaintiffs’ Second Amendment challenge.
Applying the first step, the panel held that California’s ammunition background check regime implicates the plain text of the Second Amendment because the regime meaningfully constrains the right to keep operable arms. Applying the second step, the panel held that the government failed to carry its burden of showing that California’s ammunition background check regime “is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” The historical analogues proffered by California were not within the relevant time frame, nor were they relevantly similar to California’s ammunition background check regime. Accordingly, the panel held that California’s ammunition background check regime did not survive scrutiny under the two-step Bruen analysis.

 

[eaglemike]

They are not lying; they are arguing against the Panel's Opinion. From the Panel Opinion (First and second pages):

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.

 

[GoldensRule]

They start off with lies, IMHO. Here is a quote from the first page "To the contrary, a plaintiff must establish that the challenged law “meaningfully constrains” the right to keep and bear arms, before the burden shifts to the government to justify the regulation with reference to historical tradition. Id. at 119. "
The government must show that the laws are in agreement with the laws in force and understood to align with the 2A at the time of signing. I'm blanking on the exact terminology right now. The above sentence, through, is not in agreement with the "Bruen" decision as I understand it.
What do you think?

ETA: the new gun laws have to be analgous - to be an analogue with the laws understood to agree with the 2A at the time of signing. In agreement. That was the term used by the great Judge Benitez.

If the Ninth circuit agrees to hear this en banc, both sides get to make their case. All we can do is pop the corn and sit and wait.

 

[eaglemike]

The DOJ has argued that laws (in the distant past) that prevented certain races from owning firearms support limiting the 2A and buying ammunition. They are that desperate.
It's like the MSM (or Adam Schiff), you can't despise them enough

 

[4super9]

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?

 

[GoldensRule]

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?

Nope, I know of no vendors who will ship directly unless you have an FFL.

 

[RickD427]

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?

The simple answer is "No", there is not, and never was a "Freedom Week" resulting from the Ninth Circuit's decision of July 24th.

However a lot of folks seemed to have benefited from the decision of some vendors to ship ammunition to California residents.

At the same time, today's reported action by Mr. Bonta to seek an "en banc" rehearing doesn't change much either. His request now goes to a vote of all qualified judges on the Ninth Circuit. It takes a majority vote to grant a rehearing. There is a slight (+2) balance of judges appointed by liberal presidents currently eligible to vote. We'll have to see how the vote goes.

The July 24th decision is not effective until the Ninth Circuit issues it's mandate on the decision, and that has not yet occurred. Today was a pivotal landmark on the path to a mandate. Had Mr. Bonta not filed his position, today would be the decision point on the mandate being issued. We now need to await the Ninth Circuit vote. If the rehearing is denied, the mandate will follow. If the rehearing is granted, the July 24th decision becomes toast and we'll have to await the en banc decision.

 

[-D.M.-]

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

F-.

This.

State.

 

[Enthused]

En banced
.

https://imgur.com/BX6UvZN

 

[1911-CV]

Aren't there two questions:
1) Whether the 9th will vote to take the case en banc (No one would bet against that);
2) Whether they will stay the preliminary injunction pending the en banc hearing?

Did bumping the fee to $5 in July complicate the second question?