The National Rifle Association is readying a lawsuit against California’s new ammunition controls. Ammunition controls went into effect January 1, 2018. They bar out-of-state ammunition purchases and require that all in-state purchases be made from a licensed dealer. This shrinks the supply, which will inevitably drive up price. Moreover, they require that any ammunition purchased online be sent to a licensed in-state dealer, who will then charge a processing fee for the ammo, thereby driving the price up even further. This is all a prelude to the state’s January 1, 2019, goal of instituting point-of-sale background checks for ammunition purchases. Those sales will also carry a fee, ubiquitously to cover the cost of the background check. But the fee will drive the price of ammo even higher. The NRA-ILA clams certain “statutorily mandated” deadlines were missed throughout the process of getting the ammunition controls in place, and argues that the controls must be halted because of this. According to the NRA-ILA, “The Office of Administrative Law (OAL) has approved the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) proposed ammunition vendor regulations after failing to meet the statutorily mandated deadline of July 1, 2017 and the effective date of January 1, 2018.” The NRA has enjoyed recent success against California gun control. For example, on June 29, 2017, a “high capacity” magazine ban was blocked two days before its scheduled implementation. The ban was stopped via a suit brought by the NRA and the California Rifle & Pistol Association.
Don't get your hopes up. You guys lose most of the time on constitutional issues. "Since 2008, there have been over 1,230 Second Amendment cases challenging gun laws nationwide, with an overwhelming majority—93%—of the lower court decisions upholding those laws." http://lawcenter.giffords.org/prote...court-leaves-lower-court-victories-untouched/
The first thing I did after I left Cali was to buy 3 nice high cap 5.56x45 mags for my "assault rifle". And also 2 single ammo pouches and a cartridge belt for these. It's nice to have escaped the Peoples Republic Of Commiefornia.
Next, they will require ammunition sold in CA to have some sort of identifying charateristic, to be associated with the buyer. As no major manufacturer has such a thing, ammo sales in CA will cease. And remember: The left wants CA gun control laws at the federal level.
Because, as I am sure you know, the Constitution doesn't secure the rights of the people from the will of the majority.
I did the same. The day I unpacked I took my bullet button off and mailed it along with a nice letter to Moonbeams office.
Not at SCOTUS. That's all that matters. Are they issuing concealed carry licenses in Washington, DC now?
Yes but they've gone from "handgun ban" to, we'll say we'll issue but we won't, to "ok we'll issue, don't take us to SCOTUS". That's a major victory.
They will? SCOTUS turns down the VAST majority of cases that they are asked to see. This will LIKELY never make it that far
Indeed. 2 of the circuits disagree with the 9th; an appeal is likely to generate a hearing. Given this, it is no wonder DC did not appeal to the SCotUS.
SCOTUS recieves over 7,000 cases a year. It reviews about 75 to 80. This will likely never make the cut
