Latest news with #CRPA
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Ammunition Depot Issues Update on California Ammunition Sales - Ninth Circuit Victory on Hold as State Seeks En Banc Review
Ninth Circuit Victory on Hold as California Seeks En Banc Rehearing BOCA RATON, Fla., Aug. 8, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- In a major Second Amendment ruling, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down California's 2016 law requiring background checks for ammunition purchases and prohibiting direct mail-order sales, declaring those laws unconstitutional. . The decision, issued in Rhode v. Bonta, marks a significant victory for Ammunition Depot, the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) and fellow plaintiffs challenging those laws. However, California officials have now moved to challenge that ruling by seeking a rehearing en banc (full court review) at the Ninth Circuit, which means the panel's decision will not take effect immediately. As a result, California's current ammunition regulations, including in-store background checks and restrictions on direct shipments of ammo, remain in force pending further court proceedings. Under the still-operative law (Proposition 63, passed in 2016), California residents must buy ammunition through in-state licensed dealers and undergo a background check for each purchase, which effectively bans direct online ammo sales to homes. Ammunition Depot is urging its California customers to remain patient and continue following all current state laws regarding ammunition transactions while the legal process unfolds. Under the California DOJ's interpretation, the state's ammunition restrictions remain in effect while the case proceeds. The company will immediately begin direct shipments to California customers if and when the court's mandate is allowed to take effect, but that cannot happen unless Ammunition Depot prevails in the next phase of the case. "We know this is frustrating for California gun owners who were hopeful the recent court decision would restore their ammo buying freedom right away," said Seth Weinstein, Founder & Managing Partner of Ammunition Depot. "Unfortunately, the victory is on hold because the State of California is fighting tooth and nail to keep these restrictions in place. We respect the legal process, but believe Californians' rights should not be delayed any longer. Our customers in California have waited years for relief, and we're not about to give up now, we'll continue this fight to its finish." The California Attorney General has formally requested that a larger panel of Ninth Circuit judges reexamine the case. This next phase of the case could take several months, depending on whether en banc review is granted and how quickly the court acts. First, the active judges of the Ninth Circuit will decide whether to grant en banc review. If granted, an 11-judge panel will be convened to rehear the case, likely later this year or in early 2026. Because California has now filed for en banc review, the panel's ruling will not take effect unless that petition is denied or resolved. The mandate remains pending, and the 2016 California ammunition laws continue to be enforced during this stage of the appeal. "We anticipated that California would not back down easily, and we are fully prepared to see this through," Weinstein continued. "The Ninth Circuit's decision was a huge win for the Constitution and millions of law-abiding Californians, and we remain confident that win will ultimately prevail, whether at an en banc hearing or at the Supreme Court. California's leaders have made it clear they won't back down, and neither will we. We owe it to our customers and all Californians to keep fighting until their rights are restored." In the meantime, Ammunition Depot will continue to keep California customers informed. The company previously celebrated the Ninth Circuit panel's ruling as a historic affirmation of Second Amendment rights, and it remains a lead plaintiff in defending that ruling through the next stages of Weinstein emphasized that California customers must still abide by current law until the case is fully resolved. "California law remains unchanged for now," said Weinstein. "We urge all California customers to continue purchasing ammunition through licensed in-state channels. We know it's frustrating, but we don't want anyone caught in a legal gray area. If you attempt to order from us today, we regret that we are still unable to ship to you under the current law. But hang tight; we are hopeful that day is coming. We have fought for years to make online ammo sales to California legal again, and we are not stopping now." Ammunition Depot will provide additional updates as soon as the Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court provides clarity on the next steps. The company remains optimistic that the result will be a permanent victory for California gun owners. "We've come this far, and the momentum is on our side," Weinstein said. "It may take a bit more time, but we believe freedom will win out. We want to thank all our customers for their support and patience. We promise to notify everyone as soon as we are legally able to resume shipments to California. That day will be cause for celebration, not just for our company, but for everyone who values the Second Amendment." About Ammunition Depot: Founded in 2011, Ammunition Depot is one of the largest online retailers and suppliers of ammunition, firearms, and tactical gear in the United States. The company is dedicated to offering the best products at competitive prices while promoting and protecting the Second Amendment rights of all Americans. For more information, please visit PR Contact:Ammunition DepotJeff WisotPhone: (561) 381-9526Email: Or Murray Road AgencyJonathan HarlingEmail: View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Ammunition Depot 擷取數據時發生錯誤 登入存取你的投資組合 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤
The Guardian
25-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
California: appeals court blocks background checks for ammunition buyers
A federal appeals court has ruled that California's first-of-its-kind law requiring firearm owners to undergo background checks to buy ammunition is unconstitutional. In a 2-1 vote on Thursday, the ninth US circuit court of appeals in Pasadena upheld a lower court judge's permanent injunction against enforcing the law. Circuit judge Sandra Ikuta said the law 'meaningfully constrains' people's right to keep and bear arms, and that California failed to show that the law was consistent with the US historical tradition of firearm regulation, as required under the supreme court's 2022 Bruen decision. Thursday's ruling was a defeat for the gun control movement, albeit one that did not come as a surprise. Gun control and violence prevention advocates had decried the supreme court's 2022 decision, and argued that the historical twin test would lead to the rolling back of hard-won regulations that they say have been vital in reducing death and injury from gun violence. Since the ruling, there have been more than 2,000 gun law challenges, and lower courts continue to sort through the new parameters the ruling has produced. Most of the cases were brought by people who were looking to have their gun case convictions overturned, according to the Trace. The others have been civil lawsuits brought by gun rights groups. The office of Rob Bonta, California's attorney general, which defended the law, said it was disappointed by the decision. 'Our families, schools and neighborhoods deserve nothing less than the most basic protection against preventable gun violence, and we are looking into our legal options,' a spokesperson said. Voters had in 2016 approved a California ballot measure requiring gun owners to undergo initial background checks to buy ammunition, and pay $50 for a four-year ammunition permit. Legislators amended the measure to require background checks for each ammunition purchase. The background check scheme took effect in 2019. The case against the law was brought by Kim Rhode, who has won three Olympic gold medals in shooting events, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA). Many gun rights groups and 24 mostly Republican-led US states submitted briefs supporting the law's opponents. The CRPA described the ruling as a 'huge win' for California gun owners. It said: 'Today's ruling is what plaintiffs … and many in the 2A community, like the National Rifle Association, who supported the many appeals in this case, have been waiting almost a decade to receive.' In a joint statement, the association's president and general counsel, Chuck Michel, called the decision a victory against 'overreaching government gun control', while Rhode called it 'a big win for all gun owners in California'. California was backed by several safety groups. 'Background checks for ammunition sales are common sense,' said Janet Carter, managing director of second amendment litigation at Everytown Law. Last year, nearly 200 people who were on California's list of people who owned guns but later became prohibited from possessing them were denied from buying ammunition through this background check system, according to the California justice department's 2024 Armed and Prohibited Persons System Report. In his dissenting opinion, Judge Jay Bybee, a George W Bush appointee, argued that in most cases, the state's ammunition background check process 'costs one dollar and imposes less than one minute of delay'. The law 'is not the kind of heavy-handed regulation that meaningfully constrains the right to keep and bear arms', Bybee wrote. He further argued the majority opinion was flawed and contorted the precedent set by the Bruen decision 'beyond recognition'. Thursday's ruling, he argued, in effect declares unlawful any limits on ammunition sales, given the unlikelihood a state can point to identical historical analogues.
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
California Concealed Carry Now Available to Out-of-Staters
If you've traveled to California in recent years, you know that, despite the state's obvious woes (though San Francisco is, hopefully, turning things around), nonresidents can't legally carry a firearm for self-defense. The situation is only marginally easier for residents. Given the state's other restrictions on even nonlethal self-defense tools, that's left visitors with a choice between abiding by rules seemingly crafted to favor criminal predators or ignoring the law and doing what needs to be done. But that may be changing now that a federal judge has ordered that out-of-state members of several gun rights organizations suing California over its gun laws must be allowed to apply for concealed carry licenses. "Together with the Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, and Gun Owners of California, we sued Attorney General Bonta to force him to recognize the right to carry of nonresidents as part of our lawsuit in CRPA vs. LASD," the California Rifle & Pistol Association announced. "While the Judge ruled against us for the time being in our argument that California must honor CCW [concealed carry weapon] permits issued by other states (known as 'reciprocity'), she did agree that California must at least allow residents of other states to apply for a California CCW permit." Applicants must be members of one of the plaintiff organizations (yes, you can still join) and must apply in a "California jurisdiction in which they intend to spend time within the subsequent twelve (12) months and attest to that intention under oath in the application," according to the order by United States District Court Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett. Applicants are also bound by all the usual California rules, including a limited choice of firearms "legal to possess in the state." California severely limits those that can be commercially sold according to an ever-shifting list of features, though you can still possess many but not all other handguns there if you already owned them or bring them from outside. California CCW licenses are also specific to designated handguns identified by the applicant according to make, model, and serial number. In other words, all the usual California nonsense—but now, at least, available to out-of-state residents. Until now, the California Office of the Attorney General specified that "CCW licenses are issued only by a California county sheriff to residents of the county, or the chief of police to residents of the city. California law does not honor or recognize CCW licenses issued outside this state." Even for California residents, this isn't an easy task. The recent court order results from a case, CRPA v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, challenging the onerous, lengthy, and expensive concealed-carry requirements imposed by many jurisdictions in the state. "The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department admits it takes a year to a year and a half to process a CCW application," according to the Second Amendment Foundation. "The La Verne Police Department's CCW application process costs between $900-$1100 for the initial application and over $500 for a renewal which is necessary every two years. Additionally, both the LASD and LVPD impose subjective permit-issuance criteria, in direct contravention to the Supreme Court's edict in Bruen." Some jurisdictions now require psychological screenings, usually at the applicant's expense. Others want full records of past employment. "CRPA realizes how complicated this all seems compared to the application process in nearly every other state," the self-defense rights organization comments in its press release. "And all we can say to that is: welcome to California!" The intent seems to be to make the process as annoying and intrusive as possible to discourage those who aren't already in the good graces of the authorities. That's not permissible, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, which recognized concealed carry as a protected right in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022). The court anticipated that some freedom-unfriendly jurisdictions would try to impose death by a thousand bureaucratic cuts on anybody seeking to exercise the right. "Because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court. In the course of challenging California's red-tape barriers to concealed carry, the plaintiffs also opposed the state's refusal to recognize out-of-state CCW permits and licenses. By contrast, neighboring Arizona recognizes CCW permits from all other states and its own permits are recognized in 36 states in addition to Arizona. While relief for California' residents awaits the outcome of continuing litigation, out-of-state residents get a bit of a breather with the opening of the CCW licensing process. If you're thinking that it's nice that California is now willing to subject out-of-staters to the Kafkaesque ordeal it imposes on its residents with CCW licenses as the prize, but you'd rather carry a knife and pepper spray than jump through the hoops, keep in mind that we're talking about California. Knives are also strictly regulated and subject to length limits, concealment rules, and potential prohibition. Police may decide that any given blade is a "dirk" or "dagger" subject to more rules. Pepper spray is legal, but subject to limitations. No pepperball guns, for one. You're limited to 2.5-ounce containers which must all be labeled: "The use of this substance or device for any purpose other than self-defense is a crime under the law." Saps, blackjacks, and batons, which offer the grace of leaving would-be muggers unperforated and most-likely alive while correcting their attitudes, are strictly illegal—sort of. Last year, a federal judge voided this law on Second Amendment grounds, but the state is appealing. That's not to say you shouldn't carry any of the above. When laws become ridiculously restrictive, it quickly becomes ludicrous to expect compliance. Being able to defend yourself and your family is more important than any government directive to the contrary. But big-boy rules apply: Be careful and don't attract attention. Until restrictive laws are fully overturned, it's encouraging to see litigation forcing California to progress towards recognizing out-of-staters' right to defend themselves even to the limited extent permitted to state residents. Hopefully Californians will soon win some breathing room for themselves. The post California Concealed Carry Now Available to Out-of-Staters appeared first on
