California ammo purchase restrictions struck down, for now. Until the 9th gets involved obviously.

V. CONCLUSION
The ammunition background checks laws have no historical pedigree and operate
in such a way that they violate the Second Amendment right of citizens to keep and bear
arms. The anti-importation components violate the dormant Commerce Clause and to the
extent applicable to individuals travelling into California are preempted by 18 U.S.C. §
926A. Perhaps the simpler, 4-year and $50 ammunition purchase permit approved by the
voters in Proposition 63, would have fared better.

Accordingly, the Court permanently enjoins the State of California from enforcing
the ammunition sales background check provisions found in California Penal Code §§
30352 and 30370(a) through (e), and the ammunition anti-importation provisions found
in §§ 30312(a) and (b) and 30314(a). Criminal enforcement of California Penal Code §§
30312(d), 30314(c), and 30365(a) by the Attorney General and all other law enforcement
defendants is permanently enjoined.

Nice.  We need a lot more Judge Benitez-like judges on the bench.

Will be stayed by Friday at the earliest. Monday at the latest Then expect a hearing to be put off until after Miller v Bonta is ruled on which itself will not be heard until after Duncan v Bonta is ruled on

It will likely be stayed, but my understanding is that since this was a final ruling and not stayed pending appeal, that the process for getting a stay in place is a little more troublsome for CA.

That is something that has me confused. During the original "Freedom Week" for magazines back in 2019, it was the same kind of ruling and Californians got one week where they could buy magazines before the 9th quashed it all and it remains in effect to this day. Then subsequent case rulings from Judge Benitez included an automatic stay, including the two most recent ones (Duncan v Bonta and Miller v Bonta). IIRC, it was reported he does this in order to maintain some kind of oversight of the case. So now I have to wonder what would happen in the case when the 9th grants California's emergency stay request that was filed today. There hasn't yet been a pro-2A ruling that the 9th has not found a way to put on hold so I still expect the 9th to do what it does and rubber stamp the request.

SCOTUS might entertain an emergency appeal from our side as this was a final judgement and not an interlocutory appeal like all the other recent cases.

I see this thread was not updated but the 9th, as expected, stayed the decision on Monday. Will be a few years before there is a decision and most likely upholding the law.