Any lawsuits coming to try and strike down the ammo ban?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Any lawsuits coming to try and strike down the ammo ban?

Posted: 4/12/2018 7:39:10 PM EDT

This ammo nonsense is the worst thing to come out of Sacramento in my lifetime. Is there any serious effort to have the courts strike it down? I'd think it should be done if nothing else then to ensure other states don't copy it.

Posted: 4/13/2018 12:42:10 PM EDT

[#1]

The NRA is supposedly preparing a lawsuit to challenge it. Last update I could find on that was from January.

Posted: 4/22/2018 2:11:49 PM EDT

[#2]

I want to believe...

Posted: 4/22/2018 3:29:01 PM EDT

[#3]

What is the "ammo ban"? Do you mean having to go thru a background check to buy ammo?

Posted: 4/22/2018 6:22:56 PM EDT

[#4]

Quote History

Quoted:
What is the "ammo ban"? Do you mean having to go thru a background check to buy ammo?

View Quote

Are you being all technical with the OP's wording? Agreed that it is not a 'ban' but rather extreme limitations and rules...

Posted: 4/22/2018 7:37:57 PM EDT

[#5]

Quote History

Quoted:
Are you being all technical with the OP's wording? Agreed that it is not a 'ban' but rather extreme limitations and rules...

View Quote

Well, I'm wondering if something is coming of which I am not yet aware or perhaps I have misunderstood. I am trying to clarify what the OP is asking about. Clarity is a key aspect of effective communication.

Posted: 4/24/2018 11:46:29 PM EDT

[#6]

Quote History

Quoted:
Well, I'm wondering if something is coming of which I am not yet aware or perhaps I have misunderstood. I am trying to clarify what the OP is asking about. Clarity is a key aspect of effective communication.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Are you being all technical with the OP's wording? Agreed that it is not a 'ban' but rather extreme limitations and rules...

Well, I'm wondering if something is coming of which I am not yet aware or perhaps I have misunderstood. I am trying to clarify what the OP is asking about. Clarity is a key aspect of effective communication.

I am referring to the background/in-person requirement, which has been an effective ban in many ways. For example my good old standby of SGAmmo won't deal with CA (due to the high paperwork requirements) at all which eliminates some of the best deals. The law is also similar to those that have been struck down elsewhere iirc, so I'm hoping it can be struck down here as well. It's a clear infringement on the 2A.

ETA: Not to mention that all the shops I've talked to are charging some serious fees to take in ammo from third parties, so things get very pricey very fast.

Posted: 4/25/2018 11:18:28 PM EDT

[#7]

Quote History

Quoted:
I am referring to the background/in-person requirement, which has been an effective ban in many ways. For example my good old standby of SGAmmo won't deal with CA (due to the high paperwork requirements) at all which eliminates some of the best deals. The law is also similar to those that have been struck down elsewhere iirc, so I'm hoping it can be struck down here as well. It's a clear infringement on the 2A.

ETA: Not to mention that all the shops I've talked to are charging some serious fees to take in ammo from third parties, so things get very pricey very fast.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Are you being all technical with the OP's wording? Agreed that it is not a 'ban' but rather extreme limitations and rules...

Well, I'm wondering if something is coming of which I am not yet aware or perhaps I have misunderstood. I am trying to clarify what the OP is asking about. Clarity is a key aspect of effective communication.

I am referring to the background/in-person requirement, which has been an effective ban in many ways. For example my good old standby of SGAmmo won't deal with CA (due to the high paperwork requirements) at all which eliminates some of the best deals. The law is also similar to those that have been struck down elsewhere iirc, so I'm hoping it can be struck down here as well. It's a clear infringement on the 2A.

ETA: Not to mention that all the shops I've talked to are charging some serious fees to take in ammo from third parties, so things get very pricey very fast.

This ammo shipping restriction has had the effect of a ban to me, this being that I haven't purchased any since the first of the year. I will eventually but don't know when. This is no doubt the desired result of the supporters of this restriction. While I am not arguing or disagreeing with your reference to this being anti-2A, the courts will have the ultimate say. I ain't holding my breath on a favorable ruling any time soon based on their unfavorable ruling(s) on the constitutionality of the handgun roster.

What fees have you been finding that FFLs are charging to receive, handle and transfer ammo? I haven't asked a single one about this yet...

Posted: 4/26/2018 12:43:19 AM EDT

[#8]

There's no background check requirement yet. Dealers have to do a lot more handling, display changes, now. The brick and mortars I've checked? Can't tell because I haven't compared apples to apples with mail orders w/fees, etc. Turner's is steeper than some of the others. That's not a big change. Haven't tried any local WalMarts. Rifle Gear is less expensive than Turner's, duh. Haven't tried LAX Ammo. They already were playing games in store versus on-line. They don't seem to list their in store prices but suggest they aren't too much more expensive but I had the feeling they'd push prices up if they could.

Ammo Bros and Rifle Gear post their charges, Rifle Gear is lower. Aces Jewelry and Loan in West Covina is very low but I've misplaced my notes on their fee sched. give them a call, I guess. Less than the others I'd checked.

Posted: 4/26/2018 7:17:07 PM EDT

[#9]

Quote History

Quoted:
This ammo shipping restriction has had the effect of a ban to me, this being that I haven't purchased any since the first of the year. I will eventually but don't know when. This is no doubt the desired result of the supporters of this restriction. While I am not arguing or disagreeing with your reference to this being anti-2A, the courts will have the ultimate say. I ain't holding my breath on a favorable ruling any time soon based on their unfavorable ruling(s) on the constitutionality of the handgun roster.

What fees have you been finding that FFLs are charging to receive, handle and transfer ammo? I haven't asked a single one about this yet...

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Are you being all technical with the OP's wording? Agreed that it is not a 'ban' but rather extreme limitations and rules...

Well, I'm wondering if something is coming of which I am not yet aware or perhaps I have misunderstood. I am trying to clarify what the OP is asking about. Clarity is a key aspect of effective communication.

I am referring to the background/in-person requirement, which has been an effective ban in many ways. For example my good old standby of SGAmmo won't deal with CA (due to the high paperwork requirements) at all which eliminates some of the best deals. The law is also similar to those that have been struck down elsewhere iirc, so I'm hoping it can be struck down here as well. It's a clear infringement on the 2A.

ETA: Not to mention that all the shops I've talked to are charging some serious fees to take in ammo from third parties, so things get very pricey very fast.

This ammo shipping restriction has had the effect of a ban to me, this being that I haven't purchased any since the first of the year. I will eventually but don't know when. This is no doubt the desired result of the supporters of this restriction. While I am not arguing or disagreeing with your reference to this being anti-2A, the courts will have the ultimate say. I ain't holding my breath on a favorable ruling any time soon based on their unfavorable ruling(s) on the constitutionality of the handgun roster.

What fees have you been finding that FFLs are charging to receive, handle and transfer ammo? I haven't asked a single one about this yet...

$15 per transaction plus a fee per box or per lbs of ammo is what I've been seeing, so they can charge more for bulk ammo (negating the savings). They seem to see that the law gives them a chance to push in-store ammo by making internet sales more expensive/frustrating. That was a while ago, though, and few had any firm fee structures in place yet. I have some stuff stockpiled and I'm hoping the whole thing gets struck down before I need to buy anything.

I haven't gone shooting in months though, and probably won't more than a couple of times this year at this rate. I can't afford to with the new law.

Posted: 4/26/2018 7:18:35 PM EDT

[#10]

NRA sent out an email saying that they filed a lawsuit against the law. Hopefully it'll go as quickly to an injunction as the one against the magazine ban did.

Posted: 4/26/2018 8:16:25 PM EDT

[#11]

Quote History

Quoted:
I haven't gone shooting in months though, and probably won't more than a couple of times this year at this rate. I can't afford to with the new law.

View Quote

Soon, only the wealthy will be able to afford to shoot. That was their plan, right?

Posted: 4/26/2018 9:11:43 PM EDT

[#12]

https://www.crpa.org/crpa-news/nra-and-crpa-attorneys-file-lawsuit-challenging-californias-ammunition-restrictions/

Posted: 4/26/2018 9:39:30 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
There's no background check requirement yet. Dealers have to do a lot more handling, display changes, now. The brick and mortars I've checked? Can't tell because I haven't compared apples to apples with mail orders w/fees, etc. Turner's is steeper than some of the others. That's not a big change. Haven't tried any local WalMarts. Rifle Gear is less expensive than Turner's, duh. Haven't tried LAX Ammo. They already were playing games in store versus on-line. They don't seem to list their in store prices but suggest they aren't too much more expensive but I had the feeling they'd push prices up if they could.

Ammo Bros and Rifle Gear post their charges, Rifle Gear is lower. Aces Jewelry and Loan in West Covina is very low but I've misplaced my notes on their fee sched. give them a call, I guess. Less than the others I'd checked.

View Quote

Quoted:
$15 per transaction plus a fee per box or per lbs of ammo is what I've been seeing, so they can charge more for bulk ammo (negating the savings). They seem to see that the law gives them a chance to push in-store ammo by making internet sales more expensive/frustrating. That was a while ago, though, and few had any firm fee structures in place yet. I have some stuff stockpiled and I'm hoping the whole thing gets struck down before I need to buy anything.

I haven't gone shooting in months though, and probably won't more than a couple of times this year at this rate. I can't afford to with the new law.

View Quote

Appreciate the info...

Posted: 4/26/2018 9:42:09 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
NRA sent out an email saying that they filed a lawsuit against the law. Hopefully it'll go as quickly to an injunction as the one against the magazine ban did.

View Quote

Quoted:
https://www.crpa.org/crpa-news/nra-and-crpa-attorneys-file-lawsuit-challenging-californias-ammunition-restrictions/

View Quote

Good news indeed. There were even a few vendors that got in on the suing...

Posted: 4/26/2018 9:42:59 PM EDT

[#15]

Quote History

Quoted:
Soon, only the wealthy will be able to afford to shoot. That was their plan, right?

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I haven't gone shooting in months though, and probably won't more than a couple of times this year at this rate. I can't afford to with the new law.

Soon, only the wealthy will be able to afford to shoot. That was their plan, right?

Definitely one of their desired results...

Posted: 4/27/2018 12:52:35 AM EDT

[#16]

Quote History

Quoted:
Definitely one of their desired results...

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I haven't gone shooting in months though, and probably won't more than a couple of times this year at this rate. I can't afford to with the new law.

Soon, only the wealthy will be able to afford to shoot. That was their plan, right?

Definitely one of their desired results...

Not that they'd ever suggest. That would clearly introduce constitutionality issues.

Posted: 4/27/2018 1:37:23 AM EDT

[#17]

Quote History

Quoted:
NRA sent out an email saying that they filed a lawsuit against the law. Hopefully it'll go as quickly to an injunction as the one against the magazine ban did.

View Quote

CRPA filed it.

Posted: 4/27/2018 4:26:23 AM EDT

[#18]

Quote History

Quoted:
Not that they'd ever suggest. That would clearly introduce constitutionality issues.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I haven't gone shooting in months though, and probably won't more than a couple of times this year at this rate. I can't afford to with the new law.

Soon, only the wealthy will be able to afford to shoot. That was their plan, right?

Definitely one of their desired results...

Not that they'd ever suggest. That would clearly introduce constitutionality issues.

The results should be enough to do that, as they would in any other case. Hopefully the judges will see that. Or rather, hopefully the judges will give a shit about their oath to uphold the Constitution.

Posted: 5/6/2018 1:05:26 AM EDT

[#19]

Quote History

Quoted:
$15 per transaction plus a fee per box or per lbs of ammo is what I've been seeing, so they can charge more for bulk ammo (negating the savings). They seem to see that the law gives them a chance to push in-store ammo by making internet sales more expensive/frustrating. That was a while ago, though, and few had any firm fee structures in place yet. I have some stuff stockpiled and I'm hoping the whole thing gets struck down before I need to buy anything.

I haven't gone shooting in months though, and probably won't more than a couple of times this year at this rate. I can't afford to with the new law.

View Quote

Where are you located? I know of an FFL that isnt charging anything except sales tax to recieve ammo, but theyre out in San Bernardino area by 10/215 junction.

@CFletch

Posted: 5/6/2018 1:49:13 PM EDT

[#20]

Quote History

Quoted:
Where are you located? I know of an FFL that isnt charging anything except sales tax to recieve ammo, but theyre out in San Bernardino area by 10/215 junction.

@CFletch

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
$15 per transaction plus a fee per box or per lbs of ammo is what I've been seeing, so they can charge more for bulk ammo (negating the savings). They seem to see that the law gives them a chance to push in-store ammo by making internet sales more expensive/frustrating. That was a while ago, though, and few had any firm fee structures in place yet. I have some stuff stockpiled and I'm hoping the whole thing gets struck down before I need to buy anything.

I haven't gone shooting in months though, and probably won't more than a couple of times this year at this rate. I can't afford to with the new law.

Where are you located? I know of an FFL that isnt charging anything except sales tax to recieve ammo, but theyre out in San Bernardino area by 10/215 junction.

@CFletch

That will do wonders for generating foot traffic through their shop...