NRA Readies Lawsuit Against California Ammunition Control

Admin

Staff Member
Administrator
Moderator
NES Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
43,043
Likes
41,844
Location
Monadnock area, NH
Feedback: 18 / 0 / 0
young-woman-at-gun-range-AP-640x480.jpg


By AWR Hawkins

The National Rifle Association is readying a lawsuit against California’s new ammunition controls and that suit focuses on the failure to meet “statutorily mandated” deadlines throughout the lead-up to the launch of the controls.

Breitbart News reported that the 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.

Read full story here: NRA Readies Lawsuit Against California Ammunition Control
 
Let me grab my crystal ball:

NRA loses at the state and federal levels, goes to supreme in like 5 years, and they refuse to hear the case.
 
Supposedly the NRA is being quite helpful and offered the full power of their lawyers in the AWB case, but is sitting on the recognition back burner 'cuz NRA.
It's California. You can have Jesus Christ as your lawyer and you won't win this one there. It's a sad situation.
 
Let me grab my crystal ball:

NRA loses at the state and federal levels, goes to supreme in like 5 years, and they refuse to hear the case.
This ^^^^^ people will continue to take it in the brown eye.
 
Last edited:
So ammo brought in from other states is illegal but people illegally brought from another county are not illegals, but undocumented.

It all makes sense now.its right up there with intentionally infecting someone with aids being changed from a felony to a misdimeanor..

Knowlying giving someone aids is only "a minor offense"
 
So ammo brought in from other states is illegal but people illegally brought from another county are not illegals, but undocumented.

It all makes sense now.its right up there with intentionally infecting someone with aids being changed from a felony to a misdimeanor..

Knowlying giving someone aids is only "a minor offense"
Democrats suck.
 
Allow me to add my own crystal ball prediction:

Eventually even California residents are going to decide that they've had enough abuse, no matter where it's coming from.

Otherwise they're f***ed.
 
Allow me to add my own crystal ball prediction:

Eventually even California residents are going to decide that they've had enough abuse, no matter where it's coming from.

Otherwise they're f***ed.
They're f***ed, and will be more so if the NRA f***s up this law suit.
 
So ammo brought in from other states is illegal but people illegally brought from another county are not illegals, but undocumented.

They could just say the ammo is "undocumented ammo" and it has as much of a right to be there as ammo bought in California. And it deserves in state tuition.
 
California has way more people.
Exactly, the manufacturer lobby that funds and makes up the NRA doesn't want more laws to hurt sales in the largest firearms market in the US. They're not going to give an inch without a fight, but it's Cali and gun rights cases go to die there.
 
I can't wait for the big earthquake and California slides into the ocean. The world will be a better place. Apparently the NRA hasn't given up on California like it has on Massachusetts. Sigh
And really the best place for the NRA to fight for the 2A is in states like Mass and others in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. The 9th Circuit is where all constitutional cases go to die and there's no changing it short of breaking up the 9th Circuit, which Republicans haven't done because it requires 60 votes in the senate.

The 1st circuit is pretty evenly split with left/right justices, so chances are high that they'll overturn unconstitutional gun laws passed by Mass.

Fighting in California for gun rights, among other things, is a losing battle. Conservatives in that state, and others up the West Coast and here in Southern New England, should leave to greener pastures. I was just looking up rents in Indiana (cuz I'm hoping to move back this year) and you can get an apartment there for $500 and keep your suppressors, shall issue carry permits, high capacity magazines, bayonet lugs, flash hiders, etc.

Here? You're gonna be paying more in rents, taxes, etc. and getting less and less freedom with the second amendment. No bueno.
 
But, that would be illegal...


But but.... they said it's not illegal to be illegal.

But seriously : the more they push these regulations , the more they help right thinking people get their heads on straight IMHO.

When Healey told us that even though we had followed the law we were now felons anyway - it did cause me a little bit of stress. It didn't take me too long however to realize one of my favorite lines from one of my favorite movies (Last of the Mohicans) applies DIRECTLY to this situation:

I believe if they set aside their law as and when they wish, their law no longer has no rightful authourity over us; all they have over us then is tyranny…I will not live under that yoke. So I will stay here no longer — John Winthop


That's exactly what Healey did , and that's what is going on out in California.

One of the ways you defeat tyranny - is simply to ignore it and go about your business. If enough people do it - then the laws of numbers wins , and the tyrants lose. There doesn't even need to be a "fight" to make the problem go away. There are copious examples of this tactic thruout history. I've heard it said that the Russians under the Commies said " they pretend to pay us - and we pretend to work". Sooner or later the system falls. I've heard it said that in Italy and Greece - everything under the sun is taxed. And nobody pays them. When CT passed it's registration laws - from what I understand nobody showed up.

One of the ways to bring down a tyrant - is to make them look like a fool. Farce actually wins over force a lot of the time.

Healey's proclamations have not emptied any of the AR's from my gun safe. The MA ammo laws have not prevented me from buying prodigious amounts of ammo.

Maybe the people who really care in CA will now wake up and do something about it. Group buys and U-Haul trailer loads of ammo being imported into the state will circumvent the laws - the same way they do out here. Gun owners will become allied with other gun owners and start to make connections - same as what happens out here.
 
Ive been thinking about this and how some people laugh at the slippery slope argument.
I dont believe in backrogund checks for firearms, some people seem to think "hey atleast we're trying to prevent crime" even though it is proven to be 100% ineffective.

Now you need a background check for ammo.....wouldn't it then be logical you need a background check to buy magazines??then gunparts and accessories?

All these are are taxes on a right..

Its just like some people who are ok with the bumpfire stock ban.whats next?
If we could travel back in time and stop background checks(and the existance of FFLS) we most certainly wouldnt be talking about regulating ammo and pieces of plastic.

This is the slippery slope and we are quickly finding our way to the bottem of it.
Just one of the failings of previous generations.
 
But, that would be illegal...

A Black Market in ammunition sales would also cut tax revenue to that State and possibly force it to rethink its oppressive policies... Or, not.
 
All CA residents need to do is pay $30 for a C&R and they can still get ammo shipped to them from a handful of vendors. I don’t know if all ammo vendors will, but many will.
 
All CA residents need to do is pay $30 for a C&R and they can still get ammo shipped to them from a handful of vendors. I don’t know if all ammo vendors will, but many will.

Do you really think the executive, legislative, or judiciary branches of government in CA or the unaccountable unelected administrative state is going to allow the C&R license 'loophole' to exist for very long?

CA is already experiencing a rising crime rate and recent changes to laws & policy almost guarantee a crime tsunami. Rather than acknowledge the lunacy which facilitated said crime tsunami the response will be, "WE NEED MOAR GUN LAWLZ & WELLFAIR PROGAHMZ!111"
 
Last edited:
Do you really think the executive, legislative, or judiciary branches of government in CA or the unaccountable unelected administrative state is going to allow the C&R license 'loophole' to exist for very long?
Yeah true. Well take advantage of it for the time being I guess.
 
So ammo brought in from other states is illegal but people illegally brought from another county are not illegals, but undocumented.

It all makes sense now.its right up there with intentionally infecting someone with aids being changed from a felony to a misdimeanor..

Knowlying giving someone aids is only "a minor offense"

For it to be a felony you have to have that High Capacity AIDS regular AIDS isn't that impressive.
 
What do you consider "real news". In case you haven't noticed the quality of journalism is in the gutter, many news outlets are literally in bed with politicians or on the payroll to run stories by PR or opposition research companies, and that's not including activist cabals. The JournaLIST, Fusion GPS, Ben Rhodes' echo chamber, 24 year-old know nothing's, and the revolving door of journalists going between .gov and the news room if not outright marrying .gov officials, should be a hint that journalists push a narrative rather than relate facts anymore.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry - but this entire discussion should have been shutdown the second "Breitbart News" was mentioned... get a real news source folks. To those replying with real facts despite the news source - kudos. But this site has no business citing Breitbart, just like it has no right to cite The Daily Stormer

While Breitbart certainly leans right, it is silly to lump them in with a nazi website. Do you see anything factually wrong with the article?

How do you feel about the new law in California? Or did you join the site just to complain about Breitbart?
 
Back
Top Bottom