Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«69 »
  • Post
  • Reply
BeAuMaN
Feb 18, 2014

I'M A LEAD FARMER, MOTHERFUCKER!


Yeah I'm not saying it's very hopeful that it doesnt turn into a permanent stay given the 3 judge motions panel but I am a little a bit. Might as well wait until they render a final ruling before fretting about it though.

Also not sure if emergency stay motions have opinions or not.

Edit: another thing I'm curious is if next month's random motions panel will be friendlier or not since it's almost May. Will have fo remember to check.

BeAuMaN fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Apr 25, 2020

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Shaocaholica
Oct 29, 2002

Fig. 5E


So how illegal is receiving an ammo delivery during the emergency stay?

astropika
Jul 5, 2007
no, not really

Shaocaholica posted:

So how illegal is receiving an ammo delivery during the emergency stay?

Not sure if it'd be 30312 or 30314, is it a sale or did the sale already occur and is it a resident bringing in ammo? If its a sale or delivery under 312 who is committing the offence? I think you'd definitely need a qualified legal opinion of what an 'in transit' situation would even be in violation of.

If 312 its a misdemeanour, if 314 its an infraction for a first offence (and optionally for further offences).

astropika fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Apr 25, 2020

Henrik Zetterberg
Dec 7, 2007




Shaocaholica posted:

So how illegal is receiving an ammo delivery during the emergency stay?

Probably the same as magazine freedom week, where if the order was placed before the stay, youíre ok. Doesnít matter when delivery is.

Absolutely not a lawyer and I could be 100% wrong.

SeaborneClink
Aug 27, 2010

MAWP... MAWP!


I swear someone had a sentence or two in here about which firm spearheaded this challenge, and also there was a blurb in there about changing over your Amazon Smile to support them.

Am I hallucinating?

BeAuMaN
Feb 18, 2014

I'M A LEAD FARMER, MOTHERFUCKER!


Henrik Zetterberg posted:

Probably the same as magazine freedom week, where if the order was placed before the stay, youíre ok. Doesnít matter when delivery is.

Absolutely not a lawyer and I could be 100% wrong.

Not quite because there was an actual enjoinment with language protecting that and dictating terms, where this enjoined/injuncted(?) it and then was temporarily held... though I imagine once they finish the emergency stay, if they should rule against the injunction, that they'll write it in such a way as to protect those who already ordered from prosecution.
That said if the ammo is in the mail I don't think CA DoJ is going to get a warrant to somehow get info from sellers, knock on buyers doors, and arrest people. It's kind of impractical and you were doing a legal action during a legal order, and they'd have to figure out when a "transfer" actually occurred (i.e. what exact moment is a transfer). Also not a lawyer.

I remember that during Freedom Week Brownell's took the position that the transfer occured when the order was placed, and was shipping out stuff months after (though again slightly different circumstance).

Either way I wouldn't worry if it's already in motion.


SeaborneClink posted:

I swear someone had a sentence or two in here about which firm spearheaded this challenge, and also there was a blurb in there about changing over your Amazon Smile to support them.

Am I hallucinating?

CRPA - California Rifle & Pistol Association
Their foundation is on the list of charities.

Rubber Slug
Aug 7, 2010

THE BLUE DEMON RIDES AGAIN


I donít think this was linked here, but I didnít realize how truly terrible this law is until I saw the numbers in this article.

BeAuMaN
Feb 18, 2014

I'M A LEAD FARMER, MOTHERFUCKER!


Yeah I don't think I linked the declarations of Morales where CA DoJ was giving the court updates every so often on the statistics for rejections.

Third Declaration:
https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...-Opp-to-MPI.pdf
You can scroll through to the tables. Remember that Standard Check is the $1 AFS Check, and the Basic Check is the $19 one that's like a firearm transfer background check.

Benitez was right when he said it's offensive.

Alan Smithee
Jan 3, 2005


Trip report: I happened to be in Van nuys where The Target Range is which was where I learned to shoot. I dropped in, completely empty but open and they had stock of everything it seemed. Got two boxes of 9 and a 22lr. ID and fingerprint and was done and out

On another note I donít know one brand from another. I picked federal cuz I heard of it vaguely and then the cheaper of the 22

Alan Smithee fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Apr 26, 2020

SeaborneClink
Aug 27, 2010

MAWP... MAWP!


BeAuMaN posted:

CRPA - California Rifle & Pistol Association
Their foundation is on the list of charities.

Thank you, switched up from the EFF for a few months.

SwissArmyDruid
Feb 14, 2014



drat, I was considering getting some 9mm, but not at panic prices.

MomJeans420
Mar 19, 2007

Most of the gear, most of the time


I think the question is will UPS/Fedex deliver mail that's obviously ammo. I would go through a FFL if I had to for an order I've already placed, but I checked my local FFL and their reservation system requires you to wait in their parking lot for up to 3 hours, and I'm just not willing to do that.

BeAuMaN
Feb 18, 2014

I'M A LEAD FARMER, MOTHERFUCKER!


MomJeans420 posted:

I think the question is will UPS/Fedex deliver mail that's obviously ammo. I would go through a FFL if I had to for an order I've already placed, but I checked my local FFL and their reservation system requires you to wait in their parking lot for up to 3 hours, and I'm just not willing to do that.

They probably wouldn't bother checking. There's plenty of authorized persons who receive ammo in the mail. How does UPS/Fedex know? Why would they act unless CA DoJ specifically leaned on them?

Alan Smithee
Jan 3, 2005


SwissArmyDruid posted:

drat, I was considering getting some 9mm, but not at panic prices.

what's considered a panic price?

flightless greeb
Jan 28, 2016



I cant remember how well sgammo packages their stuff, if its discrete I mean. Target Sports is super discrete, with just the ORM-D hazard symbol and the shippers address listed as like TS or something.

Preechr
May 19, 2009

Proud member of the Pony-Brony Alliance for Obama as President


flightless greeb posted:

I cant remember how well sgammo packages their stuff, if its discrete I mean. Target Sports is super discrete, with just the ORM-D hazard symbol and the shippers address listed as like TS or something.

SGAmmo ships in featureless brown cardboard boxes with a shipping label and the ORM-D sticker. At least, the last case I got from them before Ammogedden shipped that way.

astropika
Jul 5, 2007
no, not really

Rubber Slug posted:

I donít think this was linked here, but I didnít realize how truly terrible this law is until I saw the numbers in this article.

Apparently a 99.8% false positive rate is quite acceptable as far as the AG is concerned.

Shaocaholica
Oct 29, 2002

Fig. 5E


Midway ships in boxes with pictures of bullets flying on the side for ammo or otherwise. Thanks Midway!

Rubber Slug
Aug 7, 2010

THE BLUE DEMON RIDES AGAIN


astropika posted:

Apparently a 99.8% false positive rate is quite acceptable as far as the AG is concerned.

I think they and the legislators that drafted the bill are probably quite pleased with that result.

Preechr
May 19, 2009

Proud member of the Pony-Brony Alliance for Obama as President


Rubber Slug posted:

I think they and the legislators that drafted the bill are probably quite pleased with that result.

California legislature:

Herr Tog
Jun 18, 2011




Grimey Drawer

Preechr posted:

SGAmmo ships in featureless brown cardboard boxes with a shipping label and the ORM-D sticker. At least, the last case I got from them before Ammogedden shipped that way.

This is also my memory from a couple years ago

MomJeans420
Mar 19, 2007

Most of the gear, most of the time


BeAuMaN posted:

They probably wouldn't bother checking. There's plenty of authorized persons who receive ammo in the mail. How does UPS/Fedex know? Why would they act unless CA DoJ specifically leaned on them?

Oh yeah I forgot you can get it shipped with the curios and replicas FFL + COE, maybe it will come through. I figured they'd see the ORM-D and assume ammo, but I never actually looked it up and that can be things like aerosols.

B4Ctom1
Oct 5, 2003

OVERWORKED COCK


Slippery Tilde

One of my relatives received their shipment and is stoked.

Herr Tog
Jun 18, 2011




Grimey Drawer

See you in June Lads in stage 2!

BeAuMaN
Feb 18, 2014

I'M A LEAD FARMER, MOTHERFUCKER!


June? We'll get a ruling on the emergency stay from the motions panel before then.

Edit: Regarding that, CRPA sent out an e-mail today

quote:

CRPA continues to fight for your rights in the up and down world of litigation. Last week we all celebrated a huge victory in the Rhode v. Becerra case with the issuance of a preliminary injunction that would put an end to the restrictions on ammo purchases in California. Shortly thereafter, the state appealed to the Ninth Circuit which granted the state an administrative stay. But this is NOT where the story ends.

An administrative stay is unique in that it basically means the court wasn't sure how to rule on the emergency request to stay the injunction. With that being the case, our legal team is planning to file a motion to vacate that administrative stay and dismiss the request to do away with our injunction. Much more to come on this so stay tuned as news breaks.

BeAuMaN fucked around with this message at 07:39 on Apr 29, 2020

Herr Tog
Jun 18, 2011




Grimey Drawer

I meant the extended shelter-in-place but that's good news!

BeAuMaN
Feb 18, 2014

I'M A LEAD FARMER, MOTHERFUCKER!


Oh yeah, right. That other thing.

BeAuMaN
Feb 18, 2014

I'M A LEAD FARMER, MOTHERFUCKER!


New bill amended yesterday by Assemblyman Chiu (Of the 17th Assembly District in East San Francisco)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...201920200AB2847

Gut and Amend! Previously relating to Forensic Evidence, this bill is now about updating the Unsafe Handgun Roster and Microstamping Requirement. Also other stuff.

Starting July 1, 2022:

- All non-grandfathered semi-auto centerfire pistols must have a chamber load indicator to be added to the Safe Handgun Roster. (instead of chamber load indicator or magazine disconnect mechanism)

- All non-grandfathered semi-auto centerfire or rimfire pistols w/ detachable mags must have a magazine disconnect to be added to the Safe Handgun Roster. (previously only centerfire and required both a chamber load indicator and a magazine disconnect if it had a detachable magazine)

- Changes the Safe Handgun microstamp requirement to imprint only from one interior surface instead of 2; removed CA DoJ certification of technology availability requirement.

- Every time a semi-auto pistol is added to the roster, three grandfathered semiauto pistols not meeting the above requirements shall be removed from the roster and considered unsafe handguns (starting from oldest on the roster to newest).

- Authorizes the CA DoJ to adopt emergency regulations to implement the act, and the initial adoption shall be deemed an emergency until regular regulations are adopted through the normal rulemaking process or 7/1/2022.

BeAuMaN fucked around with this message at 13:53 on Apr 30, 2020

Shaocaholica
Oct 29, 2002

Fig. 5E


BeAuMaN posted:

New bill amended yesterday by Assemblyman Chiu (Of the 17th Assembly District in East San Francisco)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...201920200AB2847

Gut and Amend! Previously relating to Forensic Evidence, this bill is now about updating the Unsafe Handgun Roster and Microstamping Requirement. Also other stuff.

Starting July 1, 2022:

- All non-grandfathered semi-auto centerfire pistols must have a chamber load indicator to be added to the Safe Handgun Roster. (instead of chamber load indicator or magazine disconnect mechanism)

- All non-grandfathered semi-auto centerfire or rimfire pistols w/ detachable mags must have a magazine disconnect to be added to the Safe Handgun Roster. (previously only centerfire and required both a chamber load indicator and a magazine disconnect if it had a detachable magazine)

- Changes the Safe Handgun microstamp requirement to imprint only from one interior surface instead of 2; removed CA DoJ certification of technology availability requirement.

- Every time a semi-auto pistol is added to the roster, three grandfathered semiauto pistols not meeting the above requirements shall be removed from the roster and considered unsafe handguns (starting from oldest on the roster to newest).

- Authorizes the CA DoJ to adopt emergency regulations to implement the act, and the initial adoption shall be deemed an emergency until regular regulations are adopted through the normal rulemaking process or 7/1/2022.

Haha yessssss. Finally fixing the loopholes. I wonder if they thought out the long game.

SwissArmyDruid
Feb 14, 2014



Based on my reading of the removal of the CA DOJ certification, this law is still poo poo because it still leaves a de-facto monopoly to the guy up in Washington who owns the microstamping patent.

(the entire law is poo poo in general, but if they were gonna remove something...)

flightless greeb
Jan 28, 2016



Hopefully this encourages the Supreme Court to pick up Pena since CA is actively increasing the burden of the law instead of mooting it like NY did.

Also some gun company still has to participate by trying to do microstamping which has yet to happen right.

frunksock
Feb 21, 2002



I wonder if it's maneuvering specifically aimed at the SCOTUS case, based on the timing and content.

1. Tighten up the non-microstamping requirements.
2. Loosen the microstamping requirements
3. Do it on an emergency basis

Then when SCOTUS grants cert, they can argue for mootness since the obviously unconstitutional part (microstamping) has changed, and in fact become looser. If SCOTUS makes them strike the microstamping part, or if they further amend to do it themselves as part of a mootness gambit, then they fallback on the now-stronger MD and LCI text.

flightless greeb
Jan 28, 2016



It could be, I hope it's a gamble that fails though since in NYs case didn't they just repeal the whole law? In our case there's still a strong case even without microstamping I imagine.

Chillyrabbit
Oct 24, 2012

The only sword wielding rabbit on the internet



Ultra Carp

Not knowing American laws but wasn't the mootness of nysrpa because NYS mooted the law by changing it preventing NYC from changing it back?

Like I assume the courts frown on people trying to dodge them by tinkering laws when ever it gets to them. Couldn't California revert those changes the second the supreme Court passes on the case?

frunksock
Feb 21, 2002



flightless greeb posted:

It could be, I hope it's a gamble that fails though since in NYs case didn't they just repeal the whole law? In our case there's still a strong case even without microstamping I imagine.

Yeah good point. I remember some debate about whether the case can even be about microstramping at all, since that law didn't even exist way back when the case was brought. I forget what the 9th said about that in their opinion.

Chillyrabbit posted:

Not knowing American laws but wasn't the mootness of nysrpa because NYS mooted the law by changing it preventing NYC from changing it back?

Like I assume the courts frown on people trying to dodge them by tinkering laws when ever it gets to them. Couldn't California revert those changes the second the supreme Court passes on the case?

IIRC, the mootness doctrine isn't worried about the government reversing an unconstitutional law on its own (as NY did), but it is worried about the prospect that it's going to put the law (or a similar one) back in place again.

I assume bay area people saw the new SiP changes yesterday? I wonder if any outdoor ranges will reopen.

BeAuMaN
Feb 18, 2014

I'M A LEAD FARMER, MOTHERFUCKER!


Michel & Associates sent their Opposition Letter to Becerra's Emergency Stay Request in Rhode v Becerra:

https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...ction-Order.pdf

tranten
Jan 14, 2003

^pube

There's a typo in the table of contents! It's gonna get thrown out!!!!

In related news: I got a really heavy box delivered to me today by UPS

BeAuMaN
Feb 18, 2014

I'M A LEAD FARMER, MOTHERFUCKER!


Time to rib Sean Brady about that typo.

Congrats on receiving your mysteriously heavy package

Dogbrisket
Jun 10, 2009



Edit: ignore, reading is fundamental re: new roster laws. Also, wouldn't the manufacturer of the guns being removed have standing to sue CA?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

mrlego
Feb 14, 2007

I do not avoid women, but I do deny them my essence.

Has anyone had experience with internet ammo shipments DROS to local gun stores in the Bay Area? Specifically San Mateo county area?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«69 »