Quote of the Day
A federal appeals court this week struck down California’s landmark law requiring background checks and in-person transactions for ammunition purchases, the latest in a string of judicial wins that have gun rights advocates celebrating.
… the opinion by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals follows closely on a separate panel’s ruling against a California law aimed at regulating the marketing of firearms to minors earlier this month, and on a federal court ruling Wednesday allowing gun rights advocates to continue a lawsuit against concealed carry rules in Los Angeles County.
“We’re on a roll,” said Southern California attorney and gun rights advocate Chuck Michel, who was involved in all three cases.
In its 2-1 ruling against the ammunition background checks, the appellate panel said Thursday that by limiting purchases, California’s law effectively limited the rights of gun owners to have functioning firearms.
Sharon Bernstein
July 25, 2025
California cannot require background checks to buy ammunition, US appeals court rules
From the same article, “The state has two weeks to request a review by the full Court of Appeals.”
This ruling also rids Californians of the ban on buying ammo out of state, either in person or mail order.
Read more here:
This should also sink the “1000-round-per-month limit (100/month for 50 BMG)” bill that’s been kicking around here in WA.
There’s already a bill to limit ammo sales.
It’s that number at the bottom of the receipt or check-out page.
In the original intent “negative rights” version of the Constitution, you have a right to keep it, you have the right to bear it, but nothing says the public has to financially support you in either, just not get in the way in any manner.
If these progressives want to read “positive rights” into the Constitution, then this bill makes sense as a “this is the maximum amount of ammo the state will provide you, free of direct charge to you, per month, since a well-regulated (properly functioning) militia is necessary to a state of freedom”.
Wouldn’t be in a big hurry for that interpretation to hold out. WA state Constitution still says the state shall (i.e. not optional) provide for the militia to elect its own officers, and members of the militia shall be privileged from arrest while going to or from election of those officers. Arguably, when they established the REVISED Code of Washington, and they failed to roll forward a provision to implement that, the old WA state law that made provision would still be in effect, since it would be unconstitutional to repeal without functionally replacing.
I also believe that it would be unconstitutional to repeal it without actually having a vote to repeal it. No pocket repeals allowed, in other words.
That’s a minimum, right?
I have very fond memories of this law. It was my final straw that made me decide to leave the Golden State for greener pastures.
Both the wife and I are kicking ourselves for not fleeing sooner.
The most baffling is family and friends who are still willing to bear the burden of a corrupt and imploding state for various’reasons’.
Two words: En Banc.
Big yon……Wake me up if the “fat ladies” over at SCOTUS sing it.
Till then it’s just communist fags playing treasonous legal games.
We know their lying.
They know we know their lying.
We know that they know their lying.
They know that we know that they know their lying.
But the game continues unabated.
Because they have been operating under the laws of BFYTW, suck-it bitch, for a hundred years now.
And were still playing catch-up thinking we live in a civilized society.