UPDATE: On Friday 4/24 the 9th Circuit of Appeals issued an EMERGENCY stay of the Judge's order. This was requested by the CA AG.

Repost of article: https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-tosses-california-ammunition-purchase-233528521.html

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday blocked a California law requiring background checks for people buying ammunition, issuing a sharply worded rebuke of “onerous and convoluted” regulations that violate the constitutional right to bear arms.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego ruled in favor of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, which asked him to stop the checks and related restrictions on ammo sales.

“The experiment has been tried. The casualties have been counted. California’s new ammunition background check law misfires and the Second Amendment rights of California citizens have been gravely injured,” Benitez wrote in a 120-page opinion granting the group's motion for a preliminary injunction.

Voters approved toughening California’s already strict firearms laws in 2016, and the restrictions took effect last July.

New York was the first state to require a comprehensive ammunition background check system for each sale, but it never took effect. That left California as the first to the extend firearm background checks to each ammunition sale.

Four other states — Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts and New Jersey — require buyers to undergo background checks to obtain firearms or ammunition licenses that they must show when buying bullets, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Hannah Shearer, the center’s litigation director, called the ruling “a dangerous step in the wrong direction” at a time when gun stores are seeing increased sales to those worried about the effect of coronavirus on society or their safety.

“The law’s red tape and state database errors made it impossible for hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Californians to purchase ammunition for sport or self-defense,” said Chuck Michel, the association’s general counsel. “The court found that the flimsy reasons offered by the government to justify these constitutional infringements were inadequate.”

He expected the state to appeal the ruling. But in the meantime “Californians can sleep a little easier tonight knowing their Constitutional rights were restored and strengthened by this decision,” he said.

Gov. Gavin Newsom championed the law before he became governor, and spokeswoman Vicky Waters said his administration is disappointed by the decision and considering its next steps. "California’s strong gun safety laws help keep our schools and communities safe,” she said.

The state attorney general’s office said only that it is reviewing the decision. It did not immediately say if it will appeal or seek to stay the order, which takes effect immediately at a time when some California gun stores have been ordered shut because of the coronavirus. Among the places where the shops were not deemed essential businesses are Los Angeles and San Jose.

The same judge’s decision last year striking down the state’s ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines sparked a week-long buying frenzy before he halted sales while the state appeals his ruling. Gun owners similarly rushed to stockpile ammunition before the new restrictions took effect last summer.

Benitez called the ammunition background check law “onerous and convoluted” and “constitutionally defective.”

“Criminals, tyrants, and terrorists don’t do background checks,” he wrote. “The background check experiment defies common sense while unduly and severely burdening the Second Amendment rights of every responsible, gun-owning citizen desiring to lawfully buy ammunition.”

While it is intended to keep ammunition from criminals, it blocked sales to legitimate, law-abiding buyers about 16% of the time, he wrote. Moreover, he ruled that the state's ban on importing ammunition from outside California violates federal interstate commerce laws.

Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a court filing earlier this month that the background checks stopped more than 750 people from buying bullets illegally from July 2019 through January 2020, not including those who didn’t even try because they knew they weren’t eligible.

The law requires buyers who already are in the state’s firearm background check database to pay a $1 fee each time they buy ammunition, while others can buy longer-term licenses if they do not have certain criminal convictions or mental health commitments.

It took an average of less than 5 minutes to complete the background checks, according to state court filings.

“There is no substantial impediment,” the state said in court documents. “Ammunition purchasers must pass an eligibility check that, in the vast majority of cases, delays a purchase by a few minutes.”

Benitez ruled that the ammunition law illegally locks out-of-state vendors out of California’s market, and that it conflicts with a federal law allowing gun owners to bring their firearms and ammunition through California.

The lawsuit by California Rifle & Pistol Association was joined by out-of-state ammunition sellers and California residents, including Kim Rhode. She has won six Olympic shooting medals.

Updated 4/27: SCOTUS booted this issue without any ruling since NY scuttled the law prior to it being heard. This sets a horrible precedent because there is nothing to stop NY from simply re-enacting it as fast.

SCOTUS heard arguments today in the case against NYC disallowing gun owners from traveling outside their home/city.  This law was upheld by 2nd Circuit - however after SCOTUS agreed to hear the case NYC, fearing Court review, quickly changed the law and argued that the case was moot.

This is an important case because IMO if allowed to stand ANYTIME  the SCOTUS agrees to hear a case the law can quickly be changed to avert a ruling. What is to stop them from simply re-enacting the SAME law later? Nothing. And the entire legal process would have to start from step 1 again! Basically, un-Constitutional laws could be kept just by this side-stepping. Imagine the precedent that this would set.

Additionally, the City was unable to answer Justice Alito's question if residents would be able to stop to see their mother if on the way to the range.

This is a very good article on what happened today:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/12/argument-analysis-justices-focus-on-mootness-in-challenge-to-now-repealed-new-york-city-gun-rule/

I urge you contact your legislators because the magazine ban that did not get voted on this session (narrowly) WILL be back this January.
To make matters worse, even though they didn't get floor votes this past session they can skip the committee process again and go to vote, which the Speaker has promised as a priority.

See article here:
https://komonews.com/news/local/latest-mass-shootings-renew-effort-to-ban-high-capacity-ammunition-magazines?fbclid=IwAR18tswwwur2APn-jx_Ofg2fyPGNLi55mVYPQUvKmtuplSFEcnVUH3zf20o

Links to the Bills (House and Senate) are available here:
https://legiscan.com/WA/bill/HB1068/2019

This ban allows magazine usage on physical property (with permission) and at the range!

To get them to those locations you must carry them UNLOADED and separate.

THERE IS NO EXEMPTION FOR CCW!

There are a lot of firearms do not have 10 round variants, especially those that are out-of-production. This will essentially take those pistols out of LEGAL usage for CCW - by people ALREADY LEGALLY LICENSED to carry a pistol.
Of course, the concept of limiting to 10 is ridiculous itself. 10 is good but 15 is not? 2 x 10rd mags is 20. In the 10 years of the Federal "Assault Weapons Ban" did high-capacity mags disappear? I'll grant you that their prices sure did jump up, but they were far from gone.

Please remain vigilant and contact your legislators.

We know from other States' experience (CA, NY, etc) that first they grand-fathered, then registered, and then outright possession banned. The "nobody is coming for your guns" (and magazines and ammo) is simply not true. One only has to watch the POTUS debates to  see that.

I have received a lot of feedback about how WA State has become increasingly hostile to gun owners. I also ask if folks are contacting their legislators. I had decent luck with with mine. One even replied and followed up with questions to clarify my views.
I hope that if you are upset about what is happening you took the opportunity to do so, and if you didn't please do so next time.

So, a number of bills were passed. Gun owners were hit hard with a plethora of anti-gun bills - some of which even covered the same topic. Believe it or not, the MOST offending bills were defeated. There is no "assault weapons ban," no "magazine capacity limit" and no dismantling of State Preemption by allowing cities to arbitrarily and inconsistently declare "safe zones."

I think the NRA-ILA has the best and most concise summary of what passed (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20190509/washington-gov-inslee-signs-anti-gun-bills):

"On May 8th, Governor Jay Inslee signed into law a number of anti-gun bills that had been passed by the Legislature during the 2019 Legislative Session.

House Bill 1465, sponsored by Representative Roger Goodman (D-45), will require CPL holders to undergo a state background check on handgun purchases instead of the instant NICS check that is currently being conducted as a courtesy by the FBI.  Unfortunately, beginning July 1st, the FBI will no longer be conducting these courtesy NICS checks for CPL holders.

House Bill 1786, sponsored by Representative Laurie Jinkins (D-27), will expand firearm seizures to a wider range of protective orders with little to no due process, and in some cases, will remove a judge’s discretion as to whether to impose firearm restrictions upon respondents of protective orders.

Senate Bill 5027, sponsored by Senator David Frockt (D-46), will expand Washington’s existing Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO) by affirming that the ERPO can be issued against minors while also infringing upon the self-defense rights of law-abiding parents or others in the household without due process.

Senate Bill 5181, sponsored by Senator Kuderer, will suspend Second Amendment rights without due process for six months from individuals who are admitted for a 72-hour mental health evaluation, but who are not subsequently involuntarily committed.

Fortunately, Gov. Inslee did sign House Bill 1934 into law.  Sponsored by Representative Michelle Caldier (R-26), HB 1934 will allow military members who are stationed or assigned out-of-state to renew their CPL by mail."