More Winning, or the Stalemate Continues…

Ninth Circuit Upholds Preliminary Injunction Against Newsom’s Standard Capacity Magazine Ban

In another blow to Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom’s anti-gun agenda, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in the case of Duncan v. Becerra on Tuesday, upholding a lower court’s decision to suspend enforcement of Proposition 63’s restriction on the possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

Following the enactment of Proposition 63, CRPA attorneys sought an injunction against the magazine possession ban, arguing that the law violated the Second Amendment, as well as the due process and takings clauses of the United States Constitution. Federal District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez agreed, issuing a preliminary injunction just days before the law was set to take effect. California quickly appealed the decision.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that Judge Benitez did not abuse his discretion, holding that he applied the correct legal standards and made reasonable inferences based on the record. But one judge on the panel disagreed. Responding to the dissent, the majority noted that it was not within the panel’s authority to re-weigh the evidence of the case, nor could it substitute its discretion for that of the district court. What’s more, referencing the Ninth Circuit’s 2014 ruling in Fyock v. Sunnyvale, which affirmed the denial of an injunction against a local magazine ban, the majority held that simply because a judge disagrees with another district court does not necessarily mean the district court abused its discretion on the matter.

Meanwhile, in the trial court, a motion for summary judgment is pending and a ruling on the merits of the case is expected soon. Regardless of the outcome, the case will most certainly be appealed again to the Ninth Circuit. But by that time, the Supreme Court will likely have a new Justice who respects the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment.

To stay informed on the Duncan case, as well as other important Second Amendment issues affecting California gun owners, be sure to subscribe to NRA and CRPA email alerts. And be sure to visit the NRA-ILA California dedicated webpage at and the new CRPA webpage at

Winning in California, or at least less losing…

This is the ex-Kamala Harris-run CA DOJ, the DC Democrat’s new darling-hopeful (right up there with the newly crowned Communist-Democrat from “the Bronx”), that again is shown to be a corrupt AND inept tool of the Bureaucratic Uni-Party in that despicable hive of scum and villainy known as Sacramento.

Less than two months ago, the California Department of Justice, Bureau of Firearms (“CA DOJ”) formally submitted a proposed regulation expanding the application of its improperly adopted “assault weapon” definitions to apply in all circumstances. The Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”) was scheduled to decide whether to approve the regulation yesterday. Following opposition submitted by the CRPA & NRA legal team, CA DOJ officially withdrew its proposed regulation the day before OAL was scheduled to make its decision.
This isn’t the first time CA DOJ has withdrawn a proposed regulation. It was previously forced to withdraw its illegal “assault weapon” registration regulations following NRA and CRPA’s joint-opposition, regulations which were later officially rejected by OAL.
Those regulations are now the subject of a lawsuit titled Villanueva v. Becerra, which challenges the regulations as a violation of California’s Administrative Procedures Act and will soon be briefed before the California Court of Appeal.
This latest withdrawal of a proposed regulation expanding the application of DOJ’s illegally adopted regulations is welcome news for all California gun owners. At the very least, the withdraw shows CA DOJ does not get a free pass to adopt regulations outside the scope of its authority.

Fighting Back

This from our friends at the California Rifle and Pistol Association (of which I am a Life Member – in addition to my NRA Life Membership), CRPA Attorneys File Lawsuit Challenging CA Ammo Restrictions – “On Thursday, April 26, NRA and CRPA attorneys filed an important lawsuit challenging California’s restrictions regarding the sale or transfer of ammunition.

On Thursday, April 26, NRA and CRPA attorneys filed an important lawsuit challenging California’s restrictions regarding the sale or transfer of ammunition. These restrictions, enacted in 2016 as part of the “Gunmageddon” bills and Proposition 63, require all ammunition sales and transfers to be conducted via face-to-face transactions at California licensed firearm dealers or licensed ammunition vendors. And beginning July 1, 2019, all ammunition purchasers will be required to pass a background check before taking delivery of any ammunition.

Leading the lawsuit is Kim Rhode, a six-time Olympic medal winner who uses specialized ammunition approved by the International Shooting Sport Federation during the competitions she participates in. Joining her are several other law-abiding California gun owners and the following out of state businesses who can no longer ship ammunition directly to their California customers:

Able’s Sporting, Inc. (also known as “Able Ammo”) – Located in Huntsville, TX, Able Ammo specializes in discount hunting supplies, shooting supplies, hunting firearms, discount ammunition, and other firearm related accessories. Visit their website by clicking here.

Ammunition Depot – Located in Boca Raton, FL,Ammunition Depot was founded by freedom-loving Americans who know that 1) It is every American’s right and responsibility to defend themselves, their family, and country; and, 2) without ammunition, none of that is possible. Visit their website by clicking here.

Sam’s Shooters Emporium – Located in Lake Havasu City, AZ (just outside of California), Sam’s Shooters Emporium celebrated 20 years of business as the largest indoor shooting range in Arizona. The owners of Sam’s Shooters Emporium, Sam Scarmardo and his wife, are dedicated supporters of the Second Amendment and both NRA Life Members. Visit their website by clicking here.

The lawsuit, titled Rhode v. Becerra, challenges the California’s new ammunition sales restrictions as a violation of the Second Amendment, Commerce Clause, and Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. The lawsuit also challenges the restrictions as being preempted by the Firearm Owner’s Protection Act.

The filing of Rhode marks the fourth lawsuit filed by NRA and CRPA attorneys challenging the provisions of Proposition 63 and the other “Gunmageddon” bills. Once such lawsuit, titled Duncan v. Becerra, has already succeeded in obtaining an important injunction against Proposition 63’s ban on the possession of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. The other two lawsuits, titled Rupp v. Becerra and Villanueva v. Becerra (both of which challenge California’s “assault weapon” restrictions and registration requirements), are also seeking injunctions while those lawsuits are pending.

Help Us Protect the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
NRA and CRPA are not standing idly by as California’s new firearm restrictions begin to take effect, but WE NEED YOU to help us turn the tide. CRPA’s Grassroots (GO) project needs individuals to be the voices for the right to keep and bear arms in local communities. To learn more about how you can help in these efforts, visit or send an email to
To stay informed on the Rhode case, as well as the other “Gunmageddon” lawsuits and other important Second Amendment issues here in California and throughout the nation, make sure you are subscribed to NRA and CRPA email alerts. And be sure to visit the NRA-ILA California dedicated webpage at and the newly redesigned CRPA website at”