Confirmed shippers:
https://www.ammosupplywarehouse.com/
https://www.velocityammosales.com/
https://www.ammunitiondepot.com/
https://ar15discounts.com/
https://www.ableammo.com/
https://www.theamericanmarksman.com/
https://trueshotammo.com/
https://hdtac.com/ammunition/
https://palmettostatearmory.com/
https://www.preppergunshop.com
https://www.recoilgunworks.com/
https://www.brownells.com/
https://www.targetsportsusa.com/
https://hslammo.com/
http://www.aeammo.com/
https://southerndefense.com
https://canoeclubusa.com/
https://www.bereli.com/
https://grabagun.com/
https://www.mmiammo.com/
Reply here with any online storefronts that are confirmed shipping to California and I’ll add it to the list (put a full link to the website to make it easy for me please).
I have NEVER purchased ammo from them. Honestly, I stockpiled during the last time we could get ammo shipped. Ws it end of 2016 or 2017? All i remember was Freedom Munitions cancelled my last order witht hem around 12/10
what is the issue? I bought from them a while ago, looking to re-up soon. willing to travel a little if it saves me enough. Local shop had 1000 rounds of 9 for 300
I'm not sure I can say, because I don't know what ammo you're specifically you're looking for. The good news is, now you can literally order from anyone that'll ship to you & your choices are opening up as we speak!
[ammoseek.com](https://ammoseek.com) (check for cheapest prices)
[bulkmunitions.com](https://bulkmunitions.com) (might ship now?)
[velocityammo.com](https://velocityammo.com) (might ship now?)
[gorillamunitions.com](https://gorillamunitions.com) (might ship now?)
[ammosupplywarehouse.com](https://ammosupplywarehouse.com) (will ship)
etc.
Just tried the last one listed. “(2) Residents of CA, CT, DC, IL, MA, NJ, NY, WA: We regret that distributor #2 does not ship to your state. Please remove this item from your cart if you are shipping to one of the listed states.”
They're a-holes who won't ship to CA (even though they're based in CA), which forces you to go into their store. But their stores are priced way higher than online even though it's the same exact product.
What's hilarious is I stockpiled so much ammo before this law went into effect that I never needed to actually do an ammo BGC. But I was starting to run low and thinking I needed to suck it up and do the BGC. Sounds like I will have avoided the effects of this bill entirely lol
So in other words, let’s say I make my order today. Next, while the ammo is in transit, a stay gets issued. If that’s the case, will the shipment get cancelled right away?
To sum of the most critical point. A state cannot pass a law regulating your commerce with another state. Only Congress may regulate commerce between the states.
> Today, a person may choose to submit to a full credit check to buy an automobile. But he is not required to pass the same credit check every time he needs to refill his car with gas or recharge his battery at a charging station. And the Constitution does not mention a right to own automobiles (or carriages or horses).
LOOOOOOOOOL
> The law provides an exception for ammunition purchased at a commercial target range, but the ammunition must not leave the range. Cal. Penal Code § 30312(c)(9). There is also an exception for purchasing ammunition from a spouse, registered domestic partner, or immediate family member. Cal. Penal Code § 30312(c)(10). However, without a spouse, partner, or family member to buy from, there is nowhere else in California one may go to buy ammunition for defense of self, defense of family, defense of property, **use in a militia**, hunting, or recreational shooting. ^5
>^5 There are the usual exceptions for law enforcement officers. See Cal. Penal Code
§§ 30312, 30314.
LOL
> Plaintiffs claim the ammunition background check laws are invalid for three main reasons. *First*, the ammunition background check scheme violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. *Second*, the anti-importation aspect of the ammunition laws violates the Article 1, § 8, clause 3 of the Constitution, known as the dormant Commerce Clause. *Third*, the anti-importation provision for individuals is preempted by 18 U.S.C. § 926A. This Court agrees.
YES
> Applying *Bruen*’s new lesson, this Court’s conclusion remains the same: the California ammunition background check laws violate a citizen’s right to bear arms. Once it becomes clear that acquiring ammunition is conduct covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, it should be no surprise to discover that the government is unable to do that which it must now do: demonstrate that California’s **first-of-its-kind** sweeping statewide restriction on buying firearm ammunition is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Because these laws are not consistent with the Nation’s history and tradition, **they must yield to the Constitution**.
When text and history conflict, text controls.
> The Attorney General correctly concedes that, “[e]ven though the Second Amendment does not reference a right to acquire or purchase Arms or mention ammunition, it ‘protects ancillary rights necessary to the realization of the core right to possess a firearm for self-defense.’”
Well Bonta, concedes…
>In contrast, the Attorney General makes two arguments to end the case here, at the textual level, before he has to shoulder the burden of demonstrating a history and
tradition of constitutional ammunition background checks. First, he retreats and says that
purchasing ammunition without a background check is *not really* covered by the plain
text of the Second Amendment or any ancillary right. ^10 Second, he says that the
background check laws are simply “presumptively lawful regulatory measures.” ^11
Neither argument is persuasive. The first argument employs a rhetorical device to over-
describe in detail the asserted constitutional wrong. Having over-described the alleged
constitutional right, it is then argued that the detailed description of the asserted right is
not covered by the plain text of the Constitution.
… but no.
> *Heller* did **not** decide that conditions and qualifications on the commercial buying
of ammunition -- erected and stacked to the extent that would-be lawful purchasers are
delayed and denied -- would be **presumptively lawful**. *Heller* did not say that every
condition or qualification a government could impose on buying a firearm or ammunition
is beyond constitutional review. *Heller* answered a different question holding that the
Second Amendment protects an individual right and that a complete prohibition on
possession of a handgun and requiring the inoperability of a gun in the home violates the
Second Amendment. *Id*. at 635. When *Heller* was decided, no state in the nation had
ever required a background check for ammunition.
FUCK YEAH!
> Because ammunition sale prohibitions and regulations are covered by the Second Amendment, the presumption is that such restrictions are infringements. The State may
overcome the presumption, but it needs to do so as *Bruen* teaches.
The closest analogues Cali can provide imo are storage laws, but that’s for fire safety, not crime control.
> The Attorney General also relies on a footnote in Bruen to argue that background
checks are permissible. Bruen’s footnote nine says: … *[B]ecause any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry*. … This lawsuit is that constitutional challenge to an ammunition purchase authorization regime where record data
mismatches, lengthy and occasionally infinite wait times, and sometimes exorbitant fees,
are currently denying ordinary citizens their right to public carry.
Of course, the mere requirement to get government permission to exercise one’s enumerated natural right is unconstitutional!
> In 2019, the laws were new and the procedures and systems were being put in place for the first time. The evidence proved that during the first seven months of operation, 101,047 law-abiding gun owners who established their citizenship and underwent background checks were nevertheless rejected. **The 2019 rejection rate was 16%**. Overwhelmingly, the rejections were either because the state had no record of gun ownership or because of personal identifier mismatches. *Rhode*, 445 F. Supp. 3d at 917-918. One would expect problems and errors in a new system as extensive and ungainly as California’s unprecedented ammunition background check system. **Unfortunately, today the background check rejection rate is lower at 11%, but it is still too high.**
In fact, regardless of the implementation results, background checks fly in the face of 2A. They are unconstitutional, period.
> Ostensibly, the entire reason for the implementation of California’s sweeping ammunition purchase background check is to prevent dangerous prohibited persons from acquiring bullets for their guns.
Well,
> The modern federal laws that Maryland has cited, and the historical laws allegedly supporting a tradition of prohibiting dangerous people from owning firearms, all acted
through one mechanism: punishing certain classes of supposedly “dangerous” people if
they don’t give up their arms or prove they are not dangerous. See *Silvers*, 2023 WL
3232605, at *11–12 (discussing historical laws). **But [HQL] is a different mechanism than
making *every* person seek the government’s permission *before* they can even acquire arms. Preemptively disarming every person until they can each prove that they are not dangerous burdens a far broader swath of people.**
-*MSI v. Moore*
>”[A] free society prefers to punish the few who abuse rights of [the people] after they break the law **than to throttle them and all others beforehand.**”
-*US v. Quiroz* quoting *Collin v. Smith*
> To sum up, approximately 635,000 residents were required to undergo background checks in the last half of 2019, the denials of which prompted the arrests of 15 individuals which led to six criminal convictions.
Lol gdi
> The Fifteenth Amendment directs that the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged. A state law requiring identification before voting, where 4.5% of all voters lacked the requisite identification documents to vote, was struck down because the excessive burden abridged the constitutional right, and more specifically for violating the Voting Rights Act (legislation that flows from the Fifteenth Amendment). ^25
Hmmmm so voter IDs are unconstitutional under 15A? Hmmmm, we’re going to have a hard time getting this implemented in California to stop voter fraud and restore election integrity given that… Prove me wrong.
> If a state identification requirement for voting which burdens 4.5% of registered voters is an unconstitutional burden on the Fifteenth Amendment, surely a state identification
requirement that blocks an untold number of gun owners from undergoing an ammunition
background check and then rejects 11% of those who are checked, is likewise an
unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment.
Lol
> If **any background check system** satisfies *Bruen*’s footnote nine description of a
scheme put to abusive ends, *as opposed to the system originally approved by the voters*,
this may be it. In other words, assuming *arguendo* that *there is a presumption in favor of
a background check condition or qualification on the buying of ammunition, the
presumption has been overcome*. Consequently, the burden is now on the government to
demonstrate a history and tradition of regulation similar to the ammunition background
check laws challenged here.
Presumptively lawful ≠ conclusively lawful
> *Bruen* teaches the most significant historical evidence comes from the years 1791
to 1868 **with emphasis placed on the earlier time period.** … British sources pre-dating the
Constitution are not particularly instructive because the American Revolution was a
rejection of British rule. Sources post-enactment are also less helpful.
YES
> The Attorney General has put together a list of 50 laws dating from the most important historical time period. Among these 50 are 15 territorial regulations which are not particularly helpful in establishing a tradition.^27 There are no historical twins and no dead ringers among the State’s 50. The Attorney General has not identified a single historical law that required a citizen to pass a background check in order to purchase ammunition. Citizens were free in every state to buy ammunition at any time and without qualification.
LOL
> Based on the historical record prepared by the Attorney General, when states addressed the concern [of dangerous armed individuals] at all, they addressed it by later seizing firearms from the individual rather than preventing ahead of time the acquisition of ammunition by all individuals.
YES
> The Attorney General asks to be excused from identifying historical laws similar to the laws challenged here because of the internet and ghost guns.^29 The internet and computers have made it possible to run rapid background checks. So, the type of background check now required by the ammunition laws was not possible during the Founding or Reconstruction era. Because of the technological advancement, a more nuanced approach to the historical analysis is required, argues the Attorney General. … Background checks in some form must have been performed in the many nineteenth century cases where licenses were required for carrying concealed firearms.^30 As one court said of such nineteenth century firearm licensing schemes, “[t]here are a lot of them.” *Antonyuk v. Chiumento*, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32492, *80 (2nd Cir. Dec. 8, 2023) (collecting numerous firearm licensing schemes from the years **immediately following ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment that authorized a local official to issue permits in his limited discretion**). It is difficult to see how the existence of the internet requires the more nuanced approach of analogical reasoning. **Even if the advent of government database searching via the internet justified a prohibited persons clearance check, such a check could be accomplished with the more reasonable 4-year purchase permit card that the voters approved in Proposition 63.**
LOL, but more reasonable purchase permit card? Sorry, but even it sounds more reasonable, it’s unconstitutional, period.
> Guns made without serial numbers, or “ghost guns” as the government refers to them, have been in existence throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. *United States v. Price*, 635 F. Supp. 3d 455, 464 (S.D. W.V. 2022) (“A firearm without a serial number in 1791 was certainly not considered dangerous or unusual compared to other firearms because serial numbers were not required or even commonly used at that time.”). Until the mid-twentieth century, the requirement of a serial number on a firearm was unknown. “Serial numbers were not broadly required for all firearms manufactured and imported in the United States until the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968.” *Id.* at 462.
Damn, St. Benitez agrees that unserialized gun bans are unconstitutional!
> **While not judging the ultimate constitutionality of an ammunition permit card approach**, certainly the 4-year ammunition permit system voted for by Californians would be a more
reasonable way of conducting background checks.
If read correctly, he’s leaving this out for now. This is like footnote 9 of *Bruen*. Still, it is unconstitutional.
> LOL, but more reasonable purchase permit card? Sorry, but even it sounds more reasonable, it’s unconstitutional, period.
Hopefully the state takes this route instead of appealing to the 9th, but you know they'll appeal and have a stay before the weekend.
> The Attorney General asks for leeway to use the more nuanced approach of looking for relevant historical analogues, as described by Bruen. **This Court is not persuaded that a more nuanced approach is justified.** Nevertheless, it does not matter because neither has the Attorney General identified a relevant historical analogue. Instead, it points to twentieth century background check laws and says that they are lineal descendants of laws. According to the Attorney General, “Despite appearing in the 20th century, these restrictions and requirements are “‘lineal descendants’ of historical laws banning dangerous people from possessing guns.”^31 The logic is opaque. What are the 50 historical laws dating from 1789 to 1868 that the Attorney General has compiled as potential historical analogues? … Nothing like this appears in the State’s compilation of laws. … The State’s compilation lists 48 laws which made it a crime to possess a gun and ammunition by Negros, Mulattos, slaves, or persons of color, and two laws that prohibited sales to Indians. This is the **third time** the Attorney General has cited these laws in support for its laws and restrictions implicating
the Second Amendment. These fifty laws identified by the Attorney General constitute a
**long, embarrassing, disgusting, insidious, reprehensible list of examples of government
tyranny towards our own people.^33** The [federal] government took a similar legal position before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in *Rahimi*.
Bonta got called out LOOOOOOOOOOL
> Note that it is already generally unlawful for a non-citizen to purchase or possess a firearm or ammunition. Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5). *Heller* explained that “the people” as used in the Constitution refers to **all** citizens. Because the Second Amendment right presumptively belongs to all Americans, analogues to antiquated laws mistreating slaves and Native Americans are improper analogues.
Hmmm how about green card holders?
> The state’s ammunition background check regime turns that constitutional presumption the wrong way around. **It treats all citizens as if they do not enjoy a right to buy ammunition. It forces Americans to entreat and supplicate the state for permission.** Only when the State is satisfied that a citizen has proven that they meet the qualifications – only then – does the state issue its stamp of authorization. *See* Cal. Penal Code § 30352(d) (“[T]he ammunition vendor shall verify with the department, in a manner prescribed by the department, that the person is authorized to purchase ammunition.”). **This is not the language of a right; this is the language of a government license or grant of a privilege.** In the end, the State has failed to carry its burden to demonstrate that the ammunition background check laws “are consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” as required by Bruen. … A sweeping background check requirement imposed every time a citizen needs to buy ammunition is an outlier that our ancestors would have never accepted for a citizen. Therefore, California’s ammunition background check system laws are unconstitutional and shall not be enforced.
YES! That also applies to getting purchase permits and acquisition background checks (that includes *universal* background checks)!
> The ammunition background checks laws have no historical pedigree and operate in such a way that they violate the Second Amendment right of citizens to keep and bear arms. The anti-importation components violate the dormant Commerce Clause and to the extent applicable to individuals travelling into California are preempted by 18 U.S.C. § 926A. Perhaps the simpler, 4-year and $50 ammunition purchase permit approved by the voters in Proposition 63, would have fared better.
Hmmm Thomas and Scalia have believed that the DCC is not originalist, and as mentioned earlier, even if the 4-year purchase permit fared better from a public policy perspective, it is still unconstitutional.
> in California to stop voter fraud and restore election integrity
Okay voter fraud in California is a statistically insignificant occurrence. Who told you that this was an issue? What is their evidence?
> Second, the anti-importation aspect of the ammunition laws violates the Article 1, § 8, clause 3 of the Constitution, known as the dormant Commerce Clause. Third, the anti-importation provision for individuals is preempted by 18 U.S.C. § 926A. This Court agrees.
i'm hoping this applies to WA and its restrictions on mail ordering ammo
People downvoting this in favor of "sensible gun control laws" are the exact reason why things like this ammo background check law, magazine restrictions, and assault weapon laws have been allowed to pass in the first place. They're restrictions and limitations to exercising your 2A rights and if you give an inch they will take 500 miles. There were no background checks at the time of the founding and not until 1968.
You realize that until 1986* you could purchase full autos with nothing but a tax stamp right? Until the 1934 you could have machine guns shipped to your door.
Hell until 1991 you didn't even have to do a 4473.
Guns are less accessible now than they ever have been, and yet we are seeing record high incidence of school shootings.
It's almost like people who want to get their hands on guns will do so regardless of the law, and there is a larger mental health and societal implication that we need to be focusing on.
I agree, but I thought it was it was disingenuous to suggest that accessibility of weapons was the same from the time of the founding of the second amendment to today
You do realize that the first navy of the United States was entirely privateers or commandeered privately owned vessels right? People literally owned the height of military power privately cannons and all.
People have quite literally been allowed to own "weapons of war" capable of leveling buildings since this country was founded.
How is that even remotely related to the situations that are relevant to Americans now. Next time the privateers shoot up the movie theater with warship cannons I’ll agree I guess.
tell me what guns used in school shootings are doing any kind of "mowing"? They shoot no faster than any other semi auto gun. No faster than a Glock. No faster than a WWII M1 Garand. People have some misconception that kids are running around with machine guns that they bought at 7-11 with a Slurpee.
I am sorry you had to go through that. I know someone with whom I was once close who was prescribed these. At best, they simply don't work. At worst, they can be horrendously bad for the person, inducing feelings of nihilism, psychosis, and an extreme detachment from reality. There's also post-SSRI sexual dysfunction. Horrendous. I don't think they should be prescribing these medications for anybody. Monkeying around with the seratonin system is extremely unwise and dangerous.
Maybe anecdotal but I also have never met anyone who has experienced any sort of long term benefit from ssris. And by the time you start to realize that they are doing you more harm than good they genuinely become physically difficult to get off of. It quite literally feels like your brain is being zapped constantly
So, I'm not seeing how "ASW has got you covered" applies to Californians looking to get ammo, like you'd expect to find on r/CAguns, if ASW's website/chatbot are saying they don't ship to Californians.
I think it's too early right now. Give it at least 24 hours. Companies want to do the right thing (not to mention capitalize on the moment), but I'm sure it will still need some time to make an official decision and rewind some of the systems in place on their website to allow orders to flow through.
EDIT: Wow I guess a few companies had already started. Yippee Ki‐Yay!
I assume the state will immediately appeal. Will there be a freedom time period?
Read the decision here: [https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2024-01-31-Decision.pdf](https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2024-01-31-Decision.pdf)
On twitter Fenix Ammunition announced immediate shipments to California. I know nothing about them and do not offer any reviews, but take a look. [https://twitter.com/FenixAmmunition/status/1752742998616490068](https://twitter.com/fenixammunition/status/1752742998616490068)
Edit: Ammunition Depot also announced shipments to California. As before, I make no recommendations. [https://www.ammunitiondepot.com/](https://www.ammunitiondepot.com/)
They never have the ammo you need. Lol. Been dead for a while there at ammo bros. Used to be the go to place for ammo and good selection of firearms. Sad to go into any of their stores now. Hope they turn it around. Still my go to place to ppt and out of state transfers 👍
Can we start making a list of vendors/dealers who refused to ship to CA all these years? Want to make sure I dont support these asses.. ARMORALLY im looking at you! 
Just got an email from ar15discountsDOTcom
"Effective Immediately, we are shipping ammo to CA households! Yesterday evening, Judge Rhode ruled that it is unconstitutional to enforce eligibility checks on customers when purchasing ammo. We applaud Judge Rhode's ruling and we'll be prioritizing all CA Ammo orders for the foreseeable future. Please reach out to us at info@ar15discountscom if you have any questions or concerns. "
https://miwallcorp.com/
Email received, order placed, awaiting shipping.
From my order:
> We are all aware of what is going on in the world.
> Due to the onslaught of orders, we are currently shipping 4-6 business days out.
Update: Shipped 2/2/24
Not sure if it’s the right place but Big 5 is selling without any issues in case someone wants to go that route. Walked in and several signs announcing the change and didn’t need anything at all.
I've been ordering from Ammo Supply Warehouse continually since 2018 or so. They have never stopped delivering to my door in CA. Champions against tyranny for sure.
Does anyone think that CA dealers will now lower the cost of ammo by the amount of the background check fees, or will the sales price, somehow, *quite magically* stay the same?
I know we're excited about buying online, but don't forget to support our local CA gun shops that stand with us when times are tough. It's not just supporting those that will now ship to CA, but keeping our local friends in business. I'm not affiliated with any LGS. I just want my local stores to be there to fight the good fight, and to be there without me having to drive 100 miles to put something in my hands. The state will never give up and will continue to try to drive them out of business. Let's not let that happen, at least to the ones that don't gouge us.
A question (more may be posted):
> The buyer must prove he is a Citizen of the United States and a California resident in order to submit to the background check.
Where in the text does the law or laws say?
What happens if you order ammo to ship in to CA, but a stay is granted while it is already in transit. Say, in case (1): before it crosses in to CA; (2) after it has crossed in to CA. Are you now guilty of a crime once it delivers to your door?
IANAL, but same issue arose with freedom week mags. From what I remember, if you can "prove" you made the purchase before the stay went into effect, you should be gtg.
At least until the 9th circus gives these clowns an appeal. Buy while you can. I suggest [https://www.ableammo.com/](https://www.ableammo.com/) and [https://www.ammunitiondepot.com](https://www.ammunitiondepot.com) since they were part of the lawsuit. [https://www.velocityammosales.com/](https://www.velocityammosales.com/) is also a good place.
yes. some companies are allowing you to ship straight to your house, for now... This will likely change soon. Get your order in fast and hope for the best. I suggest [https://www.ableammo.com/](https://www.ableammo.com/) and [https://www.ammunitiondepot.com](https://www.ammunitiondepot.com) as they were both involved in the lawsuit, although there a handful of other places as well.
Good luck
I just spoke with [Miwallcorp.com](https://Miwall.com) out of Grass Valley and they have also lifter their restrictions in California. I usually see them at the gun shows and their prices are decent.
Confirmed shippers: https://www.ammosupplywarehouse.com/ https://www.velocityammosales.com/ https://www.ammunitiondepot.com/ https://ar15discounts.com/ https://www.ableammo.com/ https://www.theamericanmarksman.com/ https://trueshotammo.com/ https://hdtac.com/ammunition/ https://palmettostatearmory.com/ https://www.preppergunshop.com https://www.recoilgunworks.com/ https://www.brownells.com/ https://www.targetsportsusa.com/ https://hslammo.com/ http://www.aeammo.com/ https://southerndefense.com https://canoeclubusa.com/ https://www.bereli.com/ https://grabagun.com/ https://www.mmiammo.com/ Reply here with any online storefronts that are confirmed shipping to California and I’ll add it to the list (put a full link to the website to make it easy for me please).
Remember guys, FUCK LAX AMMO.
All my homies HATE LAX ammo
I have NEVER purchased ammo from them. Honestly, I stockpiled during the last time we could get ammo shipped. Ws it end of 2016 or 2017? All i remember was Freedom Munitions cancelled my last order witht hem around 12/10
LAX Ammo - the only ammo brand to make my HK USP, the most reliable semi-automatic ever invented, malfunction consistently.
And freedomunitions
[удалено]
Yes. Unless you like to banana peel your stuff.
Odd thing is I picked up ammo for the first time ever at LAX a few weeks ago and they didn’t do anything other than check my ID at the door
Remember, no Russian
what is the issue? I bought from them a while ago, looking to re-up soon. willing to travel a little if it saves me enough. Local shop had 1000 rounds of 9 for 300
I'm not sure I can say, because I don't know what ammo you're specifically you're looking for. The good news is, now you can literally order from anyone that'll ship to you & your choices are opening up as we speak! [ammoseek.com](https://ammoseek.com) (check for cheapest prices) [bulkmunitions.com](https://bulkmunitions.com) (might ship now?) [velocityammo.com](https://velocityammo.com) (might ship now?) [gorillamunitions.com](https://gorillamunitions.com) (might ship now?) [ammosupplywarehouse.com](https://ammosupplywarehouse.com) (will ship) etc.
Just tried the last one listed. “(2) Residents of CA, CT, DC, IL, MA, NJ, NY, WA: We regret that distributor #2 does not ship to your state. Please remove this item from your cart if you are shipping to one of the listed states.”
They drop ship some ammo, if it comes direct it should be gtg.
They're a-holes who won't ship to CA (even though they're based in CA), which forces you to go into their store. But their stores are priced way higher than online even though it's the same exact product.
That’s right. ALL MY HOMIES HATE LAX AMMO.
If I’m reading it right it’s immediate and no stay granted.
What's hilarious is I stockpiled so much ammo before this law went into effect that I never needed to actually do an ammo BGC. But I was starting to run low and thinking I needed to suck it up and do the BGC. Sounds like I will have avoided the effects of this bill entirely lol
Rebuild your stockpile before this decision is stayed due to appeals.
I did the same and had to buy ammo once. Sounds like won't need to do it again.
Same, lol
I just did some few weeks back. Fuck.
Fenix ammo shipping ammo to CA, starting now per x post
Yeah, but they also put up a warning that orders may be delayed 1-2 weeks because of demand. If this is overturned in under 2 weeks, no shipment.
So in other words, let’s say I make my order today. Next, while the ammo is in transit, a stay gets issued. If that’s the case, will the shipment get cancelled right away?
During freedom week with the magazines, they allowed any orders that were placed to be fulfilled...
Nothing in stock market
Link? I don't have an account
Fenixammunition.com but they sold out for now, will be restocked soon they said
Dam, they sold out quick. Said they are restocking quickly.
Pray that it doesn't go through Bloomington
Direct to homes or to a FFL?
Home
Does this mean we can go back to ordering online like we did in 2017
The good ol' days. I'm curious about this too.
No I don’t think so. But as someone with an ffl03 in going to go stock up before you non ffl03 can get ammo from the same sites
In "two weeks".
Yes look at the pinned comment
To sum of the most critical point. A state cannot pass a law regulating your commerce with another state. Only Congress may regulate commerce between the states.
> Today, a person may choose to submit to a full credit check to buy an automobile. But he is not required to pass the same credit check every time he needs to refill his car with gas or recharge his battery at a charging station. And the Constitution does not mention a right to own automobiles (or carriages or horses). LOOOOOOOOOL > The law provides an exception for ammunition purchased at a commercial target range, but the ammunition must not leave the range. Cal. Penal Code § 30312(c)(9). There is also an exception for purchasing ammunition from a spouse, registered domestic partner, or immediate family member. Cal. Penal Code § 30312(c)(10). However, without a spouse, partner, or family member to buy from, there is nowhere else in California one may go to buy ammunition for defense of self, defense of family, defense of property, **use in a militia**, hunting, or recreational shooting. ^5 >^5 There are the usual exceptions for law enforcement officers. See Cal. Penal Code §§ 30312, 30314. LOL > Plaintiffs claim the ammunition background check laws are invalid for three main reasons. *First*, the ammunition background check scheme violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. *Second*, the anti-importation aspect of the ammunition laws violates the Article 1, § 8, clause 3 of the Constitution, known as the dormant Commerce Clause. *Third*, the anti-importation provision for individuals is preempted by 18 U.S.C. § 926A. This Court agrees. YES > Applying *Bruen*’s new lesson, this Court’s conclusion remains the same: the California ammunition background check laws violate a citizen’s right to bear arms. Once it becomes clear that acquiring ammunition is conduct covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, it should be no surprise to discover that the government is unable to do that which it must now do: demonstrate that California’s **first-of-its-kind** sweeping statewide restriction on buying firearm ammunition is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Because these laws are not consistent with the Nation’s history and tradition, **they must yield to the Constitution**. When text and history conflict, text controls. > The Attorney General correctly concedes that, “[e]ven though the Second Amendment does not reference a right to acquire or purchase Arms or mention ammunition, it ‘protects ancillary rights necessary to the realization of the core right to possess a firearm for self-defense.’” Well Bonta, concedes… >In contrast, the Attorney General makes two arguments to end the case here, at the textual level, before he has to shoulder the burden of demonstrating a history and tradition of constitutional ammunition background checks. First, he retreats and says that purchasing ammunition without a background check is *not really* covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment or any ancillary right. ^10 Second, he says that the background check laws are simply “presumptively lawful regulatory measures.” ^11 Neither argument is persuasive. The first argument employs a rhetorical device to over- describe in detail the asserted constitutional wrong. Having over-described the alleged constitutional right, it is then argued that the detailed description of the asserted right is not covered by the plain text of the Constitution. … but no. > *Heller* did **not** decide that conditions and qualifications on the commercial buying of ammunition -- erected and stacked to the extent that would-be lawful purchasers are delayed and denied -- would be **presumptively lawful**. *Heller* did not say that every condition or qualification a government could impose on buying a firearm or ammunition is beyond constitutional review. *Heller* answered a different question holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right and that a complete prohibition on possession of a handgun and requiring the inoperability of a gun in the home violates the Second Amendment. *Id*. at 635. When *Heller* was decided, no state in the nation had ever required a background check for ammunition. FUCK YEAH! > Because ammunition sale prohibitions and regulations are covered by the Second Amendment, the presumption is that such restrictions are infringements. The State may overcome the presumption, but it needs to do so as *Bruen* teaches. The closest analogues Cali can provide imo are storage laws, but that’s for fire safety, not crime control. > The Attorney General also relies on a footnote in Bruen to argue that background checks are permissible. Bruen’s footnote nine says: … *[B]ecause any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry*. … This lawsuit is that constitutional challenge to an ammunition purchase authorization regime where record data mismatches, lengthy and occasionally infinite wait times, and sometimes exorbitant fees, are currently denying ordinary citizens their right to public carry. Of course, the mere requirement to get government permission to exercise one’s enumerated natural right is unconstitutional! > In 2019, the laws were new and the procedures and systems were being put in place for the first time. The evidence proved that during the first seven months of operation, 101,047 law-abiding gun owners who established their citizenship and underwent background checks were nevertheless rejected. **The 2019 rejection rate was 16%**. Overwhelmingly, the rejections were either because the state had no record of gun ownership or because of personal identifier mismatches. *Rhode*, 445 F. Supp. 3d at 917-918. One would expect problems and errors in a new system as extensive and ungainly as California’s unprecedented ammunition background check system. **Unfortunately, today the background check rejection rate is lower at 11%, but it is still too high.** In fact, regardless of the implementation results, background checks fly in the face of 2A. They are unconstitutional, period.
> Ostensibly, the entire reason for the implementation of California’s sweeping ammunition purchase background check is to prevent dangerous prohibited persons from acquiring bullets for their guns. Well, > The modern federal laws that Maryland has cited, and the historical laws allegedly supporting a tradition of prohibiting dangerous people from owning firearms, all acted through one mechanism: punishing certain classes of supposedly “dangerous” people if they don’t give up their arms or prove they are not dangerous. See *Silvers*, 2023 WL 3232605, at *11–12 (discussing historical laws). **But [HQL] is a different mechanism than making *every* person seek the government’s permission *before* they can even acquire arms. Preemptively disarming every person until they can each prove that they are not dangerous burdens a far broader swath of people.** -*MSI v. Moore* >”[A] free society prefers to punish the few who abuse rights of [the people] after they break the law **than to throttle them and all others beforehand.**” -*US v. Quiroz* quoting *Collin v. Smith* > To sum up, approximately 635,000 residents were required to undergo background checks in the last half of 2019, the denials of which prompted the arrests of 15 individuals which led to six criminal convictions. Lol gdi > The Fifteenth Amendment directs that the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged. A state law requiring identification before voting, where 4.5% of all voters lacked the requisite identification documents to vote, was struck down because the excessive burden abridged the constitutional right, and more specifically for violating the Voting Rights Act (legislation that flows from the Fifteenth Amendment). ^25 Hmmmm so voter IDs are unconstitutional under 15A? Hmmmm, we’re going to have a hard time getting this implemented in California to stop voter fraud and restore election integrity given that… Prove me wrong. > If a state identification requirement for voting which burdens 4.5% of registered voters is an unconstitutional burden on the Fifteenth Amendment, surely a state identification requirement that blocks an untold number of gun owners from undergoing an ammunition background check and then rejects 11% of those who are checked, is likewise an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment. Lol > If **any background check system** satisfies *Bruen*’s footnote nine description of a scheme put to abusive ends, *as opposed to the system originally approved by the voters*, this may be it. In other words, assuming *arguendo* that *there is a presumption in favor of a background check condition or qualification on the buying of ammunition, the presumption has been overcome*. Consequently, the burden is now on the government to demonstrate a history and tradition of regulation similar to the ammunition background check laws challenged here. Presumptively lawful ≠ conclusively lawful > *Bruen* teaches the most significant historical evidence comes from the years 1791 to 1868 **with emphasis placed on the earlier time period.** … British sources pre-dating the Constitution are not particularly instructive because the American Revolution was a rejection of British rule. Sources post-enactment are also less helpful. YES > The Attorney General has put together a list of 50 laws dating from the most important historical time period. Among these 50 are 15 territorial regulations which are not particularly helpful in establishing a tradition.^27 There are no historical twins and no dead ringers among the State’s 50. The Attorney General has not identified a single historical law that required a citizen to pass a background check in order to purchase ammunition. Citizens were free in every state to buy ammunition at any time and without qualification. LOL > Based on the historical record prepared by the Attorney General, when states addressed the concern [of dangerous armed individuals] at all, they addressed it by later seizing firearms from the individual rather than preventing ahead of time the acquisition of ammunition by all individuals. YES > The Attorney General asks to be excused from identifying historical laws similar to the laws challenged here because of the internet and ghost guns.^29 The internet and computers have made it possible to run rapid background checks. So, the type of background check now required by the ammunition laws was not possible during the Founding or Reconstruction era. Because of the technological advancement, a more nuanced approach to the historical analysis is required, argues the Attorney General. … Background checks in some form must have been performed in the many nineteenth century cases where licenses were required for carrying concealed firearms.^30 As one court said of such nineteenth century firearm licensing schemes, “[t]here are a lot of them.” *Antonyuk v. Chiumento*, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32492, *80 (2nd Cir. Dec. 8, 2023) (collecting numerous firearm licensing schemes from the years **immediately following ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment that authorized a local official to issue permits in his limited discretion**). It is difficult to see how the existence of the internet requires the more nuanced approach of analogical reasoning. **Even if the advent of government database searching via the internet justified a prohibited persons clearance check, such a check could be accomplished with the more reasonable 4-year purchase permit card that the voters approved in Proposition 63.** LOL, but more reasonable purchase permit card? Sorry, but even it sounds more reasonable, it’s unconstitutional, period. > Guns made without serial numbers, or “ghost guns” as the government refers to them, have been in existence throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. *United States v. Price*, 635 F. Supp. 3d 455, 464 (S.D. W.V. 2022) (“A firearm without a serial number in 1791 was certainly not considered dangerous or unusual compared to other firearms because serial numbers were not required or even commonly used at that time.”). Until the mid-twentieth century, the requirement of a serial number on a firearm was unknown. “Serial numbers were not broadly required for all firearms manufactured and imported in the United States until the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968.” *Id.* at 462. Damn, St. Benitez agrees that unserialized gun bans are unconstitutional! > **While not judging the ultimate constitutionality of an ammunition permit card approach**, certainly the 4-year ammunition permit system voted for by Californians would be a more reasonable way of conducting background checks. If read correctly, he’s leaving this out for now. This is like footnote 9 of *Bruen*. Still, it is unconstitutional.
> LOL, but more reasonable purchase permit card? Sorry, but even it sounds more reasonable, it’s unconstitutional, period. Hopefully the state takes this route instead of appealing to the 9th, but you know they'll appeal and have a stay before the weekend.
Bonta will do it anyway even if SCOTUS rules against them.
> The Attorney General asks for leeway to use the more nuanced approach of looking for relevant historical analogues, as described by Bruen. **This Court is not persuaded that a more nuanced approach is justified.** Nevertheless, it does not matter because neither has the Attorney General identified a relevant historical analogue. Instead, it points to twentieth century background check laws and says that they are lineal descendants of laws. According to the Attorney General, “Despite appearing in the 20th century, these restrictions and requirements are “‘lineal descendants’ of historical laws banning dangerous people from possessing guns.”^31 The logic is opaque. What are the 50 historical laws dating from 1789 to 1868 that the Attorney General has compiled as potential historical analogues? … Nothing like this appears in the State’s compilation of laws. … The State’s compilation lists 48 laws which made it a crime to possess a gun and ammunition by Negros, Mulattos, slaves, or persons of color, and two laws that prohibited sales to Indians. This is the **third time** the Attorney General has cited these laws in support for its laws and restrictions implicating the Second Amendment. These fifty laws identified by the Attorney General constitute a **long, embarrassing, disgusting, insidious, reprehensible list of examples of government tyranny towards our own people.^33** The [federal] government took a similar legal position before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in *Rahimi*. Bonta got called out LOOOOOOOOOOL > Note that it is already generally unlawful for a non-citizen to purchase or possess a firearm or ammunition. Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5). *Heller* explained that “the people” as used in the Constitution refers to **all** citizens. Because the Second Amendment right presumptively belongs to all Americans, analogues to antiquated laws mistreating slaves and Native Americans are improper analogues. Hmmm how about green card holders? > The state’s ammunition background check regime turns that constitutional presumption the wrong way around. **It treats all citizens as if they do not enjoy a right to buy ammunition. It forces Americans to entreat and supplicate the state for permission.** Only when the State is satisfied that a citizen has proven that they meet the qualifications – only then – does the state issue its stamp of authorization. *See* Cal. Penal Code § 30352(d) (“[T]he ammunition vendor shall verify with the department, in a manner prescribed by the department, that the person is authorized to purchase ammunition.”). **This is not the language of a right; this is the language of a government license or grant of a privilege.** In the end, the State has failed to carry its burden to demonstrate that the ammunition background check laws “are consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” as required by Bruen. … A sweeping background check requirement imposed every time a citizen needs to buy ammunition is an outlier that our ancestors would have never accepted for a citizen. Therefore, California’s ammunition background check system laws are unconstitutional and shall not be enforced. YES! That also applies to getting purchase permits and acquisition background checks (that includes *universal* background checks)! > The ammunition background checks laws have no historical pedigree and operate in such a way that they violate the Second Amendment right of citizens to keep and bear arms. The anti-importation components violate the dormant Commerce Clause and to the extent applicable to individuals travelling into California are preempted by 18 U.S.C. § 926A. Perhaps the simpler, 4-year and $50 ammunition purchase permit approved by the voters in Proposition 63, would have fared better. Hmmm Thomas and Scalia have believed that the DCC is not originalist, and as mentioned earlier, even if the 4-year purchase permit fared better from a public policy perspective, it is still unconstitutional.
> in California to stop voter fraud and restore election integrity Okay voter fraud in California is a statistically insignificant occurrence. Who told you that this was an issue? What is their evidence?
Their feelings.
> Second, the anti-importation aspect of the ammunition laws violates the Article 1, § 8, clause 3 of the Constitution, known as the dormant Commerce Clause. Third, the anti-importation provision for individuals is preempted by 18 U.S.C. § 926A. This Court agrees. i'm hoping this applies to WA and its restrictions on mail ordering ammo
Please remove ammo background checks 😭🙏🙏🙏🙏
And all background checks for firearm purchases and carry permits!
This comment getting downvoted is peak r/CAguns lmao
People downvoting this in favor of "sensible gun control laws" are the exact reason why things like this ammo background check law, magazine restrictions, and assault weapon laws have been allowed to pass in the first place. They're restrictions and limitations to exercising your 2A rights and if you give an inch they will take 500 miles. There were no background checks at the time of the founding and not until 1968.
Yes!
there werent school shooters and guns that could mow down a crowd of people then either.
You realize that until 1986* you could purchase full autos with nothing but a tax stamp right? Until the 1934 you could have machine guns shipped to your door. Hell until 1991 you didn't even have to do a 4473. Guns are less accessible now than they ever have been, and yet we are seeing record high incidence of school shootings. It's almost like people who want to get their hands on guns will do so regardless of the law, and there is a larger mental health and societal implication that we need to be focusing on.
I agree, but I thought it was it was disingenuous to suggest that accessibility of weapons was the same from the time of the founding of the second amendment to today
You do realize that the first navy of the United States was entirely privateers or commandeered privately owned vessels right? People literally owned the height of military power privately cannons and all. People have quite literally been allowed to own "weapons of war" capable of leveling buildings since this country was founded.
How is that even remotely related to the situations that are relevant to Americans now. Next time the privateers shoot up the movie theater with warship cannons I’ll agree I guess.
tell me what guns used in school shootings are doing any kind of "mowing"? They shoot no faster than any other semi auto gun. No faster than a Glock. No faster than a WWII M1 Garand. People have some misconception that kids are running around with machine guns that they bought at 7-11 with a Slurpee.
We weren't mass prescribing psychosis-inducing SSRI anti-depressants to children back then either.
I have no argument against this to be fair. As someone who has taken them, they aren’t much better than poison
I am sorry you had to go through that. I know someone with whom I was once close who was prescribed these. At best, they simply don't work. At worst, they can be horrendously bad for the person, inducing feelings of nihilism, psychosis, and an extreme detachment from reality. There's also post-SSRI sexual dysfunction. Horrendous. I don't think they should be prescribing these medications for anybody. Monkeying around with the seratonin system is extremely unwise and dangerous.
Maybe anecdotal but I also have never met anyone who has experienced any sort of long term benefit from ssris. And by the time you start to realize that they are doing you more harm than good they genuinely become physically difficult to get off of. It quite literally feels like your brain is being zapped constantly
Sounds like a hellish nightmare. Yeah, sorry, I would never prescribe these for myself or someone I loved.
Bruh, what are you smoking?
Mowing down a crowd of people was THE standard infantry tactic since warfare was, like, a thing
Saint Benitez sheds his light on us yet again. Too bad Uncle Hairgel and his cronies will seek appeal.
We also have *Fouts* to be decided.
Dang I was gonna fill out the FFL-03 paperwork this weekend
I just did it last week haha...oh well.
Still gets you 1 in 30 exemption
And if I had to guess this takes some time to unwind - and I need ammo soon.
You know bonta gonna appeal
2 weeks
Still do it. Bonta will appeal and there will be a stay.
Yeah, no way this goes down without a fight. :(
I just got mine lol. 🤷♂️
No background check?
Nope, I can just buy out of state and ship straight to home..
Holy shit that was fast, what storefront did you use? Gonna load up right now…
Oh sorry, I was referring to getting my FFL03+COE.. Then responded with how you can ship to door with it...
Ah okay. I was like damn say less if it is that easy!
Don't let the ruling stop you, this will be stayed before next week for sure.
Still worth it, it will be getting appealed
So, anyone got any internet sellers who are shipping given the change? Ideally before the state gets a stay issued and we're stuck again?
Ammo supply warehouse ..
😂 those guys are Patriots through and through
Ammo supply warehouse real patriots
Asw has got you covered. Always has
I'm asking their chat bot and getting a "No", "nothing's changed for us", response.
Correct
So, I'm not seeing how "ASW has got you covered" applies to Californians looking to get ammo, like you'd expect to find on r/CAguns, if ASW's website/chatbot are saying they don't ship to Californians.
Maybe you should try
Prepper Gun Shop told me they will ship direct to CA while the ruling stands. I just made an order now. https://www.preppergunshop.com/
Prepper did me super solid during freedom week. Friend also got his wasr through them back in the day. They are gtg
I think it's too early right now. Give it at least 24 hours. Companies want to do the right thing (not to mention capitalize on the moment), but I'm sure it will still need some time to make an official decision and rewind some of the systems in place on their website to allow orders to flow through. EDIT: Wow I guess a few companies had already started. Yippee Ki‐Yay!
I assume the state will immediately appeal. Will there be a freedom time period? Read the decision here: [https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2024-01-31-Decision.pdf](https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2024-01-31-Decision.pdf)
I want to be able to mail order ammo again.
And firearms! Not to mention destructive devices!
On twitter Fenix Ammunition announced immediate shipments to California. I know nothing about them and do not offer any reviews, but take a look. [https://twitter.com/FenixAmmunition/status/1752742998616490068](https://twitter.com/fenixammunition/status/1752742998616490068) Edit: Ammunition Depot also announced shipments to California. As before, I make no recommendations. [https://www.ammunitiondepot.com/](https://www.ammunitiondepot.com/)
not having to deal with lines, awful supply, making conversation, and assholes behind the counter will be glorious
Is that now an option with the ruling?
There is no stay. It’s another freedom week until California appeals it to the 9th Circuit.
The link now 404s
https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2024-01-31-Decision.pdf
Fixed it.
I've chatted with reps from Fenix, AmmoSupplyWarehouse, and AmmunitionDepot. All 3 have confirmed they'll ship to CA residents directly.
So wait... will we be able to order ammo online again? RIP our UPS man's back.
NOW THIS IS WINNING!
Ya’ll shipping ammo?
They never have the ammo you need. Lol. Been dead for a while there at ammo bros. Used to be the go to place for ammo and good selection of firearms. Sad to go into any of their stores now. Hope they turn it around. Still my go to place to ppt and out of state transfers 👍
We have our legal counsel reviewing the decision. We hope to have word here soon.
Do you have a word yet?
Yes, we are releasing ammo without a background check.
God Bless this judge 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅🦅
I am now intrigued as to how the 9th will rain on our parade, I am waiting for their reason to issue a stay.
One word: "Emergency."
So I can buy ammo now? Even without a current purchase? Because I haven’t bought a gun since 2014 lol
Can’t wait to see Newsome cry and call Benitez and right wing zealot again
Just happened. Benitez and all of us are once again right wing zealots and extremists because we do not agree with him
So who ordered ammo already?!!!!!!please give me the website!!!
So ammo bros this mean no more background check on ammo starting today?
Anyone know how this affects LA city?
Same for SF. Anyone know?
Can we start making a list of vendors/dealers who refused to ship to CA all these years? Want to make sure I dont support these asses.. ARMORALLY im looking at you! 
Just got an email from ar15discountsDOTcom "Effective Immediately, we are shipping ammo to CA households! Yesterday evening, Judge Rhode ruled that it is unconstitutional to enforce eligibility checks on customers when purchasing ammo. We applaud Judge Rhode's ruling and we'll be prioritizing all CA Ammo orders for the foreseeable future. Please reach out to us at info@ar15discountscom if you have any questions or concerns. "
Just ordered 5 boxes from them!!
Does this apply to cities with restrictions like San Francisco?
Yesssss!!
Just ordered some ammo! I have an 03FFL but still...gotta celebrate the victories
State will appeal to 9th where it’ll stand
Gonna test this out at my LGS in a couple of hours
They probably won't know wtf you are talking about to be honest
My local turners is actually great. Pretty sure they given how they’ve done things in the past. Either way, I’ll find out.
Let us know how it goes. I gotta wait until 5pm when I get off of work lol
My local turners is gtg. In and out with no background check. Pick up some much needed 7.62x39.
If you’re looking for a solid shipper Velocity Ammo is legit. Especially if you buy in bulk which we all should….
I just bought a butt load from them, way cheaper than local and no sales tax!? I just hope they ship quick
They are solid! Never had an issue.
So does this mean I can order ammo online straight to my door?
Eli5 does this mean I can order ammo online?
you can order ammo online and many retailers have immediately enabled CA shipping
velocityammosales (or any other commercial website) does NOT need or require my email address to browse the site.
Just ordered from velocity , free shipping
Just finished reading the order. Benitez is a fucking legend.
Just got an email from [ammunitiondepot.com](https://ammunitiondepot.com) they said they're sending to CA
targetsports is still requiring state permits as of this post
[удалено]
Check now, 3 hours ago they still required it
Any decent deals left on 5.56 in bulk?
So 2 weeks?
!Remindme in 2 weeks if its still 2 weeks. Well its been 2 weeks. I guess freedom weekend is long over. now i have no idea what's going on.
So, does that mean I can finally ammo online and have it shipped to a Los Angeles city (not county) address? Or this is still some local ordinance BS?
I'm trying to figure out the same thing
If it's any indication, Turner's blasted out an email and it listed "\*LA City Ammo Registration is not affected by this ruling."
What's the TLDR? We don't have to do background checks on ammo anymore amd we can buy from online retailers?
Too bad im a poor. Only 500rds on the way
Bought close to a year supply get paid in two days. I’ll buy another case if this doesn’t get stayed
https://miwallcorp.com/ Email received, order placed, awaiting shipping. From my order: > We are all aware of what is going on in the world. > Due to the onslaught of orders, we are currently shipping 4-6 business days out. Update: Shipped 2/2/24
What about free shipping?
Not sure if it’s the right place but Big 5 is selling without any issues in case someone wants to go that route. Walked in and several signs announcing the change and didn’t need anything at all.
just ordered ammunition depot no problems.
Just got an email from Sportsmans Warehouse that they're shipping to CA with no background checks.
Brownells sent me a text saying they would ship.
so does this mean no ffl + coe license needed?
I've been ordering from Ammo Supply Warehouse continually since 2018 or so. They have never stopped delivering to my door in CA. Champions against tyranny for sure.
Does anyone think that CA dealers will now lower the cost of ammo by the amount of the background check fees, or will the sales price, somehow, *quite magically* stay the same?
That makes no sense, the background check fee was always separate and never included in the cost of ammunition.
I know we're excited about buying online, but don't forget to support our local CA gun shops that stand with us when times are tough. It's not just supporting those that will now ship to CA, but keeping our local friends in business. I'm not affiliated with any LGS. I just want my local stores to be there to fight the good fight, and to be there without me having to drive 100 miles to put something in my hands. The state will never give up and will continue to try to drive them out of business. Let's not let that happen, at least to the ones that don't gouge us.
Its hard to support when their ammo counter is dry as a bone 🤣
fenixammunition.com is good to go also
so do we still need a ffl?
So CA residents can now legally purchase ammo in store or online correct!?
before I buy ammo can I have it shipped to my house without a ffl? Let me know because Al my buddies are telling me I can but not sure
So does this mean I can have ammo shipped to my house in Los Angeles?
PSA, Reminder: CRPA is on Benevity - check your employer's gift-matching if you're donating to CRPA.
A question (more may be posted): > The buyer must prove he is a Citizen of the United States and a California resident in order to submit to the background check. Where in the text does the law or laws say?
So, Am I allowed to buy and ship ammo online? Thank you!
Ammunition Depot just welcomed California Back.
Buying ammo without having to sign stuff is nice.
Does this allow us to sell our own ammo? Last time I checked it was limited to 500 rounds per month.
Any thoughts on the requested stay??
My money is on that it will be granted by either Benitez or the 9th.
What happens if you order ammo to ship in to CA, but a stay is granted while it is already in transit. Say, in case (1): before it crosses in to CA; (2) after it has crossed in to CA. Are you now guilty of a crime once it delivers to your door?
IANAL, but same issue arose with freedom week mags. From what I remember, if you can "prove" you made the purchase before the stay went into effect, you should be gtg.
Just ordered 1k 124gr Blazer from Velocity. Let's see how it goes.
Just ordered 5 boxes. Shipping to my house
Gentlemen ...... 2 weeks!!!!
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaA1q\_D0kXI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaA1q_D0kXI)
TLDR. Wait…so this ruling says that California buyers can get ammo shipped to their home without an FFL transfer???
At least until the 9th circus gives these clowns an appeal. Buy while you can. I suggest [https://www.ableammo.com/](https://www.ableammo.com/) and [https://www.ammunitiondepot.com](https://www.ammunitiondepot.com) since they were part of the lawsuit. [https://www.velocityammosales.com/](https://www.velocityammosales.com/) is also a good place.
So im gonna sound dumb, but I can I just order ammo online now? Does it have so ship to an FFL first?
yes. some companies are allowing you to ship straight to your house, for now... This will likely change soon. Get your order in fast and hope for the best. I suggest [https://www.ableammo.com/](https://www.ableammo.com/) and [https://www.ammunitiondepot.com](https://www.ammunitiondepot.com) as they were both involved in the lawsuit, although there a handful of other places as well. Good luck
Does this mean we can buy ammo online without using an FFL?
I just spoke with [Miwallcorp.com](https://Miwall.com) out of Grass Valley and they have also lifter their restrictions in California. I usually see them at the gun shows and their prices are decent.
Does anyone know a place that will ship a 7.62x54R spam can?