Federal Court Strikes Down California’s Ammo Background Check Law
The post Federal Court Strikes Down California’s Ammo Background Check Law appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. In a major victory for the Second Amendment, on Thursday, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals struck down a first-of-its-kind law that required a background check before every purchase of ammunition in California. “By subjecting Californians to background checks for all ammunition purchases,” Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote for the majority in Rhode v. Bonta, “California’s ammunition background check regime infringes on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.” PETALUMA, CA – APRIL 02: Rounds of .223 rifle ammuntion sits on the counter at Sportsmans Arms on … More April 2, 2013 in Petaluma, California. (Photo Illustration by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images) Getty Images California’s regime dates back to 2016, when California voters approved Proposition 63 by a margin of almost 2:1. Under the proposition, residents would pass an initial background check and then receive a four-year permit to purchase ammunition. However, California lawmakers amended the law to only allow ammunition purchases in-person and after a background check each time. By requiring face-to-face transactions, California also banned both online sales and prohibited Californians from buying ammunition out-of-state. Prior to California’s regime taking effect in July 2019, multiple plaintiffs, including Olympic gold medalist Kim Rhode and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, sued the state in 2018. To determine if California’s law was constitutional under the Second Amendment, the Ninth Circuit relied on a two-step test set by the Supreme Court in its 2022 landmark ruling, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. Under that decision’s framework, “when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.” If so, the government must then show that “the regulation is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” In the California case, the Ninth Circuit determined that the Second Amendment protects “operable” arms, and…
The post Federal Court Strikes Down California’s Ammo Background Check Law appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com.
In a major victory for the Second Amendment, on Thursday, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals struck down a first-of-its-kind law that required a background check before every purchase of ammunition in California. “By subjecting Californians to background checks for all ammunition purchases,” Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote for the majority in Rhode v. Bonta, “California’s ammunition background check regime infringes on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.” PETALUMA, CA – APRIL 02: Rounds of .223 rifle ammuntion sits on the counter at Sportsmans Arms on … More April 2, 2013 in Petaluma, California. (Photo Illustration by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images) Getty Images California’s regime dates back to 2016, when California voters approved Proposition 63 by a margin of almost 2:1. Under the proposition, residents would pass an initial background check and then receive a four-year permit to purchase ammunition. However, California lawmakers amended the law to only allow ammunition purchases in-person and after a background check each time. By requiring face-to-face transactions, California also banned both online sales and prohibited Californians from buying ammunition out-of-state. Prior to California’s regime taking effect in July 2019, multiple plaintiffs, including Olympic gold medalist Kim Rhode and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, sued the state in 2018. To determine if California’s law was constitutional under the Second Amendment, the Ninth Circuit relied on a two-step test set by the Supreme Court in its 2022 landmark ruling, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. Under that decision’s framework, “when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.” If so, the government must then show that “the regulation is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” In the California case, the Ninth Circuit determined that the Second Amendment protects “operable” arms, and…
What's Your Reaction?
