Judge blocks California from requiring background checks to buy ammunition

Sections

AR-15 style rifles are displayed for sale at Firearms Unknown, a gun store in Oceanside, California, U.S., April 12, 2021. REUTERS/Bing Guan

(Article by Jonathan Stempel republished from YourNews.com)

Jan 31 (Reuters) – California cannot enforce a law requiring people to undergo background checks to buy ammunition, because it violates the constitutional right to bear arms, a federal judge has ruled.

In a decision made public on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego said the background checks have “no historical pedigree,” and violate the Second Amendment by treating all citizens as having no right to buy ammunition.

“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,” wrote Benitez, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush.

Benitez also faulted California’s handling of the more than 1 million background checks for ammunition conducted annually, calling the 11% rejection rate “too high.”

The offices of California Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, both Democrats who supported the background checks, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Plaintiffs in the case included Kim Rhode, who has won three Olympic gold medals in shooting events, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association.

Chuck Michel, the group’s president and general counsel, called the decision a “big win,” saying California had “blocked many eligible people from getting the ammunition they need, which is the true political intent behind most of these laws.”

Human knowledge is under attack! Governments and powerful corporations are using censorship to wipe out humanity's knowledge base about nutrition, herbs, self-reliance, natural immunity, food production, preparedness and much more. We are preserving human knowledge using AI technology while building the infrastructure of human freedom. Use our decentralized, blockchain-based, uncensorable free speech platform at Brighteon.io. Explore our free, downloadable generative AI tools at Brighteon.AI. Support our efforts to build the infrastructure of human freedom by shopping at HealthRangerStore.com, featuring lab-tested, certified organic, non-GMO foods and nutritional solutions.

California voters had in 2016 approved a ballot measure requiring gun owners to undergo initial background checks to buy ammunition, and pay $50 for a four-year ammunition permit.

Legislators amended the measure to require background checks for each ammunition purchase, starting in 2019.

NO HISTORICAL ANALOGUES

Benitez rejected California’s reliance on dozens of laws dating back to 1789 as “historical analogues” for ammunition checks, including restrictions on ammunition possession by enslaved people, Indians and others.

The judge said it made little sense to argue that “these repugnant historical examples of prejudice and bigotry” against people who were not afforded constitutional rights justified similar restrictions now against people who enjoy those rights.

Federal courts have issued divergent Second Amendment rulings since a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision that expanded the right of people to arm themselves in public.

The court said judges shouldn’t use the normal way of assessing a law’s constitutionality when assessing firearms restrictions, and should instead see if they were “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

Benitez has drawn criticism from Newsom for multiple decisions favoring firearms owners, including a Sept. 2023 ruling that California’s ban on high-capacity gun magazines was unconstitutional.

The judge had blocked California’s background checks requirement in April 2020. A federal appeals court asked him to revisit that ruling in light of the 2022 Supreme Court decision.

Benitez stopped short of endorsing the four-year ammunition permit, but said it would be “a more reasonable constitutional approach than the current scheme.”

The case is Rhode et al v Bonta U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, No. 18-00802.

Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York Editing by Leslie Adler and Bill Berkrot