Judge tosses California ammunition purchase law

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020-04-23-Order-Granting-MPI.pdf

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.In this action, Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction enjoining California’s onerous and convoluted new laws requiring ammunition purchase background checks and implementing ammunition anti-importation laws. For the reasons that follow, the motion for preliminary injunction is granted.

The purported state interest to be achieved by these new laws is keeping ammunition out of the hands of prohibited Californians. These new laws are constitutionally defective for several reasons. First, criminals, tyrants, and terrorists don’t do background checks. 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.Second, the implementing regulations systematically prohibit or deter an untold number of law-abiding California citizen-residents from undergoing the required background checks. Third, in the seven months since implementation, the standard background check rejected citizen-residents who are not prohibited persons approximately 16.4 % of the time. Fourth, the ammunition anti-importation laws directly violate the federal dormant Commerce Clause.

In short, uncomplicated, easy to understand terms, the state of California cannot force private individuals to submit to background checks for ammunition purchases; not even on the justification that it is to keep ammunition out of the possession of those who cannot legally possess firearms.

 

Last I read, CA has not appealed.

 

Likely they knew that they were going to lose.

 

Last night the Ninth Circuit stayed the lower courts order, so for now it's back to business as usual in Califailure, background checks are still required until this winds it way through the courts.

U.S. Circuit Court Stays Preliminary Injunction of California’s Prop 63 Ammunition Background Check Laws
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an emergency administrative stay last night halting a preliminary injunction against California’s Prop 63 ammunition background check laws. For now, ammunition purchases are again subject to a face-to-face sale by a licensed vendor and a background check, and internet drop-shipment sales direct to consumers are not permitted until an appeal can be heard.

The situation returns to the status quo that existed before U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez granted a preliminary injunction blocking California’s ammunition background checks requirement and anti-importation laws, calling it “onerous and convoluted.” The case was brought by the California Rifle and Pistol Association and six-time Olympic medalist shooter Kim Rhode. The laws are part of Proposition 63, which also brought a magazine ban to California. That too was struck by Judge Benitez which was later stayed upon appeal. NSSF® filed an amicus brief on the magazine ban case.

Judge Benitez didn’t mince words in his decision, stating “California’s new ammunition background check law misfires, and the Second Amendment rights of California citizens have been gravely injured,” he wrote. “Criminals, tyrants and terrorists don’t do background checks.”

Yesterday, Judge Benitez denied California Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s motion to stay the injunction.

“The Attorney General has conceded that the right to purchase and acquire ammunition is a right protected by the Second Amendment” Judge Benitez wrote in his three-page denial of the motion. “That is an understanding consistent with Ninth Circuit decisions. Furthermore, as discussed in its preliminary injunction order, this Court found Plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success on the merits.”

Attorney General Becerra immediately filed an emergency motion with the 9th Circuit to stay Judge Benitez’s order which was granted last night.

For now at least, Californians continue to be burdened with a flawed and unconstitutional background check system that has been riddled with errors to purchase ammunition.

http://www2.nssf.org/webmail/127421...4b1932a41fee9324839c605022100c7d12b610878041e

 

So what is the difference in buying ammo in CA vs driving over the border to Arizona and buying tons of it??? Do you see the idiotic thinking of the CA government?

 

California has put into the statutes doing so is a violation of their registration program, if anyone is caught bringing ammo into CA they will be charged with a felony.

 

The Wheels Of "Justice" were well greased on this one.

I always notice how these temporary decisions from the courts always play out to default toward the benefit of the oppressive law. You would think the whole purpose for their existence would be the exact opposite of that.

If there’s a question as to whether we can restrict people’s rights in some way (ridiculous question, I know), wouldn’t you think the default should be to NOT restrict rights until that question has a definite answer?

Read more: https://www.nraila.org/articles/202...y-reinstating-ammo-restrictions#ixzz6KpVO0jEp

 

Perhaps it is time for the ninth circuit court of appeals to the united states to simply do away with formality, and simply rule the governor of the nation of California has absolute authority in determining which legislation is and is not constitutional, so it no longer has to act as if it were impartial.

 

Damn Straight.

We are filling the Judiciary with Originalists rather than Consequentialists and it's having an impact.

CIVIL RIGHTS UPDATE: California Ammunition Purchase Law Shut Down by Federal Judge.

“In truth, red tape and the state’s disastrous database errors made it impossible for hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Californians to purchase ammunition for sport or self-defense. The Court found that the flimsy reasons offered by the government to justify these Constitutional infringements … woefully inadequate.”​

If you can’t get ammo for it, you aren’t bearing a firearm — you’re the holder of an over-engineered club.

 

I understand where you are coming from, but in the courts, law suits such as this one are "innocent until proven guilty by a preponderance of the evidence," therefore the State of California must be considered innocent for now.

I don't like it and many others don't as well, but if the tables where turned, wouldn't want applied to you in the same manner?

 

Not so long ago that could have been a possibility because of Legislating from the Bench, Trump, like or not, has changed of the Ninth Circus, as they where known, his appointments to that court has pushed it to more closer to a Constitutional based court, versus a political court.

 

The states innocense of writing oppressive laws holds precedence over the inalienable right(s) of the people?

I'm glad you aren't the one sitting on the bench.

 

I didn't say that, however the Defendant in a Court of Law must be considered innocent, regardless of the alleged crime, be they mass murders or Constitutional or natural rights attackers.

Why? I fully support the Constitution and would rule against California's ban.

 

That is only if you get caught. The principe of the question stays the same

 

It didn't last long.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/202...uit-issues-stay-reinstating-ammo-restrictions

 

Agreed. The "defendant" in this case is those defending inalienable rights. Defending the rule of oppression doesn't make one a "defendant".

Just as long as you do so in a Constitutional way.

I'm no scholar of the U.S. Constitution but I'm way better than most.

See Article 4, Section 4.

 

From what I have read about this matter I would decide against California, now that's not to say all the information is not out and after reading all of it I might decide differently.

The other problem I have, to me California, when it comes to the Second equals unconstitutional in all possible ways, it's as if their Legislators consider themselves to be above the Constitution of the United States and they can ignore any part of it as they wish.

 

Considering the attitudes of certain individuals present on this forum and beyond, such a belief would hardly be surprising. They have already violated federal laws relating to immigration and marijuana, why should the bill of rights be any different?

 

That is why stupid laws like this belong in the states, not in federal government.