A federal judge in California has issued a permanent injunction blocking the enforcement of a state law mandating background checks for every ammunition purchase.
The ruling on Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, a George W. Bush appointee, marked a victory for gun rights advocates who argued that the law infringed on the Second Amendment rights of citizens. It means that California residents are not required to undergo a background check every time they purchase bullets.
The law in question is part of a set of stricter gun regulations that California voters approved in 2016 under a ballot measure known as Proposition 63. Initially, the law required residents to undergo a criminal background check and pay $50 for a permit that lasted for four years if they wanted to purchase ammunition.
However, before the proposition was passed, state lawmakers added a new provision that required gun owners to submit a background check every time they wanted to buy ammo and prohibited them from buying ammunition from out-of-state vendors.
Judge Benitez found fault with the amended law, stating in his order (pdf) on Tuesday, “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.”
He suggested that the original “simpler” plan approved by voters in 2016, involving a 4-year permit for $50, “would have fared better” than the current scheme.
Judge Benitez criticized the California State Legislature’s provision as an expensive and unnecessary impediment imposed on gun owners, drawing comparisons to having to pass a credit check every time a car owner refuels their vehicle.
“Suppose a plaintiff described the wrong like this: having been threatened by lawless rioting two blocks from home and with more threatened violence anticipated, [the] plaintiff desires to buy ammunition for his firearm today so as to be able to defend himself and his household tonight, but is unable to do so because the background check system erroneously reports that he is not an authorized purchaser,” the judge wrote.
“The government would then say that the wrong, as described, is not covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment. But all a plaintiff needs to allege is that by preventing him from buying ammunition, the government’s background check system infringed his right to bear arms for self-defense. That is what is done here,” he continued.
Background checks are required in many states to buy a gun. California went a step further with its law requiring checks for the purchase of ammo at a cost of up to $19, each time. This prompted legal challenges from the California Rifle & Pistol Association and out-of-state ammunition sellers.
The judge agreed with gun rights advocates, who argued that the ammo background check scheme is invalid. They claimed it violates the Second Amendment, infringes upon the dormant Commerce Clause, and is superseded by federal law regarding the transportation of firearms across state lines.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta had argued that purchasing ammunition without a background check is not really covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment or any ancillary right and that the background check laws are simply “presumptively lawful regulatory measures.” But the judge said in his order, “Neither argument is persuasive.”
California Rifle & Pistol Association president Chuck Michel, also the attorney for the plaintiff, welcomed the judge’s ruling.
“This law, like most of California’s gun control laws, has not made anyone safer. But it has made it much more difficult and expensive for law-abiding gun owners to exercise their Second Amendment right to defend themselves and their family, and has blocked many eligible people from getting the ammunition they need, which is the true political intent behind most of these laws,” Mr. Michel said in a statement, CourtHouseNews.com reported.
Meanwhile, California’s attorney general criticized the decision.
“We will seek an immediate stay of the district court decision, to maintain CA’s life-saving, constitutional ammunition laws in Rhode v. Bonta. Background checks save lives,” he wrote on X (formerly Twitter). “We’ll continue to fight to keep Californians safe and ensure these vital protections remain in place.”
From The Epoch Times
