Judge blocks California law requiring background checks to buy ammo

A federal judge on Thursday blocked a California law requiring background checks for people buying ammunition, issuing a sharply worded rebuke of “onerous and convoluted” regulations that violate the constitutional right to bear arms.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego ruled in favor of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, which asked him to stop the checks and related restrictions on ammo sales.

“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,” Benitez wrote in a 120-page opinion granting the group's motion for a preliminary injunction.

Have not found the new decision, but here is the one on the magazine ban in CA. This judge knows his constitution. If you read this all (and it is well worth the read) you will find that he is hinting towards the fact that not only is the magazine ban illegal, but that most of the weapons bans are.

https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.net/sharedmedia/1510684/2064261_2019-03-29-order-granting-plaintiffs_-msj.pdf

Some quotes from the above ruling:

“Today, self-protection is most important. In the future, the common defense may
once again be most important. Constitutional rights stand through time holding fast
through the ebb and flow of current controversy. Needing a solution to a current law
enforcement difficulty cannot be justification for ignoring the Bill of Rights as bad
policy. Bad political ideas cannot be stopped by criminalizing bad political speech.
Crime waves cannot be broken with warrantless searches and unreasonable seizures.
Neither can the government response to a few mad men with guns and ammunition be a
law that turns millions of responsible, law-abiding people trying to protect themselves
into criminals. Yet, this is the effect of California’s large-capacity magazine law.”

In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court provided a simple Second Amendment test in
crystal clear language. It is a test that anyone can understand. The right to keep and bear
arms is a right enjoyed by law-abiding citizens to have arms that are not unusual “in
common use” “for lawful purposes like self-defense.”.....
It is a
hardware test. Is the firearm hardware commonly owned? Is the hardware commonly
owned by law-abiding citizens? Is the hardware owned by those citizens for lawful
purposes? If the answers are “yes,” the test is over. The hardware is protected.

Neither magazines, nor rounds of ammunition, nor triggers, nor barrels are
specifically mentioned in the Second Amendment. Neither are they mentioned in Heller.
But without a right to keep and bear triggers, or barrels, or ammunition and the
magazines that hold ammunition, the Second Amendment right would be meaningless.

Under the simple test of Heller, California’s § 32310 directly infringes Second
Amendment rights. It directly infringes by broadly prohibiting common firearms and
their common magazines holding more than 10 rounds, because they are not unusual and
are commonly used by responsible, law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes such as self-
defense. And “that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second
Amendment to keep such weapons.”

Here is the NRA’s news article on it:

Fairfax, Va. - A major victory was secured on Thursday when a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction in the NRA-supported case, Rhode v. Becerra. The case challenges the constitutionality of a California law that puts draconian restrictions on ammunition acquisition and transfers as a result of Prop 63 and SB 1235 (2016).

“As the court said, ‘The right to keep and bear arms is the insurance policy behind the right to life ... a shield from the tyranny of the majority.’ California wasn’t just obstructing the people’s fundamental right to defend their families and lives—it was encouraging unlawful hostility toward an individual, Constitutional right,” said Jason Ouimet, executive director, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. “The NRA funded this case for the same reason the court struck down the laws: enough was enough.”

The law required law-abiding citizens to undergo background checks when purchasing ammunition and for all transactions to occur in-person through a licensed ammunition vendor. Thursday’s injunction means the law cannot be enforced while the case is active unless the decision is stayed.

Great paragraph on page 30: "Beyond the intended burdens described above, experienced judges can also predict unintended effects of the ammunition background check system and its burdens. One, even more ammunition and more firearms will be bought. Human nature and the laws of economics being what they are, law-abiding citizens will probably delay ammunition purchases, purchase very large quantities when they do, and stockpile their ammunition, rather than submitting to more frequent background checks each time to buy smaller quantities as they may have need.

While there are no numerical limits on the quantity of ammunition one may buy today, Carnac the Magnificent might easily predict that in the not-to-distant future, this will be deemed a “loophole” that the State will endeavor to close. "

I thought the Carnac reference was excellent. I've made it to page 75 so far. There is a lot of stuff in here. I noticed that the author accurately described part of the ruling of Cruikshank, i.e., that the Right to Bear arms existed before the Constitution did (I've often seen that misquoted)...

... The right to bear arms for a legal purpose is an inherent right even pre-dating and transcending the Second Amendment. "The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875),

He got this part right about Miller...

The Supreme Court also recognizes that the Second Amendment guarantee includes firearms that have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 47 (1939). Miller implies that possession by a law-abiding citizen of a weapon and ammunition commonly owned, that could be part of the ordinary military equipment for a militia member and would contribute to the common defense, is also protected by the Second Amendment.

However, I noticed that once again, the author misunderstood another part of Miller. Note the disconnect between the bolded bit above, and the parenthetical bolded bit below. The above bit is correct, but the below bit is not, and in fact, contradict each other.

...One, the Second Amendment extends to common modern firearms useful for self-defense in the home. Two, common firearms beyond just 48 those weapons useful in warfare are protected. See Caetano, 136 S. Ct. 1027, 1028 (2016) (per curiam) (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 582, 624-25); contra Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114, 131 (4th Cir. 2017) (weapons useful in warfare are not protected by the Second Amendment).

The parenthetical bit I bolded mistakes Miller badly. Here's a bit of relevant text from Miller:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.

The two bolded bits from Miller above say something completely different. What it means is that the Supreme Court had not been briefed that sawed-off shotguns were useful in warfare (as was the case of trench-guns in WWI (which was the "Great War" at the time, since WWII hadn't yet come up). Had the court been informed that sawed-off shotguns were military weapons, the above indicates they would have made a much different decision in this case. It also means that automatic weapons are definitely Second Amendment weapons, and the laws regulating them, which were also not briefed in the case, even though they were a part of the law in question (922o).

U.S. v Miller is one of the most lied about decisions the Supreme Court has ever made.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.