(AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)
For a brief window from January 31 to February 5, 2024, Californians enjoyed the
same freedom to buy ammunition as the rest
of the country, following a ruling by Judge Benitez declaring the state’s
ammunition law unconstitutional
for the second time. However, this changed on February 5 when a split decision
by a
Ninth Circuit three-judge panel
reinstated the restrictions.
CONCLUSION
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. The anti-importation components violate the dormant Commerce Clause and to the extent applicable to individuals travelling into California are preempted by 18 U.S.C. § 926A. Perhaps the simpler, 4-year and $50 ammunition purchase permit approved by the voters in Proposition 63, would have fared better.
Accordingly, the Court permanently enjoins the State of California from enforcing the ammunition sales background check provisions found in California Penal Code §§ 30352 and 30370(a) through (e), and the ammunition anti-importation provisions found in §§ 30312(a) and (b) and 30314(a). Criminal enforcement of California Penal Code §§ 30312(d), 30314(c), and 30365(a) by the Attorney General and all other law enforcement defendants is permanently enjoined.
California’s complex journey with
ammunition regulation began in 2016
with the approval of Proposition 63 by voters, introducing a permit system
for ammunition purchase that was never implemented. Instead, Senate Bill
1235 was passed, mandating background checks for every ammunition purchase
among other stringent requirements. This law faced legal challenges for
its constitutionality and was temporarily halted by Judge Benitez in 2020
until reconsidered in light of the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. On
January 30, 2024, Benitez issued a permanent injunction against enforcing
these restrictions, concluding that they infringed on Second Amendment
rights and violated the dormant Commerce Clause. Despite his refusal to
stay this injunction, the Ninth Circuit panel’s decision has temporarily
put these restrictions back in place.
The ongoing legal battle underscores the contentious debate over ammunition regulations in California, highlighting the tension between state legislation and constitutional rights. The possibility remains that the Ninth Circuit’s stay could be overturned, potentially rolling back the enforcement of Bill 1235 and revisiting the state’s approach to ammunition sales.
The ongoing legal battle underscores the contentious debate over ammunition regulations in California, highlighting the tension between state legislation and constitutional rights. The possibility remains that the Ninth Circuit’s stay could be overturned, potentially rolling back the enforcement of Bill 1235 and revisiting the state’s approach to ammunition sales.
No comments:
Post a Comment