Article

2020-04-25 Home Front: Politix

Fed judge tosses California’s ammo background check requirement as unconstitutional ‘misfire’ against liberty

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2020-04-25 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11133 views ] Top

#1 Ammo gonna be right up there with reservation bought cigarettes.

Posted by M. Murcek 2020-04-25 08:23|| 2020-04-25 08:23|| Front Page Top

#2 Good for Judge Benitez. I'm surprised there are Federal Judges in California who still follow the Constitution.

Posted by JohnQC 2020-04-25 08:27|| 2020-04-25 08:27|| Front Page Top

#3 Don't worry. The ninth circuit put it back in place. Less than a 24 hour window to buy ammo in CA without the check.

Posted by DarthVader 2020-04-25 08:45|| 2020-04-25 08:45|| Front Page Top

#4 An Appeal was filed - I haven't seen that they put a stay on it. It will go to the Supremes if they do

On Friday state lawyers filed a motion asking Benitez to immediately issue a stay of the injunction until they could file an appeal. State lawyers said the action was needed immediately because “ammunition vendors have already started selling ammunition without background checks, creating the near certainty that prohibited persons—convicted felons, violent misdemeanants, and others prohibited by law from possessing firearms and ammunition—will have easy access to ammunition.”

But Benitez was not persuaded. He said he did not think the state would win an appeal and said the focus on prohibited people buying ammunition was misplaced. In his ruling Benitez said that thousands of state residents who should have been able to buy ammunition had not been able to because of a flawed checking system that erroneously denied purchase to 16 percent of applicants.

“Without an injunction, these law-abiding individuals have no legal way to acquire the ammunition which they enjoy the constitutional right of possession,” Benitez wrote. “These law-abiding individuals whose numbers are vast have no way to lawfully acquire ammunition to defend themselves, their families and their homes. The injunction restores that right.”

By the end of the day, state lawyers had filed a notice of appeal in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The ban on buying out-of-state ammo violates the Commerce Clause as well

Posted by Frank G 2020-04-25 09:38|| 2020-04-25 09:38|| Front Page Top

#5 Ah, I thought they had blocked it. Buy while you can, CA!

Posted by DarthVader 2020-04-25 09:40|| 2020-04-25 09:40|| Front Page Top

#6 Found it - you are correct - 9th Circus blocked it. Take it up, SCOTUS

Posted by Frank G 2020-04-25 09:55|| 2020-04-25 09:55|| Front Page Top

#7 Ammo is, of course, the point of owning a gun. You think any gun owners are doing without?

Posted by M. Murcek 2020-04-25 10:53|| 2020-04-25 10:53|| Front Page Top

#8 I didn't think I was completely crazy...

Posted by DarthVader 2020-04-25 12:04|| 2020-04-25 12:04|| Front Page Top

#9 If you're buying ammo, the presumption is that you own a gun and so the presumption must also be that you already had a background check so you could buy the gun...I would think. Just trying to be logical even though I know that doesn't always have anything to do with it.

Posted by Abu Uluque 2020-04-25 13:36|| 2020-04-25 13:36|| Front Page Top

#10 If these jokers in Sacramento are outlawing assemblies of 10 or more citizens, do you think they'll allow sales of ammo?

Posted by Lex 2020-04-25 14:20|| 2020-04-25 14:20|| Front Page Top

#11 California might permanently ban mass gatherings, to prevent mass shootings.

Posted by bbrewer126 2020-04-25 14:47|| 2020-04-25 14:47|| Front Page Top

#12 California should be banned, to prevent California.

Posted by Silentbrick 2020-04-25 19:33|| 2020-04-25 19:33|| Front Page Top

#13 California might permanently ban mass gatherings

Does the California assembly have to gather in a mass to pass the anti-mass-gathering law? It would be funny (and unsurprising) if they managed to ban themselves.

Posted by SteveS 2020-04-25 21:36|| 2020-04-25 21:36|| Front Page Top

23:52 Thaith Elmeresing6163
23:51 Bobby
23:45 Bobby
23:39 Lex
23:27 Marilyn Tojo7566
23:18 Marilyn Tojo7566
23:17 Marilyn Tojo7566
23:12 SteveS
22:41 KBK
22:33 Lex
22:18 Marilyn Tojo7566
22:12 James
22:06 James
21:56 James
21:55 ruprecht
21:54 ruprecht
21:52 ruprecht
21:50 Clem
21:49 Jan
21:47 trailing wife
21:36 SteveS
21:28 SteveS
21:09 Clem
20:39 Raj