California cannot require background checks to buy ammunition, judge
rules
Send a link to a friend
[February 01, 2024]
By Jonathan Stempel
(Reuters) -California cannot enforce a law requiring people to undergo
background checks to buy ammunition, because it violates the
constitutional right to bear arms, a federal judge has ruled.
In a decision made public on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Roger
Benitez in San Diego said the background checks have "no historical
pedigree," and violate the Second Amendment by treating all citizens as
having no right to buy ammunition.
"A sweeping background check requirement imposed every time a citizen
needs to buy ammunition is an outlier that our ancestors would have
never accepted for a citizen," wrote Benitez, an appointee of Republican
President George W. Bush.
Benitez also criticized California's handling of the more than 1 million
annual ammunition background checks, calling the 11% rejection rate "too
high."
California appealed the decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals, and Benitez rejected its request for a stay that would allow
background checks during that process.
"These laws were put in place as a safeguard and a way of protecting the
people of California--and they work," state Attorney General Rob Bonta,
a Democrat. "Background checks save lives."
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2024/Feb/01/images/ads/current/debbiesfloral_lda_122623.png)
Governor Gavin Newsom, also a Democrat, renewed his criticism of Benitez
for having issued multiple decisions favoring firearms owners, including
a Sept. 2023 ruling that voided California's ban on high-capacity gun
magazines.
"Like clockwork, Judge Benitez has yet again put his personal politics
and fealty for the gun lobby over the Constitution and common sense,"
Newsom said. "California will fight this extremist, illogical, and
incoherent ruling as we defend our life-saving measures that are proven
to keep our communities safe."
Plaintiffs in the case included Kim Rhode, who has won three Olympic
gold medals in shooting events, and the California Rifle & Pistol
Association.
Chuck Michel, the group's president and general counsel, called the
decision a "big win," saying California had "blocked many eligible
people from getting the ammunition they need, which is the true
political intent behind most of these laws."
NO HISTORICAL ANALOGUES
California voters had in 2016 approved a ballot measure requiring gun
owners to undergo initial background checks to buy ammunition, and pay
$50 for a four-year ammunition permit.
[to top of second column]
|
![](../images/020124PIX/news_h90.jpg)
Governor of U.S. state of California Gavin Newsom speaks at a press
conference in Beijing, China October 25, 2023. REUTERS/Tingshu
Wang/File Photo
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2017/Jul/22/images/ads/current/rohlfs_lda_072017.png)
Legislators amended the measure to require background checks for
each ammunition purchase, starting in 2019.
In his Jan. 30 decision, Benitez rejected California's reliance on
dozens of laws dating back to 1789 as "historical analogues" for
ammunition checks, including restrictions on ammunition possession
by enslaved people, Indians and others.
The judge said it made little sense to argue that "these repugnant
historical examples of prejudice and bigotry" against people who
were not afforded constitutional rights justified similar
restrictions now against people who enjoy those rights.
Federal courts have issued divergent Second Amendment rulings since
a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision that expanded the right of people
to arm themselves in public.
The court said judges shouldn't use the normal way of assessing a
law's constitutionality when assessing firearms restrictions, and
should instead see if they were "consistent with this nation's
historical tradition of firearm regulation."
Benitez stopped short of endorsing the four-year ammunition permit,
but said it would be "a more reasonable constitutional approach than
the current scheme."
The judge had also blocked the background checks requirement in
April 2020. A federal appeals court asked him to revisit that ruling
in light of the 2022 Supreme Court decision.
Shira Feldman, director of constitutional litigation at the gun
control advocacy group Brady, called Benitez's decision "an attack
on the concept of life-saving background check systems."
The case is Rhode et al v Bonta, U.S. District Court, Southern
District of California, No. 18-00802.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Leslie Adler,
Bill Berkrot and David Gregorio)
[© 2024 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.]This material
may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content.
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2024/Feb/01/images/ads/current/graue_new_buickenclave_010824.jpg) |