XPost: alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights, alt.california
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sac.politics

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 who regularly rules in favor of Second Amendment rights.
Benitez also criticized California’s handling of the more than 1 million
annual ammunition background checks, calling the 11% rejection rate “too
high.”

California plans to seek an immediate stay of the decision, the state’s Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a post on X. “Background
checks save lives,” he said.

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.”

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.

Legislators amended the measure to require background checks for each ammunition purchase, starting in 2019.

No Historical Analogues
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 has drawn criticism from Newsom for multiple decisions favoring firearms owners, including a Sept. 2023 ruling that California’s ban on high-capacity gun magazines was unconstitutional.

The judge had blocked California’s 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.”

Benitez stopped short of endorsing the four-year ammunition permit, but
said it would be “a more reasonable constitutional approach than the
current scheme.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sd-judge-who-regularly-upholds-gun- rights-finds-background-checks-not-needed-to-buy-ammo/ar-BB1hzCPG

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)