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

ACalifornia law requiring in-person background checks for every purchase
of ammunition was overturned Tuesday by a federal court in the District of Southern California, bringing the state’s regulation of ammunition sales
more in line with the rest of the country.

In his decision U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez called the background
checks both unconstitutional — the basis for overturning the law — and ineffective. He pointed to high rejection rates (between 11 and 16
percent) for law-abiding ammo buyers, and compared these to just .03
percent of buyers who were rightly denied because they were on a
prohibited list.

The decision comes in response to a lawsuit, Rhode v. Becerra, that was
filed against the state by online retailer Ammunition Depot, the
California Rifle & Pistol Association, and California native Kim Rhode, a six-time Olympic medalist in double trap and skeet.

The sweeping changes to California’s ammunition laws first took root in
2016, when voters approved Prop. 63, a ballot measure requiring gun owners
to undergo background checks and buy a four-year permit (to the tune of
$50) before they could purchase any ammo. In 2019, state legislators
amended the measure so that gun owners would have to undergo a background
check for each ammunition purchase they made. This law made California an outlier among the 50 states in terms of heavy restrictions placed on ammo buyers. And even though ammunition laws vary by state, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez made it clear in his Jan. 30 decision that these
restrictions had “no historical pedigree” and violated California
citizens’ right to bear arms.

“All agree that the ammunition necessary to use a gun is covered by the
Second Amendment’s protection for keeping and bearing arms,” Benitez
writes. He also cites a previous judge’s conclusion in Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco, which found that “without bullets, the right to
bear arms would be meaningless.”

Most objections to the background checks are rooted in how impractical
it’s been for law-abiding hunters and shooters to purchase ammunition in
their state. They have not been able to order ammo online and have it
shipped to their home, with one in six legal applicants getting rejected
due to red-tape issues like the wrong address on their driver’s license. According to Ammunition Depot, state-wide ammunition sales plummeted by 95 percent since Prop. 63 went into effect.

“Prop 63 made e-commerce next to impossible in California,” Ammunition
Depot CEO Dan Wolgin told Outdoor Life in an email. “Before the law went
into effect on January 1, 2018, California made up 10 to 15 percent of our sales and we saw an approximately 99 percent decrease in revenue
contribution from California. So the impact on e-commerce was even higher
than the 95 percent decrease in overall sales within the state.”

While retailers seem relieved, California hunters are also celebrating
today’s decision. A triple whammy of recent ammo shortages, California’s non-toxic ammunition requirements, and the ammo background checks (with
the additional fees and quirks of California’s system) have made it particularly difficult for hunters to find the ammunition they need in a convenient and timely manner.

Read Next: How to Buy Ammunition Online (Without Getting Totally Ripped
Off)

“I’m excited about this,” says J.R. Young, a hunter who lives in Los Gatos Mountains and serves on the national board of Backcountry Hunters and
Anglers. “Yesterday is a perfect example. My good friend has a rifle in
.270 Weatherby which is a difficult cartridge [to come by]. Weatherby
posted online that they had ammo in stock … and I sent a note over to him telling him ‘run, don’t walk, jump on this before they sell out.’ So he
did, and he ended up having to pay $10 per box to have a local dealer run
the background check for him.”

Holly Heyser, a central California duck hunter and former communications director for California Waterfowl, says she can understand the principle
behind the law. The execution, however, has been problematic, as she’s previously argued.

“The law says that the address on your driver’s license has to match the address in their system, and ‘in the system’ is the last time you
purchased a gun,” says Heyser. “I am a homeowner, I’ve lived in my home
since 2004, I don’t move a lot, and it’s not a problem for me. But a young person who’s in college, or someone who has just relocated to a new city?
They have to do an address change to get their address corrected in the
system. Typically that has taken people so long that it is easier just to
buy a gun to get in the system with your new address. I have talked to
people who have been told by the state Department of Justice, ‘just go buy
a new gun, it will be faster.’ So that’s a real problem.”

Heyser was working at CW when Prop. 63 went into effect; the law was so convoluted and the background checks so glitchy that she started a webpage
to help hunters sift through the requirements just to buy a box of duck
loads. While Heyser has never personally had any issues with the
background checks (thanks in part to a stable address)??, she mentors new hunters who absolutely struggle with the process.

“[Another] huge problem with the ammo background check law is for new
hunters who haven’t bought a gun yet,” says Heyser. “It’s really common —
and actually smart — for a new hunter to hold off on buying a gun until
they know a little bit more about what kind of hunting they want to do …
So if you haven’t bought [a gun] you have to pay for a very expensive background check. [It’s] a one-time check and it can take three days or
more to get an answer back. So you’re going on a hunt, and that’s what you
have to go through to actually get a box of shells? It’s hard enough when you’re starting hunting just figuring out all the things you need to do —
like making sure your hunting license is [correct] and figuring out how to shoot a gun — to have this incredible extra layer of complexity for simply getting the ammo.”

A further quirk of California’s ammunition purchasing laws is how it
applies to non-residents, who are legally allowed to fly or drive ammo
across state lines but unable to purchase it in the state. While it’s not immediately clear if Tuesday’s ruling affects non-resident ammo purchases, outfitters in particular are hopeful. Charlie Barberini runs Golden State
Guide Service on San Francisco Bay, where his clients travel to shoot
scoters and other ducks they can’t target in their home states.

Read Next: Here’s What the Ammo Shortage Revealed About the Industry

“To be honest [the ammo sale restrictions have] been a royal pain because
I take a lot of people coming in from out of state out for multiple days,” Barberini says. “On the airlines they’re only allowed to bring two boxes
[of shells] which makes it tough, especially when we’re guiding sea ducks
and divers. We shoot a lot of ammo, there’s cripples and misses. [Ammo
sale restrictions] have been a real pain in the butt.”

As supporters of Prop. 63 have already pointed out, an appeal to Benitez’ decision seems imminent. This could be a repeat of what happened in 2020,
when Benitez issued a written decision to block the implementation of
Prop. 63, only to have his decision appealed by the state. California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta says the state plans to seek an immediate stay
of the Jan. 30 decision, according to Reuters. He asked Benitez on
Thursday to delay his ruling so he could have time to appeal the decision. Benitez denied his request.

In the meantime, at least, Ammunition Depot is taking advantage of the
ruling. Its homepage is currently running a banner that reads: “Welcome
back California! Now shipping ammo directly to your door.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/federal-judge-overturns-california-law- requiring-background-checks-for-every-ammo-purchase/ar-BB1hzPdL

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