Judge says California law requiring background checks to purchase ammo violates the Second Amendment

[Dial H For Hero]

Source: The Hill

A federal judge in California ruled that a law requiring background checks to purchase ammunition violates the Second Amendment.

Voters approved toughening California firearms laws to include background checks on ammo purchases in 2016, and the restrictions took effect last July. The California Rifle & Pistol Association filed a lawsuit against the state shortly after.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez called the law “onerous and convoluted” and “constitutionally defective.”

“The experiment has been tried. The casualties have been counted. California’s new ammunition background check law misfires and the Second Amendment rights of California citizens have been gravely injured,” Benitez, a Bush appointee, wrote in the ruling.

Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/494445-judge-says-california-law-requiring-background-checks-to-purchase-ammo

[mr_lebowski]

1. 'The Casualties'? 'Misfired'? Oh, you a clever motherf***** ain't you, Judge?

[SouthernCal_Dem]

3. He sounds more like a right wing radio host than a judge. nt

[sandensea]

2. One of Dubya's cretins.

And a right-wing Cuban exile. What a surprise.

[C Moon]

4. "Then, on May 1, 2003, he was nominated by President George W. Bush..."

[SunSeeker]

5. That judge is an embarrassment to the bench.

[Ford_Prefect]

6. Likely to be over turned on appeal? The principle of Public Safety bears some weight, surely.

[wysi]

7. It's called the right to keep and bear arms...

... not a word about fucking ammunition in that whole amendment.

[Abnredleg]

10. The term arms includes ammo

It’s always been interpreted that way. Just like First Amendment cases don’t just protect the content of speech, but also the methods of delivery.

[rockfordfile]

12. Interpreted by right-wing activists

[Abnredleg]

14. Not quite

The notion that you can’t indirectly deny the exercise a right has been a cornerstone of constitutional law for decades. You just have to look at how they are restricting abortion rights through onerous regulations on clinics to see the wisdom of that approach. “We’re not outlawing abortions - we’re just implementing reasonable regulations.”

[mahatmakanejeeves]

16. In Virginia, it was the width of corridors in facilities in which abortions were performed.

The hallways had to be wide enough for two gurneys to pass each other.

In other states, doctors had to have admitting privileges at the local hospital.

[melm00se]

17. 'Fraid not

Some examples of court rulings:

the 9th Circuit Court

The Ninth Circuit Court conceded that gun purchasers themselves do have a right to buy a gun and ammunition...

7th Circuit Court

“‘[T]he right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right’ to obtain the bullets necessary to use them.”

9th Circuit Court again

...the Court considered the burden certain gunpowder-storage laws imposed on the Second Amendment right, and determined that they did not burden "the right of self-defense as much as an absolute ban on handguns." Id. This observation would make little sense if regulations on gunpowder and ammunition fell outside the historical scope of the Second Amendment.

[moonseller66]

13. The term arms includes ammo

Phew! I was worried. I guess I can still pick up that fissionable material for my thermonuke at the local 2nd amend store!

Good thing, too. I am getting dangerously low on 500 and thousand pounders!

Thank gawd for the interpretation!

Sarcasm...in case?

[Abnredleg]

15. You can't do indirectly

What you are forbidden by law to do directly.

[Python boot]

8. Convenience

I suppose someone could get a reloading kit and press their own ammo but that would not be convenient. Requiring background checks is inconvenient. So where does the constitution guaratee convenience?

[Igel]

18. Want an abortion?

You gotta have a second opinion from a doctor in a second county with a 20-day waiting period and review of the ultrasound.

Convenience? Where does the Constitution require convenience?

[Devil Child]

9. Excellent news n/t

[rockfordfile]

11. Another un-American pos right-winger

[roamer65]

19. CA...do it anyway. Ignore the ruling.

If eater Red states can ignore Roe v Wade, then the nation-state of CA can ignore this ruling.

[NickB79]

20. Then the USSC would get to hear it, most likely

And that would not end well for CA, given it's current makeup.

[roamer65]

21. Then u ignore that ruling.

Seriously, what’s the federal government gonna do about it?

Nothing.

[NickB79]

22. Is that the precedent you want to set?

And do you REALLY think Trump wouldn't use it to his advantage?

I wouldn't put it past him to have California lawmakers arrested, and send in the National Guard.

[roamer65]

23. Yes. Ignore the rulings until we stack the court.

15 justices.

FDR should have done it in the 1930’s

[Hestia]

24. In John Grisham's "The Verdict" this very subject is covered. States ignore

SC rules they do not like. Other part of the book is election of judges. The book is very enlightening and infuriating.