Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Judi Lynn

(160,219 posts)
Sat Apr 25, 2020, 07:25 PM Apr 2020

Court reinstates California ammunition purchase law

Source: Associated Press


Associated Press Updated 5:51 pm CDT, Saturday, April 25, 2020


SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — An appeals court has reinstated a California law requiring background checks for people buying ammunition, reversing a federal judge's decision to stop the checks that he said violate the constitutional right to bear arms.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday granted the state attorney general's request to stay the judge's order.

“This means that the same restrictions that have been previously in effect regarding ammunition in California are back for the time being,” the National Rifle Association, which hailed the judge's injunction, said in a news release.

The law, which took effect last July, requires Californians to pass an in-store background check before buying ammunition, which involves running buyers’ names through a California Department of Justice database that tracks legal purchases of guns.






Read more: https://www.chron.com/news/article/Court-reinstates-California-ammunition-purchase-15226383.php

42 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Court reinstates California ammunition purchase law (Original Post) Judi Lynn Apr 2020 OP
Good. nt SunSeeker Apr 2020 #1
Awesome! Thank you Judi Lynn! ffr Apr 2020 #2
Eventually it will be tossed. nt oldsoftie Apr 2020 #3
what makes ya think? nt flamin lib Apr 2020 #4
I do not think so. trc Apr 2020 #6
I would approach this in a slightly different way jmowreader Apr 2020 #7
But it is not an infringement. trc Apr 2020 #9
Since "arms" do not work with no ammunition, your point is facetious jmowreader Apr 2020 #10
We agree trc Apr 2020 #12
I disagree ... 'Arms' is a term synonymous with 'weapons', not 'firearms'. A club is a weapon ... mr_lebowski Apr 2020 #15
K&R onetexan May 2020 #42
So, we might have the right to a free press, but no right to purchase ink w/o state approval? JustABozoOnThisBus Apr 2020 #19
The only way a press is going to kill anyone is if they fall into it jmowreader Apr 2020 #23
The courts have consistently ruled ammo and arms as interchangeable NickB79 Apr 2020 #8
I am not arguing the possession of ammunition which was banned under the case you cited trc Apr 2020 #11
From the very paragraph you quoted NickB79 Apr 2020 #20
That is not correct. AtheistCrusader Apr 2020 #14
Their gunpowder was made in a factory hack89 Apr 2020 #24
If there can be hunting restrictions on when, where, and why. LiberalFighter Apr 2020 #5
Hunting is not addressed in the 2nd. SQUEE May 2020 #39
Since ammunition is not mentioned in the Constitution, regulation of it is a state power. roamer65 Apr 2020 #13
Federal govt. also has the right to regulate ammunition Kaleva Apr 2020 #16
This will end up at the SCOTUS and Trump's lapdogs will overturn it. Vinca Apr 2020 #17
It won't last.. Maxheader Apr 2020 #18
my position on gun control azureblue Apr 2020 #21
I've suggested in the past that the best way to define what an AW is is by the ammo it fires. Kaleva Apr 2020 #25
Let me make sure I understand: Dial H For Hero Apr 2020 #26
The Winchester Model 100 in .243 would not be because the case of the .243 is longer then 50.8mm Kaleva Apr 2020 #27
But the .243 is a rimless centerfire cartridge that has a bullet of less than 6.5mm in diameter. Dial H For Hero Apr 2020 #29
You are correct. My bad. The Winchester Model 100 in .243 would be classified as a AW. Kaleva Apr 2020 #31
A gun in 7.62x51mm would not be but a gun in 7.62x39mm would be. Kaleva Apr 2020 #28
Out of curiosity, why are you exempting such cartridges as 7.62x51 from your definition? Dial H For Hero Apr 2020 #30
Bad guys tend not to use semi-autos chambered for "full-power battle rifle cartridges". Kaleva Apr 2020 #32
Granted, but I would think that should significant restrictions make an AR-15 in 5.56x45 Dial H For Hero Apr 2020 #33
Yes but the heavier rounds limits them. Kaleva Apr 2020 #34
I'll grant that intermediate rounds are more controllable and lighter, but given that a typical mass Dial H For Hero Apr 2020 #36
If the results would be the same, they'd already be using such guns but they don't Kaleva May 2020 #37
The lighter guns are less expensive and easier to shoot, granted. But if a potential mass shooter Dial H For Hero May 2020 #38
So what is your point that we can't restrict any gun...we just have to put up with mass shootings? Demsrule86 May 2020 #40
I was actually nitpicking the specific proposal by Kaleva. Certainly some guns can be restricted. Dial H For Hero May 2020 #41
Order: sl8 Apr 2020 #22
While the stay is permissible melm00se Apr 2020 #35

trc

(823 posts)
6. I do not think so.
Sat Apr 25, 2020, 09:59 PM
Apr 2020

The 2nd amendment allows for individuals to keep and bear arms. But the SC long ago concluded that it is not an absolute right, i.e. sawed off shotguns and fully automatic weapons. (And that right has yet to be fully incorporated to the states.) Further, there is no provision in the 2nd for the right to buy ammunition. Ammunition at the time of the Constitution being created and the Amendments being passed was made by the user, not created in a factory. So, the state of California restricting ammo sales by age and/or requiring background checks does not infringe on ones right to own weapons, and so no violation of the 2nd amendment exists.

jmowreader

(50,453 posts)
7. I would approach this in a slightly different way
Sat Apr 25, 2020, 10:33 PM
Apr 2020

As you said, the Second Amendment is not an absolute right; it's legal, for instance, to prohibit the carrying of firearms in courthouses and schools, to keep people from carrying guns into places that sell liquor by the drink, to set age limits for firearms purchases, to prohibit felons from bearing arms...

It should be a "permissible infringement" to require the same background check for a person buying ammunition that exists for a person buying a gun.

trc

(823 posts)
9. But it is not an infringement.
Sat Apr 25, 2020, 10:50 PM
Apr 2020

An infringement suggests there is a right to buy ammunition, but a right to buy ammunition is not enumerated in the Constitution, and has not been defined as a right by the SC.

jmowreader

(50,453 posts)
10. Since "arms" do not work with no ammunition, your point is facetious
Sat Apr 25, 2020, 11:01 PM
Apr 2020

The Second Amendment does not say "the right to keep and bear clubs shall not be infringed," and that is what an empty gun is. You need ammo to be able to "keep and bear arms."

My view: any part of the "firearm system" which includes guns, ammo, sights and accessories should be subject to the same purchasing rules.

trc

(823 posts)
12. We agree
Sat Apr 25, 2020, 11:04 PM
Apr 2020

The case in California is simply trying to place the same level of restriction on ammunition sales as exists on hand gun sales.

 

mr_lebowski

(33,643 posts)
15. I disagree ... 'Arms' is a term synonymous with 'weapons', not 'firearms'. A club is a weapon ...
Sun Apr 26, 2020, 04:07 AM
Apr 2020

A Crossbow is 'arms' too. So is a sword.

And I also disagree that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to enumerate a right of private citizens to own as many AR-15's (and as much ammo for them) as they'd like, outside the construct of a militia.

I don't care what Fat Tony and 4 other Justices agreed on with Heller. I disagree with their assessment.

trc

(823 posts)
11. I am not arguing the possession of ammunition which was banned under the case you cited
Sat Apr 25, 2020, 11:02 PM
Apr 2020

and found to be unconstitutional. I am suggesting that being able to buy ammunition is not a right. Restrictions on buying ammunition are constitutional. From the article you cited:
"The court therefore reasoned that although neither Heller nor the subsequent Supreme Court case McDonald v. Chicago specifically addressed ammunition, “it logically follows that the right to keep and bear arms extends to the possession of handgun ammunition in the home; for if such possession could be banned (and not simply regulated), that would make it “impossible for citizens to use [their handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” (Italics are mine).

NickB79

(19,114 posts)
20. From the very paragraph you quoted
Sun Apr 26, 2020, 08:44 AM
Apr 2020
the right to keep and bear arms extends to the possession of handgun ammunition in the home


That's pretty clear cut. Ammo and arms possession are both rights under the 2nd Amendment. And unless the government is giving out free ammo, the only way to exercise this right is by purchasing it.

That's not to say they can't be regulated though. Even Scalia stated reasonable gun laws are legal. I honestly don't have much of an issue with ammo background checks. I just don't see it surviving if it got to the current Supreme Court.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
14. That is not correct.
Sun Apr 26, 2020, 03:40 AM
Apr 2020

The 2nd Amendment is incorporated against the states after MacDonald vs. City of Chicago. Via alternative grounds of P&I as well as Due Process. (It has not been formally incorporated by Selective Process, but it is incorporated nevertheless.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago


It is incorporated in the same manner as Obergefell v. Hodges, which has held fast against several bullshit legal challenges.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
24. Their gunpowder was made in a factory
Sun Apr 26, 2020, 03:25 PM
Apr 2020

So the 2A does cover gunpowder according to your logic.

SQUEE

(1,315 posts)
39. Hunting is not addressed in the 2nd.
Fri May 1, 2020, 11:36 AM
May 2020

Hunting restrictions are based on the governments protection and regulation of the Commons.

roamer65

(36,739 posts)
13. Since ammunition is not mentioned in the Constitution, regulation of it is a state power.
Sun Apr 26, 2020, 03:03 AM
Apr 2020

If the Constitution does not specifically define it, it is a state’s right to regulate it.

Do not confuse regulating with banning, folks. Banning would be struck down, regulating will not.

Kaleva

(36,147 posts)
16. Federal govt. also has the right to regulate ammunition
Sun Apr 26, 2020, 07:30 AM
Apr 2020

So-called armor piercing ammunition is an example.

"18 USC 921(a)(17):
(B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means—
(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile."

https://rocketffl.com/ap-ammo-are-armor-piercing-bullets-legal/

If you read the article, you'll see that the federal govt. doesn't ban the possession of AP ammo but one needs to be licensed in order to posses such.

Maxheader

(4,366 posts)
18. It won't last..
Sun Apr 26, 2020, 08:27 AM
Apr 2020

The unrepentant efforts by the gunny's is driven by

conspiracy babble from the shit kicker broadcast stations..

am/fm/broadband..it's incredible the lies...

Kaleva

(36,147 posts)
25. I've suggested in the past that the best way to define what an AW is is by the ammo it fires.
Sun Apr 26, 2020, 03:31 PM
Apr 2020

"One is often asked to define "assault weapon". Here's my definition.
Last edited Sun Jan 6, 2013, 05:09 PM - Edit history (2)

Any semi-automatic weapon that fires a rimless, semi-rimmed, or rebated rim centerfire cartridge that has a bullet of less then 6.5mm in diameter or a metal based case length of less then 50.8mm or caseless ammunition of any dimension or any rimless, semi-rimmedd or rebated Polymer-cased centerfire cartridge of any dimension.

The appearance of the gun has nothing to do with the above definition. The gun could look like a hunting rifle or it could look like something out of a Hollywood war movie. The gun could have a bayonet lug, grenade launcher, flash suppressor, pistol grip or folding stock and it might not be an assault weapon as defined by above. Or it could. It all depends on the action of the gun and the cartridge it fires.

Such a definition keeps things simple. All one has to do is first determine if the gun is a semi-automatic, see if the cartridge it is loaded with is a centerfire round and then measure the cartridge. No fuss. No muss.

If one has an issue with including semi-automatic handguns in the above, then one could refine it further by saying an assault weapon is a semi-automatic firearm that has a barrel length of 16" or longer and fires a rimless, semi-rimmed, or rebated rim centerfire cartridge that has a bullet of less then 6.5mm in diameter or a case length of less then 50.8mm.

A semi-automatic, or self-loading, firearm is a weapon that performs all steps necessary to prepare the weapon to fire again after firing—assuming cartridges remain in the weapon's feed device or magazine.

A centerfire cartridge is a cartridge with a primer located in the center of the cartridge case head.

"The rimmed cartridge is the oldest of the types and has a rim that is significantly larger in diameter than the base of the cartridge. "

"On a rimless case, the rim is the same diameter as the base of the case; it is known as an extractor groove."

"On a semi-rimmed case the rim projects slightly beyond the base of the case, though not as much as a rimmed cartridge."

"Rebated rim cartridges have a rim that is significantly smaller in diameter than the base of the case, serving only for extraction."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rim_%28firearms%29

Rimmed cartridges do not have an extractor groove.

According to the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI), a cartridge is "a single round of ammunition consisting of the case, primer and propellant with or without one or more projectiles." Only the projectile portion is the bullet.

The case length of a 7.62x39mm cartridge is about 38.7mm



Polymer-cased ammunition (or PCA) is the concept applied to define the alternative to use polymer-based casings instead of metal-based (brass, aluminium or steel mainly) in the manufacturing of ammunition.

Caseless ammunition is a type of small arms ammunition that eliminates the cartridge case that typically holds the primer, propellant, and projectile together as a unit."


https://www.democraticunderground.com/117297510





 

Dial H For Hero

(2,971 posts)
26. Let me make sure I understand:
Sun Apr 26, 2020, 09:55 PM
Apr 2020

A Winchester Model 100 in .243 would be classifieid as an assault weapon:



But an FN-FAL in 7.62x51 would not be?

?v-cache=1540756194

Kaleva

(36,147 posts)
27. The Winchester Model 100 in .243 would not be because the case of the .243 is longer then 50.8mm
Mon Apr 27, 2020, 05:10 PM
Apr 2020

"and fires a rimless, semi-rimmed, or rebated rim centerfire cartridge that has a bullet of less then 6.5mm in diameter or a case length of less then 50.8mm."

It has a case length of 51.9 mm.

"Case length 2.045 in (51.9 mm)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.243_Winchester

 

Dial H For Hero

(2,971 posts)
29. But the .243 is a rimless centerfire cartridge that has a bullet of less than 6.5mm in diameter.
Mon Apr 27, 2020, 07:54 PM
Apr 2020

Your definintion says "or", not "and". It qualifies by your definition, does it not?

Kaleva

(36,147 posts)
31. You are correct. My bad. The Winchester Model 100 in .243 would be classified as a AW.
Tue Apr 28, 2020, 03:14 AM
Apr 2020

My proposal has nothing to do with appearance of the gun. It has all to do with if it's a semi-automatic that is chambered to fire what many would refer to as an intermediate round.

"An intermediate cartridge is a rifle/carbine cartridge that is shorter than typical full-power battle rifle cartridges (such as the .303 British, 7.62×54mmR, 7.92×57mm Mauser, .30-06 Springfield or 7.62×51mm NATO), but still has greater length than pistol/personal defense weapon cartridges.[1] As their recoil is significantly reduced compared to full-power rifle cartridges, fully automatic rifles firing intermediate cartridges are relatively easy to control."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_cartridge

A Winchester Model 100 chambered for the .308 Winchester would not be classified as an AW but a Winchester Model 100 chambered for the .243 Winchester would be.

Likewise, An AR-15 platform chambered for the 223 Remington would be classified as an AW but a similar looking AR-10 chambered for the .308 Winchester would not.

Kaleva

(36,147 posts)
28. A gun in 7.62x51mm would not be but a gun in 7.62x39mm would be.
Mon Apr 27, 2020, 07:38 PM
Apr 2020

A VEPR with a Kalashnikov action chambered for the 7.62x54R round would not be classified as an assault weapon but a semi-automatic AK-47 chambered for the 7.62x39mm round would.

 

Dial H For Hero

(2,971 posts)
33. Granted, but I would think that should significant restrictions make an AR-15 in 5.56x45
Tue Apr 28, 2020, 04:09 AM
Apr 2020

haard to come by while an AR-10 in 7.62x51 was still available, the bad guys would simply use that...or, for that matter, a high capacity shotgun. I dread the day someone opens up on a crowd with something like a Kel-Tec KSG-25 (which isn't even a semiauto, it's a pump-action). Loaded with 25 rounds of 12 Ga. buckshot, it could fire 225 .33 caliber balls in a minute without even reloading.

Kaleva

(36,147 posts)
34. Yes but the heavier rounds limits them.
Tue Apr 28, 2020, 04:31 AM
Apr 2020

The intermediate rounds are lighter and one can carry more, the recoil is less so controlled shooting is better and the gun itself is often lighter and smaller then a gun chambered for the more powerful rounds. A shooter firing 30 rounds of .308 in rapid succession may feel it but that's not likely the case for a shooter firing 30 rounds of .223 in rapid succession.

I have to get back to bed now but I believe the .223 is half the weight of a .308.

 

Dial H For Hero

(2,971 posts)
36. I'll grant that intermediate rounds are more controllable and lighter, but given that a typical mass
Tue Apr 28, 2020, 10:25 AM
Apr 2020

shooter simply sprays a magazine or two into a crowd, I'm stll not sure what your proposed restriction will actually accomplish. Again, wouldn't such a lunatic simply use an AR-10 or similar rifle with essentially the same result as if he'd used an AR-15? For that matter, the majority of mass shootings are (if I'm not mistaken) done using handguns.

Kaleva

(36,147 posts)
37. If the results would be the same, they'd already be using such guns but they don't
Fri May 1, 2020, 07:38 AM
May 2020

And it's just an guess to say that future mass shooters would simply opt for the high powered rifles if there were restrictions on long guns that fired intermediate rounds.

 

Dial H For Hero

(2,971 posts)
38. The lighter guns are less expensive and easier to shoot, granted. But if a potential mass shooter
Fri May 1, 2020, 11:06 AM
May 2020

couldn't obtain an AR in 5.56x45 or an AK in 7.62x39, I can't imagine them simply saying, "Well, those bigger guns are just too darned hard to shoot. Gees I won't go on a shooting spree after all."

They're going to use something. And if they can't get a rifle chambered in an intermediate round, surely they'll either use handguns (as many already do), or a long gun they can obtain. In the latter case, wouldn't one expect them to get a rifle such as an AR-10 or a combat shotgun? I find it unlikely they'd choose a lever action .30-30.

Demsrule86

(68,352 posts)
40. So what is your point that we can't restrict any gun...we just have to put up with mass shootings?
Fri May 1, 2020, 08:36 PM
May 2020

Come to the point please.

 

Dial H For Hero

(2,971 posts)
41. I was actually nitpicking the specific proposal by Kaleva. Certainly some guns can be restricted.
Sat May 2, 2020, 09:27 AM
May 2020

Just as an example, machine guns. While they're technically legal in most states, the supply of them became fixed in 1986 when manufacture was banned for civilian ownership. Supply and demand has resulted in a selective fire M16 that used to cost $1,000 in 1986 now costing over $20,000, making owning one a practical impossibility for almost all people.

Also, should the Democratic Party gain control of both Congress and the WH, there's every likelihood that an assault weapons ban could be passed again, although its constitutionality would be questionable given the current makeup of the SC (which may well change with a Democrat in the WH). I doubt very much that such a ban will focus on the cartridge the gun in question fires, beyond likely banning .50 caliber firearms.

sl8

(13,584 posts)
22. Order:
Sun Apr 26, 2020, 11:38 AM
Apr 2020

From https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5614/attachments/original/1587793502/2020-4-24-ca9-order-granting-stay.pdf?1587793502 (PDF)


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KIM RHODE; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity
as Attorney General of the State of
California,
Defendant-Appellant.


No. 20-55437
D.C. No.
3:18-cv-00802-BEN-JLB
Southern District of California,
San Diego

ORDER

Before: MURGUIA and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

The court has received appellant’s emergency motion for a stay. The request
for an immediate administrative stay is granted. The district court’s April 23, 2020
preliminary injunction order is temporarily stayed pending further court order.
The court will address the emergency stay motion by separate order.

melm00se

(4,974 posts)
35. While the stay is permissible
Tue Apr 28, 2020, 07:55 AM
Apr 2020

the 9th and 7th court of appeals have included the following language in past rulings:


7th Circuit Court (Ezell v. City of Chicago):

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


9th Circuit Court (Jackson v. City & Cty. of San Francisco):

...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.


Based upon these prior rulings, Judge Benetiz will probably get overturned by the 9th en banc upon appeal.
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Court reinstates Californ...