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
SunSeeker
(51,378 posts)ffr
(22,649 posts)oldsoftie
(12,410 posts)flamin lib
(14,559 posts)trc
(823 posts)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)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)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)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.
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)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.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,283 posts)jmowreader
(50,453 posts)Guns are a different story.
NickB79
(19,114 posts)This has been addressed before. So yes, the 2nd does apply to ammunition as well.
http://www.islandlawblog.com/washington-d-c-ammunition-ban-violates-second-amendment/
trc
(823 posts)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)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)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)So the 2A does cover gunpowder according to your logic.
LiberalFighter
(50,504 posts)Then there can be checks on purchases.
SQUEE
(1,315 posts)Hunting restrictions are based on the governments protection and regulation of the Commons.
roamer65
(36,739 posts)If the Constitution does not specifically define it, it is a states right to regulate it.
Do not confuse regulating with banning, folks. Banning would be struck down, regulating will not.
Kaleva
(36,147 posts)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.
Vinca
(50,170 posts)Maxheader
(4,366 posts)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...
azureblue
(2,131 posts)A gun is useless without ammo, so regulate the ammo.
Kaleva
(36,147 posts)"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 firingassuming 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)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)"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)Your definintion says "or", not "and". It qualifies by your definition, does it not?
Kaleva
(36,147 posts)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)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)Kaleva
(36,147 posts)Dial H For Hero
(2,971 posts)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)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)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)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)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)Come to the point please.
Dial H For Hero
(2,971 posts)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)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 appellants emergency motion for a stay. The request
for an immediate administrative stay is granted. The district courts 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)the 9th and 7th court of appeals have included the following language in past rulings:
7th Circuit Court (Ezell v. City of Chicago):
9th Circuit Court (Jackson v. City & Cty. of San Francisco):
Based upon these prior rulings, Judge Benetiz will probably get overturned by the 9th en banc upon appeal.