9th US Circuit Court Rules that California Background Check Law Can Stay In Effect
Jose Nino
|
On February 5, 2024, the 9th United States Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that California can go ahead with enforcing a law mandating people to go through background checks to purchase ammunition.
The appeals court ruled on a 2-1 vote effectively staying a previous ruling by US District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego determining that the background checks law infringed on the right to bear arms as enshrined by the Second Amendment
California had petitioned the 9th Circuit to take action and stay the ruling while it appealed what officials deemed as a “dangerous” ruling by Judge Benitez.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta published a post on the social media platform X declaring that the ruling will allow for the Golden state’s “life-saving ammunition laws will remain in effect as we continue to defend them in court.”
The plaintiffs who challenged the law in court were Kim Rhode, a three-time Olympic gold medalist in shooting events, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association.
Chuck Michel, who is the organization’s president and general counsel, declared in a statement that the plaintiffs will push for additional review by a different panel of the court and “restore the people’s right to buy the ammunition they need for sport or to defend their families.”
Back in 2016, California voters pulled the lever in favor of a ballot measure mandating gun owners to be subjected to background checks just to purchase ammunition, on top of paying $50 for a ammunition permit that is valid for 4 years.
Elected officials would subsequently amend the measure to mandate background checks for all ammunition purchases, which kicked off in 2019.
Benitz issued the ruling on January 30, which was the most recent court decision to whittle away at gun control after the Supreme Court’s landmark June 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision.
This ruling recognized that the Second Amendment safeguards an individual’s right to carry a handgun in public space for the purpose of self-defense — the first time the Supreme Court has ever done so. On top of that, the decision put forth a new test for assessing gun control laws, saying gun control regulations must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
In America there’s a clear divide between red and blue states when it comes to the Second Amendment. Blue states are where gun rights go to die, and red states are where these rights can at least be nominally preserved.
That’s how the battle lines are being drawn these days. Sure, the courts can hand out some victories here and there, but matters are so tribalized these days that blue states will continue to flout Supreme Court decisions and ensure that their jurisdictions turn into anti-gun bastions.
Share: