On Tuesday, January 30, 2024, in the case of Rhode v. Bonta, Federal Judge Roger T. Benitez ruled California’s ammunition restrictions unconstitutional and issued a full injunction. Requests by the State to stay the decision pending appeal and an administrative stay were rejected. Subsequently, the state filed a notice to appeal and an Emergency Motion to Stay the Injunction with the Ninth Circuit.
Recall that California’s ammunition background checks were the product of the 2016 Proposition 63. State voters authorized a system where gun owners would have to apply for a $50/four-year ammunition purchase permit. However, before the elections the state legislature enacted Senate Bill 1235 and “prospectively amended” aspects of Proposition 63, including the ammunition purchase permit program, before it was even voted on. Instead of creating a system using an ammunition purchase permit that was valid for four years, Senate Bill 1235 required residents to submit to an automated background check every time they need to buy ammunition. This bait-and-switch plan was because the voters would not have approved the current background check system.
The decision itself is another significant setback for California’s gun control scheme from the bench of Federal Judge Roger T. Benitez. It is extremely well written and worth reading to understand the basis of the decision and the absurdity of the State’s arguments. The link to the ruling is at the bottom of this text.
To give you an idea of how ridiculous the justification of the law was, the ultra-liberal/woke State of California referenced 50 historical laws that limited or banned the transfer of firearms or ammunition to slaves, blacks, Native Americans, mixed-race individuals, and other minorities.
“The State’s compilation lists 48 laws which made it a crime to possess a gun and ammunition by Negros, Mulattos, slaves, or persons of color, and two laws that prohibited sales to Indians. For example, the Attorney General lists a 1798 Kentucky law which prohibited any “Negro, mulatto, or Indian” from possessing any gun or ammunition. An 1846 North Carolina law offers another example wherein it was prohibited to sell or deliver firearms to “any slave.””
The court declared, “These fifty laws highlighted by the Attorney General form a lengthy, shameful, repugnant, insidious, and reprehensible list of instances illustrating government tyranny against our own citizens.”
The judge ruled that it not only violates our fundamental right to bear arms but also crosses lines with the Constitution’s Commerce Clause and is preempted by the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act.
The impact of this ruling and been swift and exceptional. Licensed California Ammunition Vendors no longer must run background checks for ammo sales. In fact, any business in the state may now sell ammunition without being an “ammunition vendor”. California residents may bring in ammunition from out of state and freely sell or trade ammo with others. Retailers around the country quickly changed their policies and immediately began shipping ammo directly to customers in the state.
For anyone that has had to deal with it, California’s ammunition background check system is/was a massive pain in the ass. For retailers, capturing all the required inventory information and having to run, and charge, a new fee just to buy a box of ammo. For the customer, it’s been a nightmare of epic proportions, new fees, problems with address changes, DROS (Dealer Record of Sales) file mismatches, indefinite waits for approval and denials for no conceivable reason. Reports from around the state have highlighted denials for joe-average-gun-owner who’s never moved and never been charged with a crime, COE (Certificate of Eligibility) holders, and active-duty law enforcement officers. Lengthy and occasionally infinite wait times, and sometimes exorbitant fees in attempts to resolve issues within the ammunition background check system were noted by the Court.
But keep in mind California’s ammunition background check system was never intended to function as JUST a background check system. It was designed for future, far more restrictive ammunition control laws. It was built to deny purchases. What did the future hold?
It was incorporated into the DROS systems so it could match the caliber of information you intended to buy to the calibers of firearms you owned. No registered firearms in .40 caliber would mean you can’t buy ammo in .40 caliber. Never mind you can change calibers on some firearms. Besides, you can’t add that to DROS. Denied!
Trying to buy ammunition without a firearm registered in the system? Denied!
Trying to buy hollow point bullets for your handgun when hollow point handgun ammunition has been banned? Denied!
Trying to buy 200 rounds of .22 LR when the monthly limit has been set to 100 rounds, Denied!
Trying to buy lead ammo after it has been completely banned ‘for the environment’ so all your less expensive practice and sporting ammo is no longer available. Denied!
Trying to buy “assault weapon” ammo after sales of .223/5.56 & 7.62 ammo are banned. Never mind that you’ve been shooting that in your bolt action rifle for years. Denied!
Trying to buy “sniper rifle” ammo (whatever that is) after it has been banned. Never mind that’s also your hunting ammo. Denied!
Trying to buy ammo because there are “mostly peaceful” protests or riots in one city and your family is threated? Ammunition sales, along with firearm sales and deliveries, can be turned off in that city, or county or the whole state with a just a few clicks of the keyboard. Denied!
THESE are the features which were waiting to be deployed.
Don’t believe it? California has tried to restrict ammunition purchases for years, but they lacked the system to enact the controls. The DROS based ammunition background check system was designed for this purpose. Much of the legislation had already been proposed and just put on hold.
Naturally, the State has appealed this to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in hopes to stay the opinion while it appeals the case in the Nutty Ninth. If I was a betting person, I’d say there’s a very good chance the Ninth will stay this order and allow ammunition background checks and restrictions to be enforced again during what will be a VERY lengthy appeal process.
After all, the ammunition background checks are a key piece of California’s scheme to restrict-to-the-point-of-eliminate firearms in the state and losing it at the beginning of the appeals process would be a huge slap in the face. This ruling would also be a disturbing omen to other gun control states who have or are trying to do the same thing.
For now, California ammunition sales are once again free. It remains to be seen if this will be another Freedom Week or a permanent reversal. Hopefully the good citizens of the state of California will make good use of this time and not only stock up on ammo but also contribute to the organizations who are fighting these unconstitutional laws on our behalf.
Here’s an important quote to remember from the Rhode v. Bonta ruling:
“The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’”
Bob
https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/24.01.31-Rhode-Decision.pdf
#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #Unconstitutional, #GunVote, #AmmuntionBan, #AmmoBackgroundCheck, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com