California cannot require background checks to buy ammunition: US appeals court
In a 2-1 vote, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California upheld a lower court judge's permanent injunction against enforcing the law.
Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta said California failed to show that the law was consistent with the country's historical tradition of firearm regulation, as required under a 2022 US Supreme Court precedent.
'By subjecting Californians to background checks for all ammunition purchases, California's ammunition background check regime infringes on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms,' violating the US Constitution's Second Amendment, Ikuta wrote.
The office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta, which defended the law, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. California Governor Gavin Newsom's office did not immediately respond to a similar request.
Voters had in 2016 approved a California ballot measure requiring gun owners to undergo initial background checks to buy ammunition, and pay $50 for a four-year ammunition permit.
Legislators amended the measure to require background checks for each ammunition purchase. The background check scheme took effect in 2019.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Saudi Gazette
2 days ago
- Saudi Gazette
US federal judge blocks Trump's birthright order nationwide
WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Maryland ruled that US President Donald Trump cannot withhold citizenship from people born to people in the United States illegally or temporarily, issuing the fourth court decision blocking Trump's birthright citizenship order since a key Supreme Court ruling in June. US District Judge Deborah Boardman's preliminary injunction was expected after she said last month that she would issue such an order if an appeals court returned the case to her. The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back to her late in July. Since June, two other district courts, in addition to an appellate panel of judges, have also blocked Trump's birthright ban nationwide, which he passed on his first day in office through an executive order. Trump's executive order signed on Inauguration Day on 20 January would deny citizenship to children born to parents living in the United States illegally or temporarily. Boardman issued a preliminary injunction blocking the executive order nationwide, but a ruling by the Supreme Court offered the Trump administration some hope of upholding the policy many criticise as a violation of the US Constitution. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution stipulates that all persons born or naturalised in the United States are US citizens. The top US court upended Boardman's decision and other court rulings blocking Trump's order across the nation, saying that federal judges and courts lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions. The justices ruled did not however rule out other court orders which could have nationwide effects, including class-action lawsuits and those brought forward by states. Boardman on her Thursday ruling certified a class of children who have been born or will be born in the United States after 19 February, who would be affected by Trump's order. She argued that the plaintiffs in the lawsuit before her were 'extremely likely' to win their argument that the US president's order is a constitutional violation and are also likely to suffer 'irreparable harm' if the order went into effect. — Euronews
Al Arabiya
4 days ago
- Al Arabiya
US President Trump says will ‘probably not' run for third term
US President Donald Trump says he will 'probably not' run for a third term, Reuters reported on Tuesday. When asked if he plans to run again, he replied 'probably not' before saying later he'd like to run. US presidents are limited to two four-year terms, consecutive or not, according to the 22nd Amendment of the US Constitution. Developing...
Al Arabiya
30-07-2025
- Al Arabiya
Trump administration asks judges to release Epstein, Maxwell grand jury transcripts
Donald Trump's administration urged two judges on Tuesday night to release testimony heard by the grand juries that indicted the late financier Jeffrey Epstein and British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell on sex trafficking charges as the president seeks to calm an uproar over his administration's handling of the matter. The Justice Department first sought court permission on July 18 to make public transcripts of the confidential testimony given by witnesses years ago in the two cases, but Manhattan-based US District Judges Richard Berman and Paul Engelmayer asked the government to flesh out the legal bases for the requests. In a pair of court filings just before midnight, prosecutors said unsealing the materials would be appropriate given the 'abundant public interest' in the Epstein case and persistent scrutiny of how it was handled by federal law enforcement. The Epstein case has been at the center of conspiracy theories for years. Trump has faced pressure in recent months to make public documents from the federal investigations into Epstein and Maxwell. Epstein hanged himself in jail in 2019, an autopsy concluded, while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges brought by federal prosecutors. He had pleaded not guilty. Maxwell, Epstein's longtime girlfriend, was convicted in 2021 on sex trafficking charges and is serving a 20-year prison sentence in Florida. Maxwell had pleaded not guilty and is now asking the US Supreme Court to overturn her conviction. Trump said this month he had asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek the release of grand jury transcripts in the two cases. The president did so after the Justice Department said it concluded that Epstein died by suicide and that there was no incriminating list of his clients. The Justice Department's announcement angered some of Trump's conservative supporters who believe the government is covering up Epstein's ties to the rich and powerful and that the financier was murdered in jail. Grand juries are convened by prosecutors and meet in secret to hear witness testimony and decide whether to indict people suspected of crimes. Records of their proceedings usually remain sealed. There are only limited circumstances under which such transcripts can be disclosed. Even if one or both of the judges allow the transcripts to be made public, it is not clear whether the public would learn anything new or noteworthy. Maxwell's four-week trial in 2021 included public testimony from alleged sex trafficking victims, associates of Epstein and Maxwell, and law enforcement officers. The transcripts also would not represent all the previously unreleased material in the government's possession. Investigators and prosecutors may pursue leads that they cannot substantiate or interview potential witnesses whom they do not ultimately call to testify before a grand jury. US District Judge Robin Rosenberg in Florida on July 23 denied the administration's request to unseal records from grand jury investigations in 2005 and 2007 in that state into Epstein. The judge found that the request did not fall into any of the limited exceptions that may allow for the release of such material. Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 to a prostitution charge brought under Florida law and was given a 13-month sentence in a deal with prosecutors now widely regarded as too lenient. Deputy US Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump's former personal lawyer, last week met with Maxwell for two days to see if she had any information about others who had committed crimes. Maxwell's lawyer David Markus and Blanche have not provided detailed accounts of their discussions.
