Appeals court says California law requiring background checks for ammunition is unconstitutional
In upholding a 2024 ruling by a lower court, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the state law violates the Second Amendment. Voters passed the law in 2016 and it took effect in 2019.
Many states, including California, make people pass a background check before they can buy a gun. California went a step further by requiring a background check, which costs either $1 or $19 depending on eligibility, every time someone buys buy bullets.
Last year, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez decided that the law was unconstitutional because if people can't buy bullets, they can't use their guns for self-defense.
The 9th Circuit agreed. Writing for two of the three judges on the appellate panel, Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta said the state law 'meaningfully constrains" the constitutional right to keep arms by forcing gun owners to get rechecked before each purchase of bullets.
'The right to keep and bear arms incorporates the right to operate them, which requires ammunition,' the judge wrote.
Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who supported the background checks, decried the court's decision.
'Strong gun laws save lives — and today's decision is a slap in the face to the progress California has made in recent years to keep its communities safer from gun violence," Newsom said in a statement. "Californians voted to require background checks on ammunition and their voices should matter.'
Chuck Michel, president and general counsel of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, called the law 'absurdly restrictive.'
'This case has been a long hard fight against overreaching government gun control, but a firearm cannot be effective without the ammunition to make it operable. The state of California continues to try to strip our rights, and we continue to prove their actions are unconstitutional.'
Benitez had criticized the state's automated background check system, which he said rejected about 11% of applicants, or 58,087 requests, in the first half of 2023.
California's law was meant to help police find people who have guns illegally, such as convicted felons, people with certain mental illnesses and people with some domestic violence convictions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
12 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Will Trump's axing of labor statistics chief taint jobs data?
These experts cite three reasons Trump administration officials are not likely to manipulate the statistics for political reasons: There's too much data underlying the most publicized jobs figures; broadly comparable numbers are published in other reports; and there are disincentives for chicanery. "I think it would be pretty hard to revise any statistics" based on politics "or try to fudge the numbers somehow," said Sara Estep, an economist at the left-leaning Center for American progress. Still, Estep and other experts say the trustworthiness of the data is being called into question - a development that itself could have a negative impact on the economy and markets - and outright attempts to massage the numbers aren't out of the realm of possibility. "The concern is that this could mark the start of a slippery slope toward greater White House influence over economic statistics, which in a worst-case scenario might involve censoring, reengineering, or suspending official releases like payrolls or CPI (inflation) to serve the Trump administration's agenda," Capital Economics wrote in a note to clients. A White House spokesperson didn't immediately return an email message seeking comment. But on "Meet the Press" on Aug. 3, Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, told moderator Kristin Welker that Trump simply wants to make the jobs report more transparent. "If there are big changes and big revisions - we expect more big revisions for the jobs data in September, for example - then we want to know why. We want people to explain it to us," Hassett said. What was the jobs report for July? On Aug. 1, Trump fired Erika McEntarfer, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, after the agency reported a disappointing 73,000 job gains in July and, more significantly, revised down payroll additions for May and June by a historically massive 258,000 positions. Economists said the large revisions can be explained by small business' unusually low response rates to BLS' initial surveys as they grapple with cost increases from Trump's double-digit tariffs on imports and the effects of the duties on business confidence and hiring. But on Truth Social, Trump said without providing evidence that "today's Jobs Numbers were RIGGED in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad," noting McEntarfer was appointed by former Democratic President Joe Biden. After firing McEntarfer, he appointed William Wiatrowskias interim BLS head and said he would name a permanent replacement within days. William Beach, McEntarfer's predecessor as BLS chief and a Trump appointee, said it's "impossible" for a BLS commissioner to manipulate the jobs data. He added that person doesn't see the report until the numbers are loaded and readied for distribution the Wednesday before its release the first Friday of the month. Keith Hall, who was appointed BLS commissioner by former President George W. Bush and served from 2008 to 2011, told USA TODAY that too many career, nonpartisan civil servants have a hand in drafting the report for the data to be distorted. About 40 people, both Republicans and Democrats, see the final jobs number shortly before publication, Beach previously said. Is Trump trying to control independent federal agencies? Yet, economists worry Trump could test that presumption. His removal of McEntarfer marks his latest challenge to federal agencies whose independence is critical for a smoothly functioning economy. For months, Trump has tried to badger Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell into lowering interest rates and has threatened to fire him, though experts say Powell can't be removed without cause. Economists say the jobs report is considered the global gold standard for accurate and unbiased economic data, providing the best broad snapshot of the U.S. economy in close-to-real time and helping guide the actions of investors, corporations, governments and consumers. Trump's removal of McEntarfer "presents risks to the conduct of monetary policy, to financial stability, and to the economic outlook," JPMorgan Chase economist Michael Feroli wrote in a note to clients. He added "the risk of politicizing the data collection process should not be overlooked." Here's why some experts say they're not worried about the reliability of the jobs numbers: Other federal jobs measures If a BLS commissioner or other key employees finagled the jobs numbers, "discrepancies would quickly emerge in other metrics like jobless claims, which are reported at the state level and [are] less prone to federal influence," Capital Economics said in its research note. Initial unemployment insurance applications provide a reliable gauge of layoffs. And the jobs report represents the net total of all layoffs, hiring, quits, retirements and job switches across the economy. Private jobs reports Even if the administration "brought all major statistical agencies under tight control, economists and investors could still infer the true state of the economy from private sources," Capital Economics said. Those include the ADP employment report and job postings from Indeed, the leading job search site. "Any tampering with official data would likely be exposed sooner or later and would be politically damaging once uncovered," Capital Economics said. Markets are watching - and reacting If evidence emerged that the administration was fiddling with the jobs data, investors likely would demand a higher return for holding assets as such as U.S. Treasuries, pushing up interest rates, Capital Economics said. Trump has fervently advocated for lower rates. The research firm added that "the administration has some inclination to avoid upsetting markets - especially when it leads to higher bond yields and increased debt-servicing costs." Trump tends to push the envelope but not rip it up Trump has shown a propensity to push the boundaries in his efforts to achieve his goals "without clearly crossing" the line, Capital Economics said. For example, he has stopped short of firing the Fed's Powell. "This fits a broader pattern of the administration applying maximum pressure to get its way on issues from deportations to federal layoffs, without openly defying the courts," Capital Economics wrote. Lots of people compile the jobs report The jobs report is like a massive puzzle put together by hundreds of employees and the pieces need to fit. If the final numbers were fudged, employees who worked on inputs to those numbers would realize that and speak up, Hall said. "All of the data, detail and all of the industry statistics need to add up," he said. The underlying jobs data BLS is famously transparent and provides the underlying data behind all its jobs numbers, Estep said. For example, the unemployment rate is based on a survey of 60,000 households, and the agency has their individual responses, she said. At the same time, here's why some experts are still worried: Private jobs data relies on federal numbers Although ADP and other private firms provide jobs data, they're typically "benchmarked to the federal data, as private sector data are very rarely nationally representative," Feroli said. ADP, for instance, relies on the federal jobs report from two months earlier to estimate last month's numbers. The risk of political meddling In the Meet the Press interview, Hassett told Welker, "The president wants his own people there [at BLS] so that when we see the numbers, they're more transparent and more reliable." Said Estep: "I would keep an eye out" for the potential replacement of some longterm public servants with political appointees at BLS and other agencies. "Are they somehow installing more plans for the politicization of these statistical agencies?" Estep asked. The data may be accurate, but is it trustworthy? Even if it's unlikely the data will be manipulated, "it may be less trusted," Estep said, noting that could affect markets and the behavior of companies and consumers. "The trust component, that's really scary." In an opinion piece posted on David Madland, senior fellow at the Center for American progress, wrote: "Government data analysts will do their best to produce credible reports, and much of what they publish will be accurate, but these workers will be increasingly subject to political pressures, or outright meddling. "Reputational damage has already been done - and the decline in trust carries real consequences."
Leader Live
17 hours ago
- Leader Live
Justice Department and FBI sued for access to records on Jeffrey Epstein probe
The legal organisation Democracy Forward is seeking records related to senior administration officials' communication about Epstein documents and any regarding correspondence between Epstein and President Donald Trump. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, appears to the be first of its kind. The group says it submitted requests under the Freedom of Information Act for the records related to communications about the case in late July that have not yet been fulfilled. 'The court should intervene urgently to ensure the public has access to the information they need about this extraordinary situation,' said Skye Perryman, the president and chief executive of the Democratic-aligned group. The federal government often shields records related to criminal investigations from public view. Democracy Forward has filed dozens of lawsuits against Mr Trump's Republican administration, challenging a range of policies and the president's executive orders. The case has been subject to heightened public focus since the Justice Department said last month it would not release additional documents from the case. The decision sparked frustration and anger among online sleuths, conspiracy theorists and elements of Mr Trump's base who had hoped to see proof of a government cover-up. The Trump administration has sought to unseal grand jury transcripts, though that has been denied by a judge in Florida. US District Judge Robin Rosenberg said the request to release grand jury documents from 2005 and 2007 did not meet any of the exceptions under federal law that could make them public. A similar request for the work of a different grand jury is pending in New York. The House Oversight Committee has also subpoenaed the Justice Department for files on the investigation, part of a congressional probe that legislators believe may show links to Mr Trump and other former top officials. Since Epstein's 2019 death in a New York jail cell as he awaited trial on sex-trafficking charges, conservative conspiracists have stoked theories about what information investigators gathered on Epstein and who else knew about his sexual abuse of teenage girls. Mr Trump has denied prior knowledge of Epstein's crimes and claimed he cut off their relationship long ago, and he has repeatedly tried to move past the Justice Department's decision not to release a full accounting of the investigation, but legislators from both major political parties have refused to let it go.
Rhyl Journal
17 hours ago
- Rhyl Journal
Justice Department and FBI sued for access to records on Jeffrey Epstein probe
The legal organisation Democracy Forward is seeking records related to senior administration officials' communication about Epstein documents and any regarding correspondence between Epstein and President Donald Trump. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, appears to the be first of its kind. The group says it submitted requests under the Freedom of Information Act for the records related to communications about the case in late July that have not yet been fulfilled. 'The court should intervene urgently to ensure the public has access to the information they need about this extraordinary situation,' said Skye Perryman, the president and chief executive of the Democratic-aligned group. The federal government often shields records related to criminal investigations from public view. Democracy Forward has filed dozens of lawsuits against Mr Trump's Republican administration, challenging a range of policies and the president's executive orders. The case has been subject to heightened public focus since the Justice Department said last month it would not release additional documents from the case. The decision sparked frustration and anger among online sleuths, conspiracy theorists and elements of Mr Trump's base who had hoped to see proof of a government cover-up. The Trump administration has sought to unseal grand jury transcripts, though that has been denied by a judge in Florida. US District Judge Robin Rosenberg said the request to release grand jury documents from 2005 and 2007 did not meet any of the exceptions under federal law that could make them public. A similar request for the work of a different grand jury is pending in New York. The House Oversight Committee has also subpoenaed the Justice Department for files on the investigation, part of a congressional probe that legislators believe may show links to Mr Trump and other former top officials. Since Epstein's 2019 death in a New York jail cell as he awaited trial on sex-trafficking charges, conservative conspiracists have stoked theories about what information investigators gathered on Epstein and who else knew about his sexual abuse of teenage girls. Mr Trump has denied prior knowledge of Epstein's crimes and claimed he cut off their relationship long ago, and he has repeatedly tried to move past the Justice Department's decision not to release a full accounting of the investigation, but legislators from both major political parties have refused to let it go.
