Latest news with #9thU.S.CircuitCourtofAppeals
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Appeals court says California law requiring background checks for ammunition is unconstitutional
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A voter-backed California law requiring background checks for people who buy bullets is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday in a blow to the state's efforts to combat gun violence. In upholding a 2024 ruling by a lower court, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the 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 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 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.' The California Department of Justice said the state needs 'common-sense, lifesaving' laws that prevent ammunition from falling into the wrong hands. 'We are deeply disappointed in today's ruling — a critical and lifesaving measure that closes a dangerous loophole,' the department said in a statement. 'Our families, schools, and neighborhoods deserve nothing less than the most basic protection against preventable gun violence, and we are looking into our legal options.' 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,' Michel said. The law remained in effect while the state appealed the lower court's decision. 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. Sometimes they order kits online and assemble guns in their home. The guns don't have serial numbers and are difficult for law enforcement to track, but the people who own them show up in background checks when they try to buy bullets. John Parkin, president of Coyote Point Armory in Burlingame, California, said the law made it difficult or impossible for some legal gun owners to purchase ammunition. For example, out-of-state residents and California residents with old guns couldn't buy bullets because they weren't in the database of approved gun owners, he said. 'It was written to make California gun owners angry. There wasn't a lot of logic to it," Parkin said about the law. 'I think there are better ways to keep the public safe.' California has some of the nation's toughest gun laws. Many of them are being challenged in court in light of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that set a new standard for interpreting gun laws. The decision said gun laws must be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Two other California gun laws were struck down in recent years — one that banned detachable magazines that can hold more than 10 bullets and another that banned the sale of assault-style weapons. Those decisions have been appealed. Other laws being challenged include rules requiring gun stores to have digital surveillance systems and restrictions on the sale of new handguns. Solve the daily Crossword
Reuters
5 days ago
- Politics
- Reuters
Oregon adoption policy on LGBTQ acceptance violates free speech rights, court says
CHICAGO, July 24 (Reuters) - An Oregon woman seeking to adopt two children out of foster care will be allowed to move forward after a U.S. appeals court on Thursday said a state policy requiring adoptive parents to 'respect, accept and support' the children's gender expression and sexual orientation was unconstitutional. A divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling blocking Jessica Bates from adopting because of the Oregon Department of Human Services' policy. The majority agreed with Bates, a devout Christian who said her beliefs prevent her from following the policy, finding that it violates Bates' rights to free speech and free exercise of religion under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Circuit Judge Daniel Bress, who was appointed by Republican President Donald Trump in his first term, joined with Circuit Judge Michael Hawkins, an appointee of Democratic President Bill Clinton, in finding that the policy is unconstitutional. Oregon hasn't explained why other ways to protect LGBTQ children in foster care — instead of a policy that broadly bans Bates from adopting — aren't feasible, Bress wrote in the opinion. 'A state's general conception of the child's best interest does not create a force field against the valid operation of other constitutional rights,' he wrote. Bates was represented by lawyers from Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian group that is routinely involved in high-profile court cases involving religious liberties. 'The 9th Circuit was right to remind Oregon that the foster and adoption system is supposed to serve the best interests of children, not the state's ideological crusade,' ADF Senior Counsel and Vice President of Litigation Strategy Jonathan Scruggs said in a statement after the ruling. A spokesperson for Democratic Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, whose office defended the policy, said in a statement they are reviewing the ruling to determine their next steps. Bates filed the lawsuit in 2023 after her application to adopt a pair of siblings was denied when she told an administrator that she couldn't support the behavior of a hypothetical child whose preferred pronouns and identity don't match their biological sex. The district court rejected Bates' bid for an injunction against the policy, finding that Oregon has a strong interest in protecting the rights of LGBTQ children and the policy's regulation of free speech was precise enough. Circuit Judge Richard Clifton, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, dissented, saying that the policy regulates parental actions and does not impact speech beyond what is necessary. The case is Bates v. Pakseresht, case number 23-4169 in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. For Bates: Jonathan Scruggs, James Campbell, Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse, John Bursch of the Alliance Defending Freedom and Rebekah Schultheiss of the Freedom Foundation For Oregon: Philip Thoennes, Denise Fjordbeck, Benjamin Gutman, Ellen Rosenblum of the Oregon Department of Justice
Reuters
5 days ago
- Politics
- Reuters
California ammunition background checks declared unconstitutional by US appeals court
July 24 (Reuters) - A divided federal appeals court on Thursday said California's first-of-its-kind law requiring firearm owners to undergo background checks to buy ammunition is unconstitutional, violating the Second Amendment right to bear arms. In a 2-1 vote, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California upheld a lower court judge's permanent injunction against enforcing the law. Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta said the law "meaningfully constrains" people's right to keep and bear arms. She also said California failed to show the law was consistent with the country's historical tradition of firearm regulation as required under a 2022 landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. "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," Ikuta wrote. The office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta, which defended the law, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. California Governor Gavin Newsom's office had no immediate comment. All three judges on the panel were appointed by Republican presidents, though appointees of Democratic presidents hold a 9th Circuit majority. California can ask an 11-judge appeals court panel or the Supreme Court to review the decision. The plaintiffs included Kim Rhode, opens new tab, who has won three Olympic gold medals in shooting events, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association. In a joint statement, the group's president and general counsel Chuck Michel called the decision a victory against "overreaching government gun control," while Rhode called it "a big win for all gun owners in California." Many gun rights groups and 24 mostly Republican-led U.S. states submitted briefs supporting the law's opponents, while a few gun safety groups sided with California. Janet Carter, managing director of Second Amendment litigation at Everytown Law, in a statement said California's law imposed a "minimal burden"--a $1 fee and one-minute delay--for most firearms owners seeking ammunition. "Background checks for ammunition sales are common sense," she said. Voters had in 2016 approved a California ballot measure requiring gun owners to undergo initial background checks to buy ammunition, and buy four-year ammunition permits. Legislators later amended the measure to require background checks for each ammunition purchase. California said it received 191 reports, opens new tab in 2024 of "armed and prohibited individuals" who were blocked through background checks from buying ammunition. The injunction had been issued in January 2024 by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego, who has ruled in several cases in favor of gun owners. An appeals court panel put the injunction on hold during California's appeal. California said several old firearms restrictions supported the background checks. These included colonial era rules requiring licenses to produce gunpowder, the disarmament around 1776 of people who refused to take "loyalty oaths," and late-19th century rules requiring government permission to carry concealed weapons. Circuit Judge Jay Bybee dissented from Thursday's decision. He accused the majority of flouting Supreme Court guidance by effectively declaring unlawful any limits on ammunition sales, given the unlikelihood a state can point to identical historical analogues. The law "is not the kind of heavy-handed regulation that meaningfully constrains the right to keep and bear arms," Bybee wrote. President George W. Bush appointed Ikuta and Bybee to the bench, while President Donald Trump appointed Circuit Judge Bridget Bade, who joined Thursday's majority. The case is Rhode v Bonta et al, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-542.
Time of India
6 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Apple beats US appeal claiming it shortchanged customers on iCloud storage
By Jonathan Stempel A U.S. federal appeals court on Wednesday rejected claims by Apple customers that the iPhone maker gave them less iCloud data storage than they paid for when upgrading. In a 3-0 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said reasonable consumers in the proposed class action would not have been misled by Apple's promises about storage capacity in its iCloud+ plans . The plaintiff Lisa Bodenburg said she paid $2.99 a month for 200 GB of storage, believing Apple would add it to the 5 GB that all iCloud customers receive, and was shortchanged because Apple gave her only 200 GB of total storage, not 205 GB. Circuit Judge Milan Smith, however said Bodenburg "received exactly what Apple promised her" when the Cupertino, California-based company offered "incremental" or "supplemental" storage, on top of the 5 GB she got for free. He cited dismissals of other cases based on "unreasonable assumptions," including that Diet Dr. Pepper would aid in weight loss, and the net weight on a lip balm label failed to reveal that the dispenser's design left some balm inaccessible. "Apple's statements are not false and deceptive merely because may be unreasonably misunderstood by an insignificant and unrepresentative segment of consumers," Smith wrote. Lawyers for Bodenburg did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The decision upheld a May 2024 dismissal by U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson in San Francisco. The case is Bodenburg v Apple Inc, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-3335.
The Hindu
6 days ago
- The Hindu
Apple beats U.S. appeal claiming it shortchanged customers on iCloud storage
A U.S. federal appeals court on Wednesday rejected claims by Apple customers that the iPhone maker gave them less iCloud data storage than they paid for when upgrading. In a 3-0 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said reasonable consumers in the proposed class action would not have been misled by Apple's promises about storage capacity in its iCloud+ plans. The plaintiff Lisa Bodenburg said she paid $2.99 a month for 200 GB of storage, believing Apple would add it to the 5 GB that all iCloud customers receive, and was shortchanged because Apple gave her only 200 GB of total storage, not 205 GB. Circuit Judge Milan Smith, however said Bodenburg "received exactly what Apple promised her" when the Cupertino, California-based company offered "incremental" or "supplemental" storage, on top of the 5 GB she got for free. He cited dismissals of other cases based on "unreasonable assumptions," including that Diet Dr. Pepper would aid in weight loss, and the net weight on a lip balm label failed to reveal that the dispenser's design left some balm inaccessible. "Apple's statements are not false and deceptive merely because may be unreasonably misunderstood by an insignificant and unrepresentative segment of consumers," Smith wrote. Lawyers for Bodenburg did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The decision upheld a May 2024 dismissal by U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson in San Francisco. The case is Bodenburg v Apple Inc, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-3335.
