Latest news with #Bruen
Epoch Times
7 days ago
- Epoch Times
Appeals Court Upholds Block on California's Background Check to Buy Ammunition
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled July 24 that a California law requiring background checks to buy ammunition violated the Second Amendment. A three-judge panel ruled 2–1 that the background check requirement failed to meet the standard set by the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.
The Guardian
7 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
California: appeals court blocks background checks for ammunition buyers
A federal appeals court has ruled that California's first-of-its-kind law requiring firearm owners to undergo background checks to buy ammunition is unconstitutional. In a 2-1 vote on Thursday, the ninth US circuit court of appeals in Pasadena 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, and that California failed to show that the law was consistent with the US historical tradition of firearm regulation, as required under the supreme court's 2022 Bruen decision. Thursday's ruling was a defeat for the gun control movement, albeit one that did not come as a surprise. Gun control and violence prevention advocates had decried the supreme court's 2022 decision, and argued that the historical twin test would lead to the rolling back of hard-won regulations that they say have been vital in reducing death and injury from gun violence. Since the ruling, there have been more than 2,000 gun law challenges, and lower courts continue to sort through the new parameters the ruling has produced. Most of the cases were brought by people who were looking to have their gun case convictions overturned, according to the Trace. The others have been civil lawsuits brought by gun rights groups. The office of Rob Bonta, California's attorney general, which defended the law, said it was disappointed by the decision. '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,' a spokesperson said. 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. The case against the law was brought by Kim Rhode, who has won three Olympic gold medals in shooting events, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA). Many gun rights groups and 24 mostly Republican-led US states submitted briefs supporting the law's opponents. The CRPA described the ruling as a 'huge win' for California gun owners. It said: 'Today's ruling is what plaintiffs … and many in the 2A community, like the National Rifle Association, who supported the many appeals in this case, have been waiting almost a decade to receive.' In a joint statement, the association'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'. California was backed by several safety groups. 'Background checks for ammunition sales are common sense,' said Janet Carter, managing director of second amendment litigation at Everytown Law. Last year, nearly 200 people who were on California's list of people who owned guns but later became prohibited from possessing them were denied from buying ammunition through this background check system, according to the California justice department's 2024 Armed and Prohibited Persons System Report. In his dissenting opinion, Judge Jay Bybee, a George W Bush appointee, argued that in most cases, the state's ammunition background check process 'costs one dollar and imposes less than one minute of delay'. The law 'is not the kind of heavy-handed regulation that meaningfully constrains the right to keep and bear arms', Bybee wrote. He further argued the majority opinion was flawed and contorted the precedent set by the Bruen decision 'beyond recognition'. Thursday's ruling, he argued, in effect declares unlawful any limits on ammunition sales, given the unlikelihood a state can point to identical historical analogues.
New York Post
25-07-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
US appeals court makes decision on landmark California ammunition background checks case
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 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 the law 'meaningfully constrains' people's right to keep and bear arms. Advertisement The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, Calif. declared a law that requires gun owners to undergo background checks to buy ammunition in California unconstitutional. Getty Images 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 US 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. Advertisement The office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat who defended the law, was disappointed by the decision. '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,' a spokesperson said. The office of California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who has called the January 2024 injunction 'extremist, illogical, and incoherent,' had no immediate comment. Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta said hte law 'meaningfully constrains' citizens' right to bear arms. REUTERS Advertisement All three judges on Thursday's 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. 'Overreaching The plaintiffs included Kim Rhode, 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.' Advertisement Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! Many gun rights groups and 24 mostly Republican-led US 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 in 2024 of 'armed and prohibited individuals' who were blocked through background checks from buying ammunition. Law not 'Heavy-Handed,' dissent says Advertisement The injunction was issued by US 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. Advertisement 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. Advertisement 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 US Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-542.
Reuters
24-07-2025
- 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.
India Today
23-07-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Harvard under investigation for role in US visa programme for foreign researchers
The US Department of State has opened a formal investigation into Harvard University's participation in the federal Exchange Visitor Programme, raising questions about the Ivy League institution's compliance with national security protocols and programme enquiry will assess whether Harvard remains eligible to serve as a sponsor in the programme, which brings thousands of international students and scholars to the United States annually for academic and cultural has come under increasing pressure from Washington since it refused to comply with demands from a federal antisemitism task force in April. The university is now suing for over $2.6 billion in federal funding cuts, accusing the Trump administration of carrying out a campaign of retaliation. 'All sponsors participating in this programme are required to fully comply with exchange visitor regulations, transparency in reporting, and a demonstrated commitment to fostering the principles of cultural exchange and mutual understanding upon which the programme was founded,' the State Department said in a department emphasised that sponsors must not conduct activities that 'undermine the foreign policy objectives or compromise the national security interests of the United States.'While the agency has not disclosed what triggered the investigation, the announcement marks a rare public scrutiny of one of the country's most prestigious American people have the right to expect their universities to uphold national security, comply with the law, and provide safe conditions for all students. "The investigation will ensure that State Department programs do not run contrary to our nation's interests," the department spokesperson Jason Newton said the investigation was 'another retaliatory step' taken by the administration. 'Harvard continues to enrol and sponsor international scholars, researchers, and students, and will protect its international community and support them as they apply for US visas and travel to campus this fall,' Newton said in a statement. He said the school is committed to complying with the programme's Bruen, a former director of global engagement under Democratic President Barack Obama, said there is no justification for the administration's action.'It not only damages Harvard, but American higher education & industry that depend on the best & brightest wanting to come here,' Bruen said in a post on Exchange Visitor Programme, also known as the J-1 visa programme, has long been seen as a soft power tool for US diplomacy, building goodwill through academic and cultural ties.- EndsInputs from Associated PressTune InMust Watch
