Latest news with #CaliforniaRifle&PistolAssociation
The Guardian
25-07-2025
- 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.
The Independent
24-07-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Appeals court says California law requiring background checks for ammunition is unconstitutional
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 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.
Yahoo
21-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
US judge films video of himself loading handguns in chambers in dissent against California court ruling
An appeals court ruled Thursday that California's law banning gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition can remain in place, a decision that prompted one judge to record an unusual video dissent that shows him loading guns in his chambers. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 7-4 that the law was permissible under the Second Amendment because large-capacity magazines are not considered 'arms' or 'protected accessories.' Even if they were, California's ban 'falls within the Nation's tradition of protecting innocent persons by prohibiting especially dangerous uses of weapons and by regulating components necessary to the firing of a firearm,' the opinion stated. Judge Lawrence VanDyke disagreed, and included a link to a video of himself posted on YouTube in his dissent. 'This is the first video like this that I've ever made,' VanDyke said. 'I share this because a rudimentary understanding of how guns are made, sold, used, and commonly modified makes obvious why California's proposed test and the one my colleagues are adopting today simply does not work.' In the video, VanDyke handles several guns in his chambers and demonstrates how they are loaded and fired. He also shows high-capacity magazines and argues that they are no different from other gun accessories that could be added to a firearm to make it more dangerous. Under the majority's logic, he said, that would allow the government to pick and choose any of them to be banned. Judge Marsha S. Berzon criticized VanDyke's video in a separate opinion, saying he was including 'facts outside the record' and was, in essence, appointing himself an expert witness in the case. The law has remained in effect as the state appealed a 2023 ruling by a district court judge in San Diego that it was unconstitutional. The ruling was in response to legal action filed by four individuals and the California Rifle & Pistol Association challenging the law's constitutionality under the Second Amendment. The majority opinion judges said their decision to uphold the law is in line with a Supreme Court ruling in 2022 that set a new standard that relies more on the historical tradition of gun regulation rather than public interests, including safety. California Attorney General Rob Bonta praised the appeals court's decision. 'This commonsense restriction on how many rounds a gunman can fire before they must pause to reload has been identified as a critical intervention to limit a lone shooter's capacity to turn shootings into mass casualty attacks,' Bonta said in a statement. 'Let me be clear, this law saves lives.'
CNN
21-03-2025
- Politics
- CNN
US judge films video of himself loading handguns in chambers to protest California court ruling
An appeals court ruled Thursday that California's law banning gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition can remain in place, a decision that prompted one judge to record an unusual video dissent that shows him loading guns in his chambers. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 7-4 that the law was permissible under the Second Amendment because large-capacity magazines are not considered 'arms' or 'protected accessories.' Even if they were, California's ban 'falls within the Nation's tradition of protecting innocent persons by prohibiting especially dangerous uses of weapons and by regulating components necessary to the firing of a firearm,' the opinion stated. Judge Lawrence VanDyke disagreed, and included a link to a video of himself posted on YouTube in his dissent. 'This is the first video like this that I've ever made,' VanDyke said. 'I share this because a rudimentary understanding of how guns are made, sold, used, and commonly modified makes obvious why California's proposed test and the one my colleagues are adopting today simply does not work.' In the video, VanDyke handles several guns in his chambers and demonstrates how they are loaded and fired. He also shows high-capacity magazines and argues that they are no different from other gun accessories that could be added to a firearm to make it more dangerous. Under the majority's logic, he said, that would allow the government to pick and choose any of them to be banned. Judge Marsha S. Berzon criticized VanDyke's video in a separate opinion, saying he was including 'facts outside the record' and was, in essence, appointing himself an expert witness in the case. The law has remained in effect as the state appealed a 2023 ruling by a district court judge in San Diego that it was unconstitutional. The ruling was in response to legal action filed by four individuals and the California Rifle & Pistol Association challenging the law's constitutionality under the Second Amendment. The majority opinion judges said their decision to uphold the law is in line with a Supreme Court ruling in 2022 that set a new standard that relies more on the historical tradition of gun regulation rather than public interests, including safety. California Attorney General Rob Bonta praised the appeals court's decision. 'This commonsense restriction on how many rounds a gunman can fire before they must pause to reload has been identified as a critical intervention to limit a lone shooter's capacity to turn shootings into mass casualty attacks,' Bonta said in a statement. 'Let me be clear, this law saves lives.'
Yahoo
21-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
California appeals court upholds ban on higher-capacity magazines, spurring unusual video dissent
LOS ANGELES (AP) — An appeals court ruled Thursday that California's law banning gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition can remain in place, a decision that prompted one judge to record an unusual video dissent that shows him loading guns in his chambers. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 7-4 that the law was permissible under the Second Amendment because large-capacity magazines are not considered 'arms' or 'protected accessories." Even if they were, California's ban 'falls within the Nation's tradition of protecting innocent persons by prohibiting especially dangerous uses of weapons and by regulating components necessary to the firing of a firearm," the opinion stated. Judge Lawrence VanDyke disagreed, and included a link to a video of himself posted on YouTube in his dissent. 'This is the first video like this that I've ever made,' VanDyke said. 'I share this because a rudimentary understanding of how guns are made, sold, used, and commonly modified makes obvious why California's proposed test and the one my colleagues are adopting today simply does not work.' In the video, VanDyke handles several guns in his chambers and demonstrates how they are loaded and fired. He also shows high-capacity magazines and argues that they are no different from other gun accessories that could be added to a firearm to make it more dangerous. Under the majority's logic, he said, that would allow the government to pick and choose any of them to be banned. Judge Marsha S. Berzon criticized VanDyke's video in a separate opinion, saying he was including 'facts outside the record' and was, in essence, appointing himself an expert witness in the case. The law has remained in effect as the state appealed a 2023 ruling by a district court judge in San Diego that it was unconstitutional. The ruling was in response to legal action filed by four individuals and the California Rifle & Pistol Association challenging the law's constitutionality under the Second Amendment. The majority opinion judges said their decision to uphold the law is in line with a Supreme Court ruling in 2022 that set a new standard that relies more on the historical tradition of gun regulation rather than public interests, including safety. California Attorney General Rob Bonta praised the appeals court's decision. 'This commonsense restriction on how many rounds a gunman can fire before they must pause to reload has been identified as a critical intervention to limit a lone shooter's capacity to turn shootings into mass casualty attacks," Bonta said in a statement. "Let me be clear, this law saves lives.'
