Latest news with #SandraIkuta
Forbes
2 days ago
- Politics
- Forbes
Federal Court Strikes Down California's Ammo Background Check Law
In a major victory for the Second Amendment, on Thursday, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals struck down a first-of-its-kind law that required a background check before every purchase of ammunition in California. 'By subjecting Californians to background checks for all ammunition purchases,' Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote for the majority in Rhode v. Bonta, 'California's ammunition background check regime infringes on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.' PETALUMA, CA - APRIL 02: Rounds of .223 rifle ammuntion sits on the counter at Sportsmans Arms on ... More April 2, 2013 in Petaluma, California. (Photo Illustration by) California's regime dates back to 2016, when California voters approved Proposition 63 by a margin of almost 2:1. Under the proposition, residents would pass an initial background check and then receive a four-year permit to purchase ammunition. However, California lawmakers amended the law to only allow ammunition purchases in-person and after a background check each time. By requiring face-to-face transactions, California also banned both online sales and prohibited Californians from buying ammunition out-of-state. Prior to California's regime taking effect in July 2019, multiple plaintiffs, including Olympic gold medalist Kim Rhode and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, sued the state in 2018. To determine if California's law was constitutional under the Second Amendment, the Ninth Circuit relied on a two-step test set by the Supreme Court in its 2022 landmark ruling, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. Under that decision's framework, 'when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.' If so, the government must then show that 'the regulation is consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.' In the California case, the Ninth Circuit determined that the Second Amendment protects 'operable' arms, and 'because arms are inoperable without ammunition, the right to keep and bear arms necessarily encompasses the right to have ammunition.' As a result, the court concluded that 'California's ammunition background check meaningfully constrains the right to keep operable arms.' To survive the second step of the Bruen test, California attempted to compare its background check system to a wide range of historical analogues, including loyalty oaths and disarmament provisions from the American Revolution and Reconstruction. But the Ninth Circuit was left unconvinced. 'None of the historical analogues proffered by California is within the relevant time frame, or is relevantly similar to California's ammunition background check regime,' Ikuta found, and so, 'California's ammunition background check regime does not survive scrutiny under the two-step Bruen analysis.' In a sharply worded dissent, Judge Jay Bybee blasted the majority's analysis as 'twice-flawed.' Noting that 'the vast majority of its checks cost one dollar and impose less than one minute of delay,' Judge Bybee asserted that California's background check system is 'not the kind of heavy-handed regulation that meaningfully constrains the right to keep and bear arms.' Notably, the California Department of Justice in 2024 received 191 reports of ammunition purchases from 'armed and prohibited individuals' who were denied by background check. In dueling statements, the California Rifle & Pistol Association praised Thursday's ruling against the state's background check law as a 'massive victory for gun owners in California,' while Gov. Gavin Newsom called the decision a 'slap in the face.'
The Guardian
5 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.
Straits Times
5 days ago
- Business
- Straits Times
California ammunition background checks declared unconstitutional by US appeals court
Find out what's new on ST website and app. Guns and ammunition for sale in Sacramento, California. A divided federal appeals court on July 24 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 ninth 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. 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 vs 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,' Ms Ikuta wrote. California officials expressed disappointment. '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,' Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom said in a statement. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Business GIC posts 3.8% annualised return over 20 years despite economic uncertainties Business GIC's focus on long-term value aims to avoid permanent loss amid intensifying economic changes Opinion No idle punt: Why Singapore called out cyber saboteur UNC3886 by name Asia Both Cambodia, Thailand willing to consider ceasefire, says Malaysian PM Anwar Singapore Singapore urges all parties in Thailand-Cambodia border dispute to exercise restraint Business MAS' measures spark cautious optimism for Singapore stock market revival: Analysts World Trump, Fed chief Powell bicker during tense central bank visit Life Hulk Hogan, who helped turn pro wrestling into a billion-dollar spectacle, dies at 71 A spokesperson for state Attorney General Rob Bonta, also a Democrat, said '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.' All three judges on July 24'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. The plaintiffs included Ms 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 Ms Rhode called it 'a big win for all gun owners in California.' 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. Ms Janet Carter, managing director of Second Amendment litigation at Everytown Law, in a statement said California's law imposed a 'minimal burden,' a US$1 (SS$1.20) 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. The injunction was issued by US District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego, who has ruled in several cases in favour 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 the 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,' Mr Bybee wrote. President George W. Bush appointed Ms Ikuta and Mr Bybee to the bench, while President Donald Trump appointed Circuit Judge Bridget Bade, who joined the majority. REUTERS
New York Post
5 days ago
- 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
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.
