The California legislation requiring background checks for ammunition sales was deemed illegal by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego, and it was repealed. The choice was made public on Wednesday.
Judge Benitez ruled that California’s statute violated the Second Amendment, dealing a blow to the state’s progressive gun control policies. The law, which was criticized for being too sweeping and without historical precedent, forced residents to submit to background checks before purchasing any ammunition.
Don’t miss this! Carry faith with you everywhere with the Exclusive National Prayer Coin!
“The Constitution does not mention a right to own automobiles (or carriages or horses). Similarly, when a person chooses to buy a firearm, he is required to undergo a full background check,” As per Judge Benitez’s ruling.
“However, until now, he was not required to also go through a background check every time he needs to refill his gun with ammunition. And the Bill of Rights commands that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Benitez became a judge after President George W. Bush nominated him.
This decision addresses the lawsuit filed against Senate Bill 1235, which modifies Proposition 63, which was adopted by the voters. Initially, gun owners had to apply for a four-year ammunition purchase authorization under the terms of Proposition 63. Nevertheless, this was superseded by Senate Bill 1235, which mandated an automatic background check for every ammunition transaction.
In his ruling, Judge Benitez emphasized the constitutional problems and impracticality of this strategy. “With the recently enacted ammunition background check laws, gun owners in California undergo background checks more than one million times each year simply to buy ammunition,” pointing up the overbearing character of the legislation.
The ruling also made clear how frequently the background check system failed, depriving Californians of their Second Amendment rights. “Californians are denied the Second Amendment right to buy ammunition for self-defense at least 11% of the time because of problems with the background check system,” the judge remarked.
Advocates for the Second Amendment, who claim that California’s gun regulations are too restrictive and violate constitutional rights, have won a significant victory with Judge Benitez’s decision. The apparent overreach of the state’s gun control laws is highlighted by his assertion that the background checks lack a “historical pedigree” and that treating every person as though they had no right to acquire ammo is wrong.
The decision referenced earlier court decisions that implied the background check and anti-importation clauses violated the dormant Commerce Clause and the Second Amendment. This supports the argument that constitutional issues are raised by California’s gun restriction policies, particularly with relation to the purchase of ammunition.
ALERT! Major Water Restrictions In Effect!
Reuters noted:
Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to broaden the freedom of individuals to carry firearms in public, federal courts have rendered varying Second Amendment decisions.
Newsom has criticized Benitez for a number of rulings that have favored gun owners, including as the finding in September 2023 that declared California’s prohibition on high-capacity rifle magazines to be illegal.
In April 2020, the judge had halted California’s background check mandate. He was requested to reexamine that decision by a federal appeals court in light of the Supreme Court’s 2022 opinion.
Although Benitez did not explicitly support the four-year ammunition permit, he did state that it would be “a more reasonable constitutional approach than the current scheme.”
Chuck Michel, general counsel and president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, called the decision a “big win.” He maintained that the state of California has “blocked many eligible people from getting the ammunition they need, which is the true political intent behind most of these laws.”
