Courts May Secure 2nd Amendment Rights in Kalifornia

Posted by Steven-Wells 1 month ago to News
4 comments | Share | Flag

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego ruled in favor of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, which asked him to stop the checks and related restrictions on ammo sales.

“The experiment has been tried. The casualties have been counted. California’s new ammunition background check law misfires and the Second Amendment rights of California citizens have been gravely injured,” Benitez wrote in a 120-page opinion granting the group's motion for a preliminary injunction.
SOURCE URL: https://freebeacon.com/courts/federal-judge-rules-california-ammo-law-unconstitutional/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Abaco 1 month ago
    Yep. If I drive to a parking lot in Reno by an ammo shop there are California detectives there who will take my license plate down and they will search me when I try to re-enter California. ...just if I buy rounds. No way that's legal. None of it is legal.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 1 month ago
    In the past year, new California laws presented an arcane and often expensive gauntlet obviously designed to prevent the purchase of ammunition. Various plaintiffs filed for an injunction against the onerous laws—proof of citizenry (that often fails to satisfy faulty state databases), costly background checks, prohibitively expensive shipping requirements, prohibitions against non-California purchases, horrendous delays, and more.

    District Court judge Roger Benitez issued a 120-page injunction, which takes effect immediately, against the laws. I read the entire injunction at https://www.nraila.org/media/2857/rho.... It is an extremely detailed rebuke of every tiny, large, and peripheral argument that the California Attorney General had put forth.

    AG Xavier Basura (he spells his name Becerra, but the Spanish word for trash better describes his treatment of our rights) has filed a four-page motion trying to stay the injunction. Read it at https://www.nraila.org/media/2858/202.... It repeats all the specious blather that he used originally to argue against the motion for injunction. He asserts, “the background check provisions … have resulted in over 750 prohibited people from purchasing ammunition…. He ignored that the provisions were documented as having trampled the constitutional rights of more than 101,047 citizens.

    Oh, I forgot to mention, not only did the California laws trample the Constitution’s Second Amendment, it also violated its Commerce Clause.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo