[ad_1]
The Ninth Circuit ruled Thursday that background checking California bullet buyers violated the second amendment and effectively killed a 2016 voting measure aimed at strengthening the state’s well-known strict gun laws.
Judge Sandra Segal Ikta, who wrote two of the three judges on the appeals group, said the law is “meaningly constrained” as guaranteed by the Constitution by forcing the owner of a California gun to be reapproved before purchasing each ammunition.
“The right to maintain and endure weapons incorporates the right to operate which requires ammunition,” the judge wrote.
The ruling is the latest blow to statewide efforts to regulate guns.
Both the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court have significantly restricted gun control measures over the past decade. Two of the three management cases Ikta quoted in her decision have been carried over the past three years.
The ruling on Thursday was largely drawn from the 2022 Supreme Court decision that gun control measures passed in individual states are rapidly restricted, finding that such laws “must be consistent with the national historic tradition of firearm control.”
California tried to avoid that test by pointing to the loyalty of the reconstruction era and pointing out that some Americans need to make a gun before they can buy it.
But it didn’t shake the panel.
“The issue of ensuring that citizens are loyal to the United States by demanding one-time loyalty is not similar to the background check rules for California ammunition,” Ikta wrote. “These laws are not related.”
Judge Jay Byby disagreed.
“California, which has been administering the scheme since 2019, shows that the majority of checks cost a dollar and imposes a delay of less than a minute,” the judge objected. “The majority have broken in our precedent and fled the Supreme Court’s guidance.”
Data from the California Department of Justice’s Firearms Bureau shows that the program has approved 89% of purchases, most of which are within about three minutes. It was less than 1% as the technology was later resolved slightly rejected 10% and the buyer was banned.
The 2022 incident wrote that it had “a new era of Second Amendment Law,” but it did not rule out a checking scheme for bullet shaking.
“We repeatedly rejected the infinite interpretation of the Second Amendment’s majority,” Bybee writes. “It’s difficult to imagine regulations regarding the acquisition of ammunition or firearms that do not “meanically constrain” the right to hold and endure weapons under the new general application standards of the majority. ”
It was not immediately clear whether the ruling would introduce restrictions for the past six years. California leaders have yet to say whether they will appeal the decision.
Gun violence prevention organizations have denounced the ruling, saying Californians have reduced safety.
“This law became possible in 2024 alone [the California Department of Justice] “We are accused of the 2nd Amendment Law,” said Janet Carter, managing director of Evertown Law’s second amendment lawsuit.
Gun rights activists were thrilled by the news.
“Today’s ruling is a major step forward in the second amendment and the rights of citizens to comply with all laws,” said Dan Walgin, CEO of Ammunition Depot, one of the plaintiffs in the case.
[ad_2]Source link
