California Ammo Law Abusive and Unconstitutional

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

In the first half of last year, 589,087 individuals traveled to an ammunition vendor to buy ammunition. They proved their citizenship and residency with identification documents and paid for a background check. The State’s computers rejected 58,087 or 11% of them. This is an average of 322 individuals rejected every day. How many of the 58,087 needed ammunition to defend themselves against an impending criminal threat and how many were simply preparing for a sporting event, we will never know. What is known is that in almost all cases, the 322 individuals that are rejected each day are being denied permission to freely exercise their Second Amendment right — a right which our Founders instructed shall not be infringed.

…

If any background check system satisfies Bruen’s footnote nine description of a scheme put to abusive ends, as opposed to the system originally approved by the voters, this may be it.

HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ
United States District Judge
January 30, 2024
KIM RHODE, et al., v. ROB BONTA

See also BREAKING! Huge Win In Rhode v. Bonta – CRPA.

Guess the percentage of prohibited persons convicted out of those 58,087 who were rejected. If you said anything more than 0.1% you are out of touch with reality. You should know this sort of thing because this is typical for government laws like this, such as Brady background checks done by the Feds. The actual numbers is ten times lower that that. It is 0.01%.

Special Agent Sidney Jones provided case dispositions for prohibited persons denied the purchase of ammunition between July 1, 2019 and January 31, 2020. During those seven months, 770 ammunition buyers were rejected as prohibited persons. At least sixteen of the 770 persons rejected were later determined to have been incorrectly identified as prohibited persons and should have been authorized to purchase ammunition. See Rhode, 445 F. Supp. 3d at 924. Agent Jones states that those 770 background check rejections prompted 51 investigations that resulted in firearms, magazines, or ammunition seizures. From those 51 investigations, 15 individuals were arrested. In the end, the government obtained four felony and two misdemeanor convictions.

Spoiler alert!

It is all good reading, but the happy ending is (emphasis added):

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order or know of the existence of this injunction order, are enjoined from implementing or enforcing the ammunition sales background check provisions found in California Penal Code §§ 30352 and 30370(a) through (e), and the ammunition anti-importation provisions found in §§ 30312(a) and (b) and 30314(a), as well as the criminal enforcement of California Penal Code §§ 30312(d), 30314(c), and 30365(a).

Share

9 thoughts on “California Ammo Law Abusive and Unconstitutional”

  1. This one has California in a real bind because, unlike other cases, the state did not request a stay in this case as part of their filings. Thus, no stay was granted when the ruling came down and the request to add one after-the-fact was rejected.

    Worse, even with the appeal to the Ninth Circuit, it appears that the Ninth may have overplayed its zealousness to bypass its own rules of conduct and procedure when it comes to cases having inserted themselves into other 2A cases to grab them for themselves. The shenanigans were in clear violation of their own circuit procedures and its bias against these cases are obvious for all to see.

    There is an appeal to the Ninth on this this but I’m wondering if they’re going to try and grab it too. Each time they don’t allow the process to play out only strengthens the likelihood SCOTUS will take them up. However, I think the tactic of the anti-gun courts has changed from ruling in bad ways to just sitting on the cases and hope for a future change. This seems to be the new tactic since there is no law that requires a court to rule in a timely fashion. For unfavorable issues, just bench-drawer the case for a few years. It’s what is happening here in Maryland in the 4th Circuit with Bianchi which was GVR’d down with Bruen.

    Technically any stay should be denied because the state never asked for it. Now they want to change the rules because the ruling goes against them. There are some pretty significant issues laid out in this ruling and it is the first time I’ve seen 18 USC 926(a) referenced in a 2A case. That’s interesting. Hopefully a future case will do the same for illegal state registries and licensing practices.

    It’s Freedom Week again in CA. Let’s see how long this one lasts. I’m giving it two weeks on the outside because I have little faith the 9th Circus won’t continue its anti-rights clown show.

  2. It’s always wonderful to see a court stand up the way our forefathers intended them to.
    Strong, separate, independent, Your wrong and here’s why.
    Good news indeed!

  4. ” those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order or know of the existence of this injunction order, are enjoined from implementing or enforcing the ammunition sales background check”

    Guess what will happen. The badgemonkeys will simply state they KNEW NOTHING of the injunction and continue making arrests. It’s not as if they will be
    punished in any way for violating it.

  5. If a background check on ammo purchases is unconstitutional and abusive, does that not imply that a background check on gun purchases is also unconstitutional and abusive?

  6. 58087 people were denied but only 770 (well really only 754) were prohibited? Was a reason given or explanation or thin pretext why the other 57317 were denied?

    • The state database was/is messed up.

      Government incompetence and/or deliberate abuse of gun owners.

Comments are closed.