Welcome to DU!
    The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
    Join the community:
    Create a free account
    Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
    Become a Star Member
    Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
    All Forums
        Issue Forums
        Culture Forums
        Alliance Forums
        Region Forums
        Support Forums
        Help & Search
    
Gun Control & RKBA
Showing Original Post only (View all)Judge Tosses California Ammunition Purchase Law [View all]
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/california/judge-tosses-california-ammunition-purchase-law/2311952/U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez called the ammunition background check law onerous and convoluted and constitutionally defective. 
A federal judge on Thursday blocked a California law requiring background checks for people buying ammunition, issuing a sharply worded rebuke of onerous and convoluted regulations that violate the constitutional right to bear arms.
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. Californias 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...
...While it is intended to keep ammunition from criminals, it blocked sales to legitimate, law-abiding buyers about 16% of the time, he wrote. Moreover, he ruled that the state's ban on importing ammunition from outside California violates federal interstate commerce laws.
A federal judge on Thursday blocked a California law requiring background checks for people buying ammunition, issuing a sharply worded rebuke of onerous and convoluted regulations that violate the constitutional right to bear arms.
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. Californias 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...
...While it is intended to keep ammunition from criminals, it blocked sales to legitimate, law-abiding buyers about 16% of the time, he wrote. Moreover, he ruled that the state's ban on importing ammunition from outside California violates federal interstate commerce laws.
Good- that law is in no wise different from the "abortion safety" and "voting safety" laws Republicans love, and its ultimate demise can't come soon enough.
						
							28 replies
							
								 = new reply since forum marked as read
							
						
      
					
						Highlight:
						NoneDon't highlight anything
						5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 = new reply since forum marked as read
							
						
      
					
						Highlight:
						NoneDon't highlight anything
						5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
					
                    
					
                     = new reply since forum marked as read
							
						
      
					
						Highlight:
						NoneDon't highlight anything
						5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 = new reply since forum marked as read
							
						
      
					
						Highlight:
						NoneDon't highlight anything
						5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
					
                    
					
        
        Feh- that was also the meme used to sell Proposition 8- 'preventing societal harm'
        friendly_iconoclast
        Apr 2020
        #4
      
        
        That fact that a Constitutional right is unpopular in certain polities doesn't make it non-existant
        friendly_iconoclast
        Apr 2020
        #9
      
        
        Your use of the phrase "correctly interpreted" spoke Loudly to me, so I did a little research
        friendly_iconoclast
        Apr 2020
        #15
      
        
        Winkling out deceit is hardly bullying, and I own no guns. Try again...
        friendly_iconoclast
        Apr 2020
        #22
      
        
        So without the violation of rights 16% of the time, would the law be acceptable?
        discntnt_irny_srcsm
        Apr 2020
        #28
      
        
        Try again- this bit of performative security theater inconvenienced *everybody*...
        friendly_iconoclast
        Apr 2020
        #3
      
        
        Your defense of this security theater is sincere, but misplaced for these reasons:
        friendly_iconoclast
        Apr 2020
        #10
      
        
        Lots of things have been restricted for ostensibly being 'dangerous to public safety'
        friendly_iconoclast
        Apr 2020
        #13
      
        
        Unless and until it is repealed, the Second Amendment exists, and is law
        friendly_iconoclast
        Apr 2020
        #16
      
        
        How about "Roe v Wade said it, I believe it, that settles it!"? That work for you?
        friendly_iconoclast
        Apr 2020
        #18
      
        
        In the meantime, I suggest California gun owners minimize the effect of this law by...
        friendly_iconoclast
        Apr 2020
        #19
      
        
        IMO, Scalia's decision in D.C. v Heller was one of his few 'stopped clock' moments.
        friendly_iconoclast
        Apr 2020
        #26