Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN News

U.S. Olympian: 1, Gun Controllers: 0 – Judge Blocks Unconstitutional California Ammunition Laws

Monday, April 27, 2020

U.S. Olympian: 1, Gun Controllers: 0 – Judge Blocks Unconstitutional California Ammunition Laws

Kim Rhode is one of America’s most decorated Olympians, having medaled in six consecutive summer games. California, however, passed ammunition purchase laws that effectively blocked the El Monte resident – as well as police officers and other Californians who wanted ammunition for lawful purposes –  from obtaining the supplies she needed to maintain peak proficiency. With the backing of the National Rifle Association and its California state affiliate, Ms. Rhode and other Golden State residents sued, claiming the laws violated their Second Amendment rights.

On Thursday, U.S. Judge Roger Benitez agreed that was likely the case and issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the laws. “Law-abiding citizens are imbued with the unalienable right to keep and bear firearms along with the ammunition to make their firearms work,” Judge Benitez wrote. “That a majority today may wish it were otherwise, does not change the Constitutional right. It never has.”

The challenged restrictions required every firearm ammunition sale, transfer, or delivery in California to occur in a face-to-face transaction with a dealer licensed by the state, which in turn required a background check and payment of a fee. Direct catalog or Internet ammunition sales were effectively banned, as was importing ammunition acquired in another state. Prospective purchasers had four different ways to satisfy the background check requirement, each necessitating different levels of bureaucracy and fees.

The measures were enacted in 2016 by a ballot initiative known as Proposition 63, the misnamed “Safety for All Act,” and amended by the legislature in a separate bill.  A better title for the outcome, however, would have been the “Ammunition for Few or None Act.”

So intricate and confusing were the regulations under review that the court’s opinion stretched to 120 pages, in large part because of the laborious descriptions of the various pathways beleaguered individuals wanting to exercise their constitutional rights could try to negotiate. Judge Benitez even felt it necessary to warn readers of the opinion that its descriptions of how the laws operated were by necessity “dreadfully boring and convoluted.”

As the court’s opinion noted, up to 12 million Californians were effectively blocked from using their state-issued driver’s licenses to provide the mandatory proof of identity and citizenship for the seemingly quickest, simplest, and cheapest option, a $1 point-of-sale, computerized background check.

This is because California issues drivers licenses to illegal immigrants (a class prohibited under federal law from firearm and ammunition possession), and those licenses are indistinguishable from licenses of the same class issued to persons lawfully in the country.

Thus, supposedly to prevent violations of federal law (in contrast to its other “sanctuary” stances), the California Department of Justice would not allow ammunition dealers to accept this form of proof. This meant these citizens had to spend more money (up to $145) and more time (up to 22 weeks) to obtain other recognized documentation of citizenship or to try one of the other more costly and lengthy background check options.

Yet even those who were able to attempt the point-of-sale background check were falsely denied about 16% of the time, resulting in over 101,000 denials to eligible persons (versus 188 ineligible persons who were identified and blocked by this pathway through the system).

The first of the other three background check options was a manual background check that required an application and processing by a human analyst. It was 19 times more expensive than the point-of-sale “instant” check and required waiting more than a day at best and perhaps several weeks at worst. It also had to be repeated every single time a person wanted to obtain ammunition.

The third option was to obtain a “certificate of eligibility” through what the court simply characterized as “a long and expensive process” requiring periodic renewals.

The fourth and final option was to actually buy a firearm (a daunting and time-consuming prospect in its own right in California), at which point ammunition could also be obtained when the firearm was finally picked up from the dealer.

Judge Benitez correctly concluded that the overall effect of this scheme was to block or discourage law-abiding California residents from exercising their rights to obtain ammunition, while posing few barriers to criminals, who already prove capable of flouting background check requirements in obtaining guns. 

In analyzing the Second Amendment’s significance to this scheme, Judge Benitez noted, “One intended effect of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from abuse by the majority by keeping some rights beyond the reach of majoritarian rule.” He also pointed out that the case law is clear that “the right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right to obtain the bullets necessary to use them.”

The opinion stated there were two basic legal questions at issue in the case. One, “Is an untried, untested, sweeping ammunition background check system, that returns an unusually high percentage of rejections, a constitutionally-permissible burden to impose on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding responsible citizens who desire to defend themselves with whatever common ammunition suits their situation?” Two, “Does a law which discriminates against ammunition sales in interstate commerce with alternative means to achieve its ends violate the dormant Commerce Clause?”

The court determined, at this preliminary stage, that the answer to both questions would likely be yes. It also found that the harm the measures inflicted on the plaintiffs’ ability to exercise their constitutional rights outweighed the asserted safety justifications claimed by the state.

The “naive assumption that prohibited persons will subject themselves to background checks to buy ammunition,” Judge Benitez concluded, could not justify blocking untold numbers of law-abiding people from exercising their rights or discouraging them from even trying to do so.

Particularly in Second Amendment challenges to California gun control, a judge’s ruling on a temporary injunction is rarely the last word in a case. Shortly after Judge Benitez issue his order, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted California’s request for an emergency stay of the preliminary injunction. The effect of that stay is that the ammunition laws remain in effect. It is not, however, a decision by the appellate court on the merits of the preliminary induction.

For now, at least, Olympian Kim Rhode has chalked up another win. Only this time it was not just a medal and national pride at stake but the rights and protection of millions of her fellow Californians.

TRENDING NOW
Rep. Sheri Biggs Introduces Legislation to Ensure Ability to Ship Firearms

News  

Thursday, May 1, 2025

Rep. Sheri Biggs Introduces Legislation to Ensure Ability to Ship Firearms

On April 28, 2025, Representative Sheri Biggs (R-SC-03) introduced the Protecting the Mailing of Firearms Act (H.R. 3033). This legislation will remove the arbitrary prohibition on the mailing of handguns and ammunition via the United States Postal ...

Washington Post Admits that Anti-gun Lawfare “Cannot be the Solution” to Crime

News  

Monday, March 17, 2025

Washington Post Admits that Anti-gun Lawfare “Cannot be the Solution” to Crime

In a turnabout worthy of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Washington Post (WAPO) published an editorial last Tuesday criticizing the gun control movement for ignoring the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) and pursuing its agenda in ...

Trump Administration Revives Federal Firearm Rights Restoration Provision

News  

Friday, March 21, 2025

Trump Administration Revives Federal Firearm Rights Restoration Provision

On March 20, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) published an interim final rule entitled, Withdrawing the Attorney General’s Delegation of Authority. That bland title belies the historic nature of the measure, which is aimed at reviving ...

Not Your Father’s DOJ: Government Actively Backs Second Amendment in Litigation

News  

Monday, May 5, 2025

Not Your Father’s DOJ: Government Actively Backs Second Amendment in Litigation

It has, in theory, always been the sworn duty of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to uphold the constitutional rights of American citizens and to affirmatively protect fundamental liberties. 

Rep. Hinson and Sen. Cotton Reintroduce Bill to Repeal Firearm Transfer Tax

News  

Thursday, April 3, 2025

Rep. Hinson and Sen. Cotton Reintroduce Bill to Repeal Firearm Transfer Tax

On April 1, 2025, Representative Ashley Hinson (R-IA-02) and Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) reintroduced the Repealing Illegal Freedom and Liberty Excises Act, or the RIFLE Act. These bills (H.R. 2552 and S.1224 respectively) would remove a $200 excise tax that is imposed ...

North Carolina: Pro-Gun Bills Advance Before Crossover Deadline

Friday, May 9, 2025

North Carolina: Pro-Gun Bills Advance Before Crossover Deadline

This week, ahead of the crossover deadline, the House passed House Bill 674 (H674), the Firearms Liberty Act, after it swiftly advanced through the House State and Local Government and House Rules Committees earlier this week.

New Hampshire: NRA Education Requirement Passes Out of Committee

Friday, May 9, 2025

New Hampshire: NRA Education Requirement Passes Out of Committee

On Friday, May 9th, the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee held a hearing and voted on an amendment to SB 54 that would require the NRA's Hunter Education, Eddie Eagle GunSafe, or equivalent programs to be taught in New Hampshire schools.

Delaware: Possible Senate Vote on Red Flag Expansion Tomorrow

Monday, May 12, 2025

Delaware: Possible Senate Vote on Red Flag Expansion Tomorrow

Tomorrow, the Delaware Senate could vote on Senate Bill 82, legislation that would significantly expand the state’s red flag law by extending the duration of a Lethal Violence Protective Order from 1 year to 5 ...

NRA Files Amicus Brief Urging SCOTUS to Hear Challenge to Hawaii’s Private Property Carry Ban

Friday, May 2, 2025

NRA Files Amicus Brief Urging SCOTUS to Hear Challenge to Hawaii’s Private Property Carry Ban

Today, the National Rifle Association joined a coalition of pro-Second Amendment organizations—including the Second Amendment Law Center, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association, Hawaii Rifle Association, Gun Owners of California, Second Amendment ...

New Hampshire: Hearing on Firearms Safety Training in Schools This Week

Monday, May 5, 2025

New Hampshire: Hearing on Firearms Safety Training in Schools This Week

On Friday, May 9th, the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee will hold a hearing on an amendment to SB 54 that would require NRA's Hunter Education and Eddie Eagle GunSafe programs to be taught in New Hampshire Schools. 

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -

More Like This From Around The NRA

NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.