Fed judge tosses California’s ammo background check requirement as unconstitutional ‘misfire’ against liberty


Get the latest BPR news delivered free to your inbox daily. SIGN UP HERE.


A federal judge in San Diego has mooted a California law requiring people to undergo background checks before being able to purchase ammunition, the latest legal pushback against authoritarian Democrats and their never-ending quest to dismantle the Second Amendment.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, sided with the California Rifle & Pistol Association, which sued to block the law.

“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, The Associated Press reported.

The AP was sure to report that the law in question was a measure “approved by voters,” but what the ‘news’ organization doesn’t say is that laws that violate our founding document are null and void, whether they are popular or not — because we don’t live in a pure democracy.

“The law’s red tape and state database errors made it impossible for hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Californians to purchase ammunition for sport or self-defense,” Chuck Michel, the firearm group’s general counsel. “The court found that the flimsy reasons offered by the government to justify these constitutional infringements were inadequate.”

Though he expects the state’s anti-gun Democrats to appeal the ruling, Michel nevertheless noted, “Californians can sleep a little easier tonight knowing their Constitutional rights were restored and strengthened by this decision.”

California isn’t the only blue state to penalize gun owners in this manner. It wasn’t even the first; New York has the honor. However, as the AP reported, the New York requirement never actually took effect.

Four other blue states — Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts and New Jersey — also require people to subject themselves to government approval, via ‘background checks’ and ‘licensing,’ to buy both guns and ammunition.

Anti-gun Leftists are — triggered — even more now as the coronavirus pandemic endures because gun sales are skyrocketing. But it’s not because Americans are looking for trouble; far from it. They’re increasingly concerned about widespread supply chain disruptions and shortages that could lead to violence, and they want to protect themselves.

For his part, Benitez said the ammo background check requirement is “onerous and convoluted” and “constitutionally defective.”

“Criminals, tyrants, and terrorists don’t do background checks,” he wrote. “The background check experiment defies common sense while unduly and severely burdening the Second Amendment rights of every responsible, gun-owning citizen desiring to lawfully buy ammunition.”

State Democrats claim the law was intended to prevent ammo sales to criminals, but in fact, as Benitez wrote, about 16 percent of the time lawful gun owners were prevented from purchasing ammunition as well.

What’s more, California’s law against criminals possessing guns is routinely flouted and violated; what makes Democrats believe another law preventing criminals from purchasing ammunition will keep bullets out of their hands?

It’s a common fallacy among the Left that ‘the law’ will prevent armed criminal acts. They don’t; they never have, and they’re never going to.

One could argue that, okay, were it not for the law then no one could be arrested for committing armed criminal acts. But that’s not true; you can make it illegal to kill someone or rob a store without criminalizing a right that is specifically protected by the Constitution.

So the question becomes: What is Democrats’ real motive behind stricter gun and ammunition laws? If it’s not for the prevention of crime, the answer has to be nullifying the Second Amendment.

Because an armed population is much harder to control.

Latest posts by Jon Dougherty (see all)






Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *