The Ninth Surprises
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals covers the ‘Left Coast’ and is the most far left federal appeals court. (Any further left and you will get your feet wet in the Pacific Ocean.)
So, when it gave 2A advocates a huge win, that was a surprise. In a 2-1 decision, the three-judge panel approved a permanent injunction delivered by a U.S. District Court judge, early last year. It concluded that the California law on Background check requirement on sales of ammunition (and prohibiting residents from ordering ammunition online or bringing ammunition purchased out-of-state back into California) is facially unconstitutional, meaning there's no circumstance where it can be lawfully applied.
The Ninth’s opinion stated that the law: "meaningfully constrains the right to keep operable arms."
Some highlights of the decision (which look a lot like Kathy Hochul’s and Letitia James’ efforts in NY State.)
California’s ammunition background check regime regulates all ammunition acquisitions by California residents; the regime applies not only to every transaction in California but also to ammunition purchases by California residents outside the state.
It requires California residents to pay for and complete an in-person background check before each ammunition acquisition.
A California resident may be required to purchase ammunition during a specified period of time—e.g., 18 hours—after passing a background check.
Though not all the rules comprising California’s ammunition background check regime impose delays on their face, they do not require California to approve checks within a certain timeframe. (Emphasis added.)
The regime applies to all types of ammunition, and California residents cannot avoid the background check requirements by taking advantage of internet or out-of-state sales. Rather, out-of-state purchases are subject to additional delays and fees.
Given the fees and delays associated with California’s ammunition background check regime, and the wide range of transactions to which it applies, we conclude that, in all applications, the regime meaningfully constrains California residents’ right to keep and bear arms. Thus, it is not a “presumptively lawful regulatory measure.”
Appeals court decisions only are binding in the appeals court’s district which is, in this case, the left coast.
New York is trying many of the same things that California was doing in the above law. Let’s hope that liberal New York courts also surprise us and outlaw many of the same laws.
And at the federal level, in another issue:
Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that it has filed a motion for summary judgment in the case of Elite Precision Customs v. ATF. At issue are federal laws that ban licensed firearm dealers from selling handguns to buyers who live in another state. Under current law, it is illegal for federally licensed firearms dealers to sell handguns to individuals who reside in a different state, even if the buyer is fully eligible to possess firearms and passes a background check. Instead, buyers must arrange for the handgun to be shipped to a dealer in their home state, incurring additional fees and delays.
In a similar case, the federal ban was struck down by a district court but that decision was reversed by an appeals court. However, this happened before the decision in NYS Rifle & Pistol v Bruen, which is the basis for this reconsideration.
Under the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, courts are required to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding. The plaintiffs wrote: “The Government does not cite a single law that burdened the right of peaceable citizens to acquire arms in another state or colony in any way like the laws at issue here.”
As SCOPE recently wrote, the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) has been refusing to defend some anti-2A cases that the Biden DOJ would pursue to the bitter end. Will the Trump DOJ decide to not defend this law and let a summary judgement against the law be imposed? Let’s hope so.
