Recently, California attempted to issue a statute that would impose background checks on every sale of ammunition in the state. However, U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez struck down the law, defending the Second Amendment and dealing a blow to the California gun control agenda.
The judge, whom California supporters of the Second Amendment call “Sant Benitez,” issued a 32-page decision declaring the law to be a violation of the Constitution. “It is Senate Bill 1235’s requirement of a background check for every purchase that is challenged here. Why the legislature eliminated the voter-approved 4-year permit system in favor of an every purchase background check scheme is not apparent. Without prejudging the discarded 4-year permit system envisioned by the voters of California, such a system would clearly be a more reasonable constitutional approach than the current scheme,” Benitez wrote in the decision.
Through a powerful analogy comparing gun ownership to any other form of private property such as an automobile, Benitez criticized the proposition of having to undergo a full background check every time ammo is purchased. He further emphasized that the Second Amendment “shall not be infringed.”
“Today, a person may choose to submit to a full credit check to buy an automobile. But he is not required to pass the same credit check every time he needs to refill his car with gas or recharge his battery at a charging station. And the Constitution does not mention a right to own automobiles (or carriages or horses). Similarly, when a person chooses to buy a firearm, he is required to undergo a full background check. However, until now, he was not required to also go through a background check every time he needs to refill his gun with ammunition. And the Bill of Rights commands that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” he continued.
The judge further illustrated how Californians already undergo a considerable number of background checks to exercise their Second Amendment freedoms, while noting issues with the system are fairly common, effectively restricting constitutional rights.
“With the recently enacted ammunition background check laws, gun owners in California undergo background checks more than one million times each year simply to buy ammunition. They are not allowed to buy ammunition from out-of-state vendors and have it delivered to their homes. They are not allowed to buy ammunition in Arizona or Nevada and bring it with them back into California. Though they are citizens entitled to enjoy all of the constitutional rights, Californians are denied the Second Amendment right to buy ammunition for self-defense at least 11% of the time because of problems with the background check system.”
“The ammunition background checks laws have no historical pedigree and operate in such a way that they violate the Second Amendment right of citizens to keep and bear arms. The anti-importation components violate the dormant Commerce Clause and to the extent applicable to individuals travelling into California are preempted by 18 U.S.C. § 926A. Perhaps the simpler, 4-year and $50 ammunition purchase permit approved by the voters in Proposition 63, would have fared better,” Benitez wrote in his conclusion.
As popularity for restrictive gun control becomes increasingly popular in liberal areas around the country, having judges such as Benitez is critical to preserving the Second Amendment freedoms of millions of Americans.
"*" indicates required fields