Sacramento, California (AP)-California-backed California laws requiring people who buy bullets are an unconstitutional, Federal Court of Appeal, having accepted Thursday, adopted a blow to the state’s efforts to deal with arms violence.
Maintaining 2024 the decision of a lower courtThe 9th US District Court found that the law violates the second amendment. Voters passed the law 2016 And it came into force in 2019.
Many states, including California, force people to carry out a person’s test to buy a weapon. California took another step, demanding a person’s inspection, which costs $ 1 or $ 19, given the eligibility, each time someone buys bullets.
Last year, US district judge Roger Benitez ruled that the law is unconstitutional because if people cannot buy bullets, they cannot use their weapons for self -defense.
The 9th circuit agreed. While writing two of the three judges of the appeal group, Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta said the law “meaningfully restricted” the constitutional right to hold weapons, forcing the weapons to be reliable before each bullet purchase.
“The right to hold and carry weapons involves the right to control them, which requires ammunition,” the judge wrote.
Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, who supported the person’s inspections, decided to a judgment.
“Strong weapon laws save lives – and today’s decision has been in recent years that California has advanced in recent years to make its communities safer from weapons of violence,” Newsom said in a statement. “The Californians voted in favor of demanding background ammunition checks and their voices should be important.”
The California Department of Justice said the state needs “common sense, rescue” laws that prevent ammunition from getting into the wrong hands.
“We are very disappointed with today’s resolution – a critical and rescue tool that closes a dangerous gap,” the department said in a statement. “Our families, schools and surroundings deserve nothing more than the main protection against weapons of violence, and we are looking for our legal capabilities.”
Chuck Michel, president and general advisor to the California Rifle and Pistol Association, called the law “absurdly restricting”.
“This case has been a long difficult fight against the Government’s Government weapons control, but the firearm cannot be effective without ammunition to function. The California state continues to try to abolish our rights, and we continue to prove that their actions are unconstitutional,” Michel said.
The law remained valid until the state appealed the lower court decision. Benitez criticized the state -automated personal inspection system, which he said rejected about 11% of the applicants, or 58,087 requests in the first 2023. For half a year.
The California law was intended to help police find people with weapons, such as convicted criminals, people with certain mental illnesses, and people with certain convictions of domestic violence. Sometimes they order sets online and collect weapons in their homes. Pistols do not have a series of numbers and law enforcement is difficult to follow, but people who control them show a person’s checks when trying to buy bullets.
John Parkin, President of Coyote Point Armory, in Burlingo, California, said the law made it difficult or impossible for some owners of legal weapons to purchase ammunition. For example, non -governmental residents and California, who have old weapons, could not buy bullets because they were not approved in the database of weapons, he said.
“It was written to make California’s weapon owners get angry. There was not much logic,” Parkin said of laws. “I think there are better ways to protect society.”
California has some of the most difficult laws of the nation’s weapons. Many of them are challenged in court in the light of the US Supreme Court ruling, which establishes a new standard of interpretation of weapons law. The decision argued that weapon laws must comply with the historical tradition of regulating firearms.
In recent years, the other two laws of California have been rejected-one of the removable magazines that may contain more than 10 bullets have been banned and the other that banned the sale of the assault style weapons. Those decisions were appealed. Other disputed laws are rules that require a digital supervision system and restrictions on the sales of new manual weapons in weapons stores.