Table of Contents
Governor of California Gavin Newsom decried the decision of a court reversing a Californian law supported by voters who required history checks for people who buy bullets.
In a 2-1 decision Thursday, the American Court of Appeal for the ninth circuit concluded that the law violated the second amendment. The decision confirmed the decision of a lower court last year.
Newsom has described the decision as “slap in the face of the progress that California has achieved in recent years to keep its communities more security of armed violence”.
He added that the Californians “voted to require checks of the antecedents on the ammunition and that their voices should be significant.”
NowsweekContacted the Newsom office and the California prosecutor’s office, Rob Bonta, for additional comments by Friday e-mail sent outside regular work hours.
Sean Rayford / Getty images
Why it matters
The law entered into force in 2019 after the voters massively approved a voting initiative on the issue in 2016 and the state legislature adopted an invoice changing the requirements to buy ammunition.
The law was aimed at helping the police find people who have illegally, such as convicted criminals, people with certain mental illnesses and people with condemnations of domestic violence. Sometimes they order kits online and assemble firearms in their house. Firearms have no standard numbers and are difficult to follow for the police, but the people who have them appear to check the history when they try to buy balls.
What to know
Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta has written for the majority that the law “significantly constrained” the constitutional right to keep arms by forcing the owners of firearms to be rehumed before each purchase of bullets.
“The right to keep and carry weapons incorporating the right to make them work, which requires ammunition,” wrote Ikuta.
In his dissent, judge Jay Bybee argued that the law only creates minor obstacles to legal ammunition purchases, and that he does not “limit” the right to support weapons.
The three panel judges were appointed by Republican Presidents.
Last year, the American district judge Roger Benitez decided that the law was unconstitutional because if people cannot buy bullets, they cannot use their firearms for self -defense.
The law remained in force while the State appealed the decision of the lower court.
What people say
Newsom said: “Solid firearm laws save lives – and today’s decision is a slap in front of the progress that California has achieved in recent years to keep its safer communities of armed violence. The Californians have voted to demand checks of the antecedents of ammunition and their voices should be important.”
California Ministry of Justice said the state needs “common sense and rescue” laws that prevent ammunition from falling into bad hands.
The ministry said: “We are deeply disappointed with today’s decision – a critical and vital measure which closes a dangerous escape. Our families, schools and neighborhoods deserve nothing less than the most basic protection against avoidable armed violence, and we examine our legal options.”
Chuck Michel, President and Advocate General of California Rifle & Pistol Association, which was part of the trial against the Californian law, said in a statement: “This case was a long fight against control of the government of government firearms, but a firearm cannot be effective without the ammunition to prove their actions which are not operational.
What is the next step
It was not immediately clear if Thursday’s decision would mean the end of the dispute on the law. California could request that the case be heard by a larger group of judges from the ninth circuit.
California has some of the country’s most difficult firearms. But many of them are disputed in court after 2022 Supreme Court decision that has expanded firearms and Attach a new legal standard to assess the laws on firearms.
This article includes reports from the Associated Press.
