SAF File Amicus Brief Challenging California Ammo Background Checks

While Colorado’s new law prohibiting minors from gun shows without a parent is the dumbest gun control law in the country, it’s right up there with some of California’s regulations. Before they regulated barrel purchases, they started mandating background checks for ammo sales.

Needless to say, that law was always going to be challenged. It’s stupid and it needs to go, especially as it doesn’t stop criminals from doing all sorts of things in an effort to get ammo.

It’s not like rounds are serialized, after all.

Now, the Second Amendment Foundation has announced it’s filed an amicus brief in the challenge.

From a press release:

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit in support of Rhode v. Bonta, a case challenging California’s ammunition background check system. 

When buying ammunition in California residents are required to undergo a background check, and the system wrongfully rejects over one in 10 law-abiding people attempting to purchase ammo. SAF is joined in the amicus filing by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and Second Amendment Law Center.

“California’s ammunition background check regime defies Bruen by imposing a burdensome and error-prone system that rejects a large fraction of eligible purchasers, denying law-abiding citizens their Second Amendment rights without historical justification,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “History shows no tradition of such invasive and inaccurate checks on ammunition purchases, and we urge the Court to affirm the district court’s ruling striking down this unconstitutional barrier.”

This case affects tens of thousands of law-abiding Californians who face wrongful denials and excessive costs when trying to exercise their right to acquire ammunition for self-defense and other lawful purposes. In addition, each time they use this faulty system to purchase ammunition purchasers must pay a minimum of $5. Moreover, it entirely blocks residents of other states from buying ammunition in California. SAF’s brief explains why the Ninth Circuit can strike down the faulty background check system in its entirety and also summarizes the totality of the regulatory and financial burdens facing those seeking to purchase a firearm in California.

“This case is essential because it exposes the unconstitutional burdens California lawmakers place on Second Amendment rights through a flawed system that punishes peaceable residents,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Adding insult to injury, these same residents must also pay a fee to even purchase ammunition, which is unconscionable. SAF is dedicated to challenging these overreaches, and we believe this warrants the Court’s affirmation.”

For more information visit SAF.org.

Criminals haven’t been deterred by this law in the least.

In fact, as noted earlier this week, California is one of a small number of states that hasn’t seen a decrease in their so-called gun homicide rates. They saw the opposite there.

Now, if a law like this were going to work, why isn’t their “gun homicide” rate lower than the year before? How is it that it’s one of the most populated states in the nation, yet it’s also the only high-population state to see more homicides than all the others that don’t have a background check requirement for ammunition sales?

The answer is simple. It’s just not that hard to commit a straw purchase for ammo and not get caught.

Ammunition is a consumable product. People buy it all the time, then they don’t have it should the police question them because they went and shot it all. There’s way too much reasonable doubt built into the whole situation for there to be convictions for sales, even if they could somehow trace the ammo to a buyer.

Yet, as already noted, there’s not exactly a serial number on ammo, so even if they recover pallets of the stuff, they won’t know who bought any of it.

All it does is make things harder for lawful gun owners. It means they must buy ammo within the state, can’t buy in bulk online like many of us do, and have to jump through hoops in order to take possession of it.

It just makes shooting so much of a pain that many people may well decide to forego gun ownership entirely because of it, which is the point.

They know criminals won’t stop, but it’s not about them, now is it?

I hope this law gets tossed. It needed to be tossed before it was ever passed.

Editor’s Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.

Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.