Support for the lawsuit challenging California’s restrictive law requiring a background check for the purchase of ammunition is gaining steam.
We recently reported how, in the case Rhode v. Bonta, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) kicked off the new year by filing a brief with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the challenge. Since then, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and a coalition of 23 state attorneys general and two Arizona lawmakers have also filed briefs with the court in support of the challenge.
This case affects thousands of law-abiding Californians who face wrongful denials and high 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. The brief filed by the gun-rights groups explains why the 9th 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.
In its brief, the DOJ wrote: “California’s regime … can only be understood as a series of measures designed to burden the exercise of the right to bear arms. Bruen warned of state ‘scheme[s]’ whose ‘exorbitant fees’ and ‘lengthy wait times’ reveal an ‘abusive end’ to ‘deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.’ That describes California’s ammunition background checks to a tee. Every year, as a natural and foreseeable consequence of California’s labyrinthine system, tens of thousands of law-abiding Californians fail the standard check for insignificant errors in their firearms records.”
The brief filed by the state AGs expressed a similar sentiment, arguing that the court should uphold the earlier panel ruling striking down the restrictive law.
“California’s ammunition background-check and anti-importation provisions make firearms unusable to California residents unless they buy the State’s renewed permission to reload them every time they run low on ammunition,” the brief stated. “Both sets of provisions violate the Second Amendment because they are unrecognizable to this Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation. Both sets of provisions are a prime example of why the Constitution placed certain rights beyond legislative control by enumerating them in the Bill of Rights. This Court’s duty is to vindicate that choice.”
States whose attorney general signed on to the brief included Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming. Also joining in the brief were the speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives and the President of the Arizona Senate.
Oral arguments in the case are set to begin on March 26.
