California's background checks for ammunition purchases violates 2nd Amendment, judge says

California's law mandating background checks for ammunition purchases violates the Second Amendment, a federal judge in San Diego ruled.

The law went into effect in July 2019 and was challenged by Olympic skeet shooter Kim Rhode and the California Rifle & Pistol Association. Kim Rhode et al. v. Becerra et al., 3:17-cv-01017 (S.D. Cal., filed April 26, 2018).

"The purported state interest to be achieved by these new laws is keeping ammunition out of the hands of prohibited Californians. These new laws are constitutionally defective for several reasons. First, criminals, tyrants and terrorists don't do background checks," wrote Senior U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez of the Southern District of California.

Benitez's 120-page ruling Thursday found the state's database listing firearm owners is riddled with errors that make it often impossible to tell whether someone is prohibited from owning a gun.

"The Court notes that this deferential treatment of government restrictions of 2nd Amendment rights is not to be found anywhere in the Bill of Rights or in the text of the 2nd Amendment," Benitez wrote. "Can the state through its legislative powers, run roughshod over constitutionally-protected rights by claiming they are 'common sense laws' that promote government interest? After all, there is hardly any government intrusion that can't be rationalized as important, for example, a Japanese internment camp."

A spokesperson said Friday Attorney General Xavier Becerra asked the judge to stay the order while it is appealed. Vendors have already begun selling ammunition without background checks, creating the near certainty that prohibited parties, including criminal convicts, will have access, Becerra argued.

Chuck Michel, senior partner at Long Beach-based Michel & Associates, represents Rhode. He called Benitez's ruling "a work of constitutional art."

Historically, courts have bent over backwards intellectually not to strike down gun control laws and applied a review standard that destroyed the Second Amendment, Michel said.

The U.S. Supreme Court could provide more clarity on the subject when it rules on a New York City ordinance that bars licensed gun owners from taking their weapons outside the city limits, even if they are unloaded, Michel said. New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. City of New York, 15-638.

The justices are expected to rule on that case this summer.

Last year, Benitez found Proposition 63's ban on large capacity magazines violated the Second Amendment. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments earlier this month. Michel, who represented plaintiff Virginia Duncan in the trial court, said there's a good chance he will prevail on appeal. Duncan v. Becerra, 19-55376 (9th Cir., filed April 4, 2019).

Eric Tirschwell, managing director of Everytown Law, which filed an amicus brief in the Rhode case in support of Becerra, said Friday Benitez's ruling will make it tougher for police to keep guns away from prohibited parties, including convicts and domestic abusers.

"Courts across the country have made clear that states have broad authority to pass reasonable gun safety laws that can save lives. This ruling is an extreme outlier, and we fully expect it will be reversed on appeal," Tirschwell said.