"The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals announced Monday that an 11-judge panel will hear a San Diego case challenging a voter-approved California law that requires a background check for nearly all purchases of firearm ammunition. A San Diego federal judge has twice found that the law is unconstitutional, ruling that it infringes on the Second Amendment rights of Californians, and a three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit affirmed that ruling in a 2-1 opinion in July."
"While Bonta has argued the law was passed by voters in response to mass shootings and is intended to ensure ammunition is kept out of the hands of people not legally allowed to purchase it, the individuals and Second Amendment rights groups who challenged the law in San Diego federal court argued that it illegally infringes on their constitutional right to keep and bear arms."
"California appealed that ruling to the 9th Circuit, but in 2022, before the 9th Circuit had ruled on that appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in a New York gun case that upended Second Amendment case law. After that Supreme Court ruling, which holds that modern gun laws must be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation, the 9th Circuit sent the case back to Benitez to be relitigated under the high court's new framework."
A California law requires background checks for nearly all ammunition purchases and bans bringing home ammunition bought out of state. U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez struck down the law as unconstitutional in 2020, finding it infringed Second Amendment rights. A three-judge 9th Circuit panel affirmed that decision in a 2-1 opinion in July. California Attorney General Rob Bonta petitioned for an en banc rehearing, and a majority of active 9th Circuit judges voted to rehear the case before an 11-judge panel. A 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision altered the Second Amendment legal framework and prompted relitigation.
Read at www.sandiegouniontribune.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]