El Dorado County (Feb 2, 2024) – In a significant development, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, a familiar face in legal battles over firearm regulations, has once again struck down California’s law mandating background checks for ammunition purchases. This decision echoes his previous ruling in 2020, asserting that the state’s restrictions on ammunition acquisitions infringe upon the Second Amendment.
In a robust 32-page written ruling, Judge Benitez took direct aim at California’s background check system, describing it as “cumbersome and byzantine.” He cited the recent Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, which altered the analytical standard for firearm-related cases. This change prompted the reevaluation of numerous cases at lower courts, including the ammunition background check law in California.
Known for favoring firearm advocates, Benitez stated in his latest ruling that “the ammunition background checks laws have no historical pedigree.” He criticized the system’s evolution, pointing out that voters initially approved a background check system in 2016, allowing prospective ammo purchasers to obtain a permit valid for four years. However, the law was amended before Election Day to necessitate background checks for every ammunition purchase, a modification that Benitez deemed “not apparent.”
Furthermore, the judge highlighted technical errors and other issues in the background check system, leading to the denial of ammunition purchases to law-abiding citizens at a troubling rate.
Attorney General Rob Bonta defended the background check laws, emphasizing their role in safeguarding Californians. He vowed swift action to correct what he called a “dangerous mistake” and reiterated the commitment to balance public safety with the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.
The lawsuit leading to this ruling was filed on behalf of Olympic shooter Kim Rhode. Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association and the case’s general counsel, sees this decision as a “sea change” in how courts approach restrictive gun laws. Despite the anticipated appeal from the state, Michel suggests that time is running out for laws deemed to violate constitutional rights.
