Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon has announced that the Justice Department filed an amicus brief in the case of Rhode v. Bonta, challenging California’s background check requirement for ammunition purchases.
The first name in the suit’s title is for Kim Rhode, the Olympic shotgun multi gold medalist. She has told Gun Tests in the past that she buys shotgun ammunition by the pallet, so the ammunition background check is particularly onerous to her and impedes her training.
Gun owners won at the district court level and again before a three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last July. It is now up for a hearing before a full panel of judges in March. It’s worth noting that in the past, similar pro-gun-rights panel decisions have been overturned by the full circuit court, so the friends-of-the-court briefs could be important additions to the case.
A coalition of Republican attorneys general representing 25 states, along with the Arizona Legislature, have also submitted their own amicus briefs in this important case.
The district court held that California’s obstacles to simply buying ammunition “have no historical pedigree” and “violate the Second Amendment right of citizens to keep and bear arms.” It accordingly permanently enjoined the California Attorney General from enforcing the ammunition background-check requirements. And a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court agreed, concluding that “California’s ammunition background check regime infringes on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.”
The DOJ’s brief asserts that the laws establishing the background check requirement “do not pass even the ‘laugh test,’” because they “evoke a convoluted board game, not a serious attempt to further a legitimate purpose.” The regulation is “designed to burden the exercise of the right to bear arms,” the DOJ argues, and “a firearms regulation that seeks to frustrate the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms is a per se violation of the Second Amendment.”
The State coalition’s brief contends that both the background check and anti-importation requirements violate the Second Amendment. Both restrictions “burden the fundamental right to armed self-defense by interfering with ammunition purchases,” the coalition emphasizes, “and both are unprecedented in our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
“California’s ammunition background check regime imposes 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 Second Amendment Foundation (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.”
When buying ammunition in California, residents are required to undergo a background check, and the system wrongfully rejects more than one-in-10 law-abiding people attempting to purchase ammo.
Gun-rights groups involved in the litigation include the Second Amendment Foundation, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and Second Amendment Law Center.
“The significance of Justice Department interest in the California case cannot be overstated,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This would never have happened under the previous administration, where the attorney general was clearly hostile to the Second Amendment.
“California is a major battlefield in the fight to restore the Second Amendment to its full measure,” he continued. “Defeating restrictive Golden State gun laws will send a message across the country that infringing on the Second Amendment no longer passes the smell test.”
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.
“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 Gottlieb.
The brief was filed by Ohio, Idaho, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming, and the Arizona Legislature.
