Judge Tosses California Ammunition Purchase Law

[friendly_iconoclast]

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/california/judge-tosses-california-ammunition-purchase-law/2311952/

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez called the ammunition background check law “onerous and convoluted” and “constitutionally defective.”

A federal judge on Thursday blocked a California law requiring background checks for people buying ammunition, issuing a sharply worded rebuke of “onerous and convoluted” regulations that violate the constitutional right to bear arms.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego ruled in favor of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, which asked him to stop the checks and related restrictions on ammo sales.

“The experiment has been tried. The casualties have been counted. California’s new ammunition background check law misfires and the Second Amendment rights of California citizens have been gravely injured,” Benitez wrote in a 120-page opinion granting the group's motion for a preliminary injunction...

...While it is intended to keep ammunition from criminals, it blocked sales to legitimate, law-abiding buyers about 16% of the time, he wrote. Moreover, he ruled that the state's ban on importing ammunition from outside California violates federal interstate commerce laws.

Good- that law is in no wise different from the "abortion safety" and "voting safety" laws Republicans love, and its ultimate demise can't come soon enough.

[Frasier Balzov]

1. Any act of public policy which increases

the prevalence of guns and ammunition in a society is harmful to that society.

This judge is part of the problem.

[friendly_iconoclast]

4. Feh- that was also the meme used to sell Proposition 8- 'preventing societal harm'

Prohibitionism- It's not just for booze!

[Frasier Balzov]

6. Voluntary marriage? Voluntary consumption of alcohol?

Infliction of bullets? Not so voluntary.

[friendly_iconoclast]

9. That fact that a Constitutional right is unpopular in certain polities doesn't make it non-existant

...nor does it mean that it can be overruled by majority vote.

Leave the 'cafeteria Constitutionalism' to Republicans

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. The act in question is part of the 2016 California Proposition 63

Neither this act nor its now void status directly change the "prevalence of guns and ammunition in a society". In the judge's opinion, "...the restrictions [were] "onerous and convoluted" with a high rate of false-positives that violated the Second Amendment rights of Californians, as well as running afoul of the commerce clause."

First, we all need accept and acknowledge a few things:
1 In this country we do not have legislative supremacy. It is up to the courts to decide if laws are unconstitutional.
2 The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
3 The Bill of Rights does not create personal freedoms. Those freedoms and abilities are protected by the BoR and that protection is integrated into law to be fair and consistent.
4 Self-defense and hunting (and other sporting activities) are lawful valid uses of guns and ammunition.

The question is (IMHO) if the CA DOJ system had not caused a violation of rights 16% of the time, would the law be acceptable?

[Frasier Balzov]

12. Nothing prevents the 2A from being correctly interpreted.

Other than judges and justices who share the NRA's worldview.

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. Your use of the phrase "correctly interpreted" spoke Loudly to me, so I did a little research

https://www.google.com/search?ei=ju2kXtPHBIqKytMP85e8wAE&q=2A++%22correctly+interpreted%22+Loudly+site%3Ademocraticunderground.com&oq=2A++%22correctly+interpreted%22+Loudly+site%3Ademocraticunderground.com&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQA1CoWFjebGCYcmgBcAB4AIABRogBwgOSAQE4mAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpeg&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwjTxrTOgYXpAhUKhXIEHfMLDxgQ4dUDCAs&uact=5

How have you been? Do try and keep safe during this pandemic, mmkay?

[Frasier Balzov]

20. A bully who loves guns.

Perfect combination.

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. Winkling out deceit is hardly bullying, and I own no guns. Try again...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

21. Do share that interpretation.

And share what it is that's wrong with (and why) what I've explained.

[friendly_iconoclast]

23. They have already stated what sort of interpretation they'd like:

The disinterested reader will note the lack of any specific details of the mooted 'interpretation'

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172136914#post6

The only Constitutional justification for the 2A was armed rebellion against the government.

The Civil War settled the illegitimacy of that claim of "right" once and for all.

The 2A is quite utterly moot and obsolete.

It need not even be repealed.

It need only be correctly interpreted within the context of modernity, public safety and due process for persons whose genuine rights are otherwise being destroyed at the whim of shooters.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

28. So without the violation of rights 16% of the time, would the law be acceptable?

I'm actually not very sure beyond a doubt that there are insurmountable flaws with the actual law. The implementation seems to be the point in contest. So what say you?

[thucythucy]

2. So of the people it inconvenienced

"16%" were "legitimate, law-abiding buyers.

Which means 84% were illegitimate law-breakers wanting access to deadly fire power?

[friendly_iconoclast]

3. Try again- this bit of performative security theater inconvenienced *everybody*...

...for no good reason.

Even my state of residence, Massachusetts, doesn't require this- just show your firearms ID card and buy what
ammunition you like, w/ no further background check.

We can also buy what ammo we like from out of state and bring it here- I'm sure Maine and New Hampshire sporting goods
stores love the business.

[thucythucy]

5. But more than four fifths of those "inconvenienced"

were, evidently, those who shouldn't have been trying to buy ammo at all.

Again--four out of five of those "inconvenienced" evidently weren't "law abiding citizens" according to this pro-gun judge.

Sounds to me like this was a system well worth the hassle, if it was keeping people who shouldn't have access to ammo buying what they wanted.

And yes, our gun laws are wildly inconsistent, which is why gun violence is such a huge issue in this country.

Doesn't mean we should give up trying.

[ManiacJoe]

7. You are misinterpreting the sentence.

The correct interpretation is: Of all the purchases processed, 16% were false denials of law-abiding citizens.
The statement makes no reference to the number of true denials.

[friendly_iconoclast]

10. Your defense of this security theater is sincere, but misplaced for these reasons:

Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona do not require licenses to buy ammunition, nor are ammunition sellers
in those states required to keep records of who they sell to. Source:

lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/state-law/50-state-summaries/ammunition-regulation-state-by-state/

Any Californian with a wad of cash, a car, and a willingness to road-trip can get around this law with ease- good, bad, or indifferent.

[thucythucy]

11. Admittedly, the fact that some juresdictions are lackadaisical

about public safety makes it difficult for all of us.

Just like the Cov-idiots who refuse to follow medical advice on how to flatten the curve also put us all at greater risk.

Someday hopefully a measure of sanity will prevail.

[friendly_iconoclast]

13. Lots of things have been restricted for ostensibly being 'dangerous to public safety'

The mere fact that the claim is made does not necessarily mean that public safety is actually threatened.

See also: Voting without ID, voting after having been imprisoned, legal immigration, abortions, being trans in a public bathroom...

I'd much prefer that this mindset be left to Republicans

[thucythucy]

14. I consider bullets and firearms to be in an altogether different realm

than ballots or public health concerns.

I prefer a mindset that is able to recognize such distinctions.

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. Unless and until it is repealed, the Second Amendment exists, and is law

Just as the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments do

That fact that you and others find any of these amendments problematic does not change that

[thucythucy]

17. Which is the inevitable go-to argument

when push comes to shove.

"Anton Scalia said it, I believe it, that settles it!"

It's about as compelling as saying that gun control is equivalent to voter suppression.

I hope we someday have a USSC that isn't in thrall to the NRA and the Heritage Foundation. When that happens we'll go back to a more rational interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, which you will of course then accept as Holy Writ, unable to be challenged.

Are you also a fan of Citizens United? Another wonderful USSC decision which we should simply accept as immutable law, since it is, after all, ostensibly based on the First Amendment?

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. How about "Roe v Wade said it, I believe it, that settles it!"? That work for you?

Or how about "Obergefell v Hodges said it, I believe it, that settles it!" ?

I look at the stridently gun-averse in the same way I look at the fetus fetishists and homophobes...


https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172207939

On gun control and border walls

It strikes me that they're both being promoted in the same way:

By playing on the fears of low-information voters (for fun, profit, and most importantly *votes*) by promising to keep them safe from an outgroup that the in-group regards as threatening, violent, and culturally inferior...

http://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/biases/13_J_Experimental_Social_Psychology_279_%28Ross%29.pdf

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

The “False Consensus Effect”: An Egocentric Bias in Social Perception and Attribution Processes

LEE ROSS, DAVID GREENE, AND PAMELA HOUSE
Stanford University

Received April 21, 1976

Evidence from four studies demonstrates that social observers tend to perceive
a “false consensus” with respect to the relative commonness of their own responses.
A related bias was shown to exist in the observers’ social inferences.
Thus, raters estimated particular responses to be relatively common and relatively
unrevealing concerning the actors’ distinguishing personal dispositions when the
responses in question were similar to the raters’ own responses; responses differing
from those of the rater, by contrast, were perceived to be relatively uncommon
and revealing of the actor. These results were obtained both in questionnaire studies
presenting subjects with hypothetical situations and choices and in authentic conflict
situations. The implications of these findings for our understanding of social perception
phenomena and for our analysis of the divergent perceptions of actors and observers
are discussed. Finally, cognitive and perceptual mechanisms are proposed which might
account for distortions in perceived consensus and for corresponding biases in social
inference and attributional processes.

The disinterested observer will note that both gun-control advocates *and* the "build a border wall to keep the
scary brown people out" crowd regularly claim to have vast majorities on their side, and only the evil machinations
of a cabal of <insert name of demonized outgroup here> are preventing the New Jerusalem from coming about.

This serves two purposes: 1. To serve as a convenient excuse for why their "common sense reforms" aren't
happening, and 2) Providing a handy tool to help convincine the mar..., errr 'concerned voters' to keep the faith and keep forking over $$$

The best illustration of the mindset can be found, imo, in Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer"

[friendly_iconoclast]

19. In the meantime, I suggest California gun owners minimize the effect of this law by...

...buying in as large a quantity as they can afford so as to require as few background checks as possible.

Or just go roadtripping to Arizona, Nevada, or Oregon. Sales to out-of-staters are perfectly legal there, and don't
require licensing or record-keeping.

[thucythucy]

25. There are compelling reasons why I am pro-choice,

that would apply whether or not the USSC agreed. It thus far happens to agree, so yes, it's settled law. This of course can be undone, and states are trying, but for now it's settled law. I would expect any Court that favors a more traditional, less Scalia/Thomas view of the 2nd Amendment would also support Roe v. Wade and, incidentally, overturn Citizens United.

As for the rest, gallop away.

[friendly_iconoclast]

26. IMO, Scalia's decision in D.C. v Heller was one of his few 'stopped clock' moments.

I generally found Scalia to be reactionary at best, and if not an actual crypto-facist, at least "fascist adjacent"
Approval of an action by a person does not imply a character reference for that person-

at least for those not fond of ad hominem arguments...

A question for you:

Do you reject the USSC holding in United States v Jones merely because Scalia wrote it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case which held that installing a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle and using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.

In 2004 defendant Jones was suspected of drug trafficking. Police investigators asked for and received a warrant to attach a GPS tracking device to the underside of the defendant's car but then exceeded the warrant's scope in both geography and length of time. The Supreme Court justices voted unanimously that this was a "search" under the Fourth Amendment, although they were split 5-4 as to the fundamental reasons behind that conclusion. The majority held that by physically installing the GPS device on the defendant's car, the police had committed a trespass against Jones' "personal effects" – this trespass, in an attempt to obtain information, constituted a search per se...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones#Majority_opinion

Justice Antonin Scalia authored the majority opinion.

[thucythucy]

27. To answer your question--

no, I don't. Scalia had a libertarian streak that informed many of his opinions. Sometimes -- very rarely -- he came down on what I would consider to be the right side, generally he didn't. Heller was one of those times he didn't.

I had the opportunity to be in the audience during oral arguments of a case in which I had a personal investment. I found Scalia to be an obnoxious bully who had obviously already made up his mind, and used his time to belittle the attorney arguing the side he opposed. It was bullying pure and simple, since the attorney of course wasn't in a position to answer snark with snark.

Clarence Thomas, meanwhile, spent much of the time actually staring at the ceiling. He looked and acted bored to be there, and didn't ask a single question. Quite the contrast to Thurgood Marshall, whose incisive questioning during oral arguments is legendary.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. And to further the controversy...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142479691
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — An appeals court has reinstated a California law requiring background checks for people buying ammunition, reversing a federal judge's decision to stop the checks that he said violate the constitutional right to bear arms.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday granted the state attorney general's request to stay the judge's order.
https://www.chron.com/news/article/Court-reinstates-California-ammunition-purchase-15226383.php