Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gun Control & RKBA

(18,605 posts)

24. And to further the controversy...

Sun Apr 26, 2020, 09:49 AM

Apr 2020

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

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

28 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Judge Tosses California Ammunition Purchase Law [View all] friendly_iconoclast Apr 2020 OP

Any act of public policy which increases Frasier Balzov Apr 2020 #1

Voluntary marriage? Voluntary consumption of alcohol? Frasier Balzov Apr 2020 #6

The act in question is part of the 2016 California Proposition 63 discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2020 #8

Nothing prevents the 2A from being correctly interpreted. Frasier Balzov Apr 2020 #12

A bully who loves guns. Frasier Balzov Apr 2020 #20

Winkling out deceit is hardly bullying, and I own no guns. Try again... friendly_iconoclast Apr 2020 #22

Do share that interpretation. discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2020 #21

They have already stated what sort of interpretation they'd like: friendly_iconoclast Apr 2020 #23

So without the violation of rights 16% of the time, would the law be acceptable? discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2020 #28

So of the people it inconvenienced thucythucy Apr 2020 #2

But more than four fifths of those "inconvenienced" thucythucy Apr 2020 #5

You are misinterpreting the sentence. ManiacJoe Apr 2020 #7

Admittedly, the fact that some juresdictions are lackadaisical thucythucy Apr 2020 #11

I consider bullets and firearms to be in an altogether different realm thucythucy Apr 2020 #14

Unless and until it is repealed, the Second Amendment exists, and is law friendly_iconoclast Apr 2020 #16

Which is the inevitable go-to argument thucythucy Apr 2020 #17

There are compelling reasons why I am pro-choice, thucythucy Apr 2020 #25

To answer your question-- thucythucy Apr 2020 #27

And to further the controversy... discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2020 #24