California can't require background checks to buy ammunition, appeals court rule | Hacker News Reader

California can't require background checks to buy ammunition, appeals court rule

theguardian.com

14 pointsAlupis16 comments

Bruen decision itself is absurd.

I don't really care about this law in particular, nor that the court followed the Bruen decision because they don't have much choice.

But this idea that you can't pass a law related to guns because you couldn't point to another law in the past that was passed seems bizarre. So if you pointed to a past law that banned guns in say a school, but not a library ... that's how this works? It makes no sense.

If there's a reason to strike down a law for other reasons, constitutional reasons fine. But the idea that "I think this law is too new" just seems like old man "close the patent office" kinda stuff. Or more likely they just reasoned themselves into the outcome they wanted, forget common sense.

This is the 9th circuit - which historically is very anti-2A. This decision is a bit surprising, in a positive way, under that light.

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the challenge was to the infringement on citizen's rights. Many people were barred from purchasing ammunition for legally-owned firearms - which was prohibiting people from exercising their 2A rights.

In CA, we already have a 10-day waiting period and background checks on every firearm purchase. Doing another (fallible apparently) background check every time someone purchases ammunition is pretty absurd and discriminatory. Additionally, apparently the State was compiling a database of firearms and calibers - to prohibit you from purchasing ammunition in a caliber they didn't believe you owned (never mind the fact that caliber can be easily changed on many firearms with a few, legal, components you can buy online).

For instance, as it was, a friend you were inviting out for a range day was not legally eligible to purchase a box or two of ammunition. Technically, they could not hand you cash for ammo they shoot either...

When the law was first implemented, many people who had purchased firearms a decade ago or longer were suddenly prohibited from purchasing ammunition.

The backwardness of this law goes on and on... it was an absurd law and I'm very happy to see it struct down.

It might also come as a surprise for some... but the actual criminals laws like this target don't go to their local Big5 Sporting Goods to purchase ammo anyway...

Even better, they classify airports and courthouses as "sensitive" places and schools and outdoor music festivals as not sensitive. Originalism is a sham ideology for ruling their politics.

Check out the Rahimi decision and dissent.

Originalism is an Original idea ;)

> Background checks for ammunition sales are common sense

This is going down a dangerous path. If you have to have a background check to exercise your rights then somebody could require a background check to vote (some states don't allow ex-convicts to vote after all).

All of your rights are conditional, and always have been. Removing the ability of convicts to vote is established by the Constitution (indirectly, but it's still there.)

Access to firearms has been regulated as far back as the writing of the Second Amendment, and it was understood as necessary at the time even within the British common law it was based on. Having that right apply to personal defense wasn't even a thing until 2008.

I am not saying that removing exconvicts ability to vote is dangerous. I am saying a state could require a background check since somebody could be an exconvict from another state.

Imagine requiring a background check every year to vote.

Why does the constitution in the US hold so much sway over the safety and wellbeing of the population?

People have a right to defend themselves, and the constitution explicitly protects that right in the 2nd Amendment. So, the constitution is looking out for the safety and wellbeing of citizens.

Is it? In every other measurable statistic it is clearly not looking out for the wellbeing of citizens. The sheer number of crimes that end in death in comparison with other 1st world countries is simply off the charts.

The US is vastly larger and more populated and more diverse (in terrain, culture, life, etc) than any other 1st world country. There is no meaningful comparison.

Only criminals engage in crime, by definition. You are essentially asking why the US has more criminals than other 1st world nations. Making a law that prohibits a specific tool (ie. a firearm) does nothing for the crime rate.

Regardless, the constitution specifically affords citizens a right to defend themself using a firearm. That's not going to change because criminals illegally obtain firearms and illegally use them on other people.

Of course there's a meaningful comparison! It may not be 1-to-1, but if per-capita the US has equal crime but double the fatal crime, it's a red flag that should at least direct our attention.

It's obvious that firearms are an escalating force. Their presence creates a scenario where a criminal now has to very quickly decide between dying, killing, calling the bluff, or fleeing. It can make a non-fatal crime fatal.

There are questions like "are firearms even effective for self defense?" Or "do firearms save fewer people than the number of conflicts escalated to fatality?" If most women won't pull the trigger, is it an equalizing force or does it give the criminal a more fatal weapon to wield.

All the discussions I see on firearms are so surface-level and generally lack the level of intellectual curiosity I think the topic requires to properly discuss whether or not the second amendment was a good inclusion. And that's before you get into the (IMO nonsense) discussion of "overthrowing the modern government".

I'm not equipped to have this discussion, to be clear, it's far too nuanced and requires numbers I don't know. I would need to rely on dedicated researchers.

Not every crime is committed by a defined criminal, many are committed by those committing a crime for the first time. Now that is so easy due to the accesibility of the tools. Firearms being so readily available will cause regular citizens to occasionally use them to harm others, it doesn't mean they have been obtained illegally.

Every other 1st world country has proven prohibition does mean a significantly decrease risk of being shot. That is in per 100,000 people, therefore number of citizens does not matter.

Every other 1st world country has much higher rates of other types of crimes.

Again, you are asking why the US has so much crime - not why it has so many guns.

Criminals are, by definition, criminals. Owning a firearm doesn't make someone more likely to commit crime - the opposite in fact.

The US is high in every crime, even ones that do not involve any firearms in any way, which is why I don't think more firearm restrictions would have any meaningful impact on US crime rates.

Outside of crimes, guns make suicide attempts significantly more successful and there are many accidents every year caused by them. On that last one, I'll also throw in fireworks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com