FPC Brief: Background Checks for Ammo Violate Second Amendment

Federal Military Ammo M16
Yesterday, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) announced the filing of an important amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case, Rhode v. Becerra. IMG Jim Grant

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Yesterday, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) announced the filing of an important amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case, Rhode v. Becerra. The brief was joined by the California Gun Rights Foundation, Madison Society Foundation, and Second Amendment Foundation. It is available online at FPCLegal.org.

In 2016, California enacted a series of regulations on ammunition sales. Ammunition sales must now be conducted by a licensed ammunition vendor, occur face-to-face at the vendor’s California location, and be approved by the California Department of Justice. DOJ approval requires a background check on the purchaser, for every ammunition purchase. Making matters worse, the background check system denies 16% of lawful purchases due to deficiencies in the system. In the first few months of its enactment, over 100,000 lawful acquisitions were refused, and countless others were deterred by the system’s complexity.

While the background check system has prevented a great number of lawful purchasers from acquiring ammunition, it has prevented prohibited purchasers from acquiring ammunition in only 0.1% of checks. The system, therefore, has imposed a tremendous burden on every Californian while providing virtually no benefit.

“If background checks are effective, why are California’s firearm background checks not enough to prevent prohibited persons from committing firearm violence?” asked FPC Director of Research and brief author, Joseph Greenlee. “If firearm background checks are ineffective, why would ammunition background checks fare better?”

Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend constitutional rights—especially the right to keep and bear arms—advance individual liberty, and restore freedom.

Firearms Policy Foundation (www.firearmsfoundation.org) is a grassroots 501(c)3 nonprofit public benefit organization. FPF’s mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and the People’s rights, privileges, and immunities deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition—especially the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms.

Background

  • In 2016, California voters enacted a series of regulations on the sale and purchase of ammunition. This complex scheme requires that (1) ammunition sales be conducted by or processed through a licensed ammunition vendor (to become a licensed ammunition vendor, one must have a physical presence in California and obtain a license from the California Department of Justice); (2) ammunition sales occur face-to-face at the vendor’s physical location in California; (3) the DOJ approve each sale before the purchaser can take possession of the ammunition; and (4) it prohibits California residents from bringing ammunition into the state that is acquired outside the state.
  • To acquire DOJ approval for an ammunition purchase—which is required for every ammunition purchase—the purchaser must pass a background check. The purchaser begins by providing proof that she is lawfully present in the United States. This often requires a valid passport or birth certificate. (A standard driver’s license will not suffice, because California does not require proof of lawful presence to obtain a driver’s license.)
  • After proving citizenship, four different background check options are available, depending on the purchaser’s particular circumstances: a Standard Check, Basic Check, Firearms Eligibility Check, or COE Verification Process. The background check options vary in cost and efficiency, but each has been riddled with problems.
  • So far, over 16% of lawful purchasers have been refused ammunition due to administrative errors or defects in the system. By comparison, only 0.1 percent of would-be purchasers are the prohibited persons the checks were designed to prohibit. Put differently, the background check system prevents 133.5 times more legitimate purchases than illegitimate ones.
  • The United States District Court for the Southern District of California enjoined the ammunition scheme. The court recognized that the background check system was incredibly burdensome for lawful purchasers yet ineffective in preventing gun violence, and that out-of-state ammunition dealers were unfairly discriminated against.
  • The State appealed the district court’s injunction to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where FPC filed its amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs and the injunction.

    Firearms Policy CoalitionFirearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, advance individual liberty, and restore freedom. Gun owners and Second Amendment supporters can join the FPC Grassroots Army at JoinFPC.org.

Subscribe
Notify of
17 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Get Out
Get Out
1 month ago

IMOA gun owners should buy a box of ammo every week to overload their ammo BGC system and to prove it’s flawed. Join a pro-gun group that’s fighting for your 2A rights. I’d say that SCOTUS should have already shot this BS 2A infringement down, but they’re about as useful as tits on a boar hog at interpreting the 2nd Amendment.

Last edited 1 month ago by Get Out
American Patriot
American Patriot
1 month ago

I’m only saying this cuz I heard if from somebody else…..But isn’t it possible that some of the people getting shot their are the wrong people gettin shot???

loveaduck
loveaduck
1 month ago

Good luck. It’s just another step in shoving firearms out of the state. The criminals love it.

uncle dudley
uncle dudley
1 month ago

I feel sorry for the gun owners in California who can’t afford to move out of the state to a new state where they can practice the freedoms of our constitution without government infringing on their rights.

loveaduck
loveaduck
1 month ago
Reply to  uncle dudley

That’s true, for now. Other states better stay alert.

PMinFl
PMinFl
1 month ago
Reply to  uncle dudley

Unc: they shouldn’t have to move away, removing the azzhole politicians and repealing the legislation is the best way towards freedom.

Green Mtn. Boy
Green Mtn. Boy
1 month ago

No kidding. All gun control is un Constitutional.

Patriot Solutions
Patriot Solutions
1 month ago

The corruption of Government knows no limits especially in Chinafornia where the RIGHTS they stole are bartered for financial and political gain but who would expect anything less from a government that harvests and sells people as a leading commodity like agricultural products on the shelf at every supermarket. If YOU are thier product then your RIGHTS are just another bi-product for sale at market but hey, if you’re willing to pay a fee for your RIGHTS then who you gonna blame for supporting the market. Look no further than a mirror to find who sold you out.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/06/da-to-reveal-results-of-sheriff-corruption-probe-into-concealed-gun-permits/

Deplorable Bill
Deplorable Bill
1 month ago

Background checks for firearms are unconstitutional. As long as you are an American citizen of proper age, you are not in jail or the loony farm you have the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS — period. A RIGHT is not a privilege that can be granted or taken away like a driver’s license, a library card, pilots license etc. Anyone, ANYONE who would delay or deny one’s RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS is criminal under constitutional law and evil under Scriptural Law. Tyranny and treason come with consequences. Tyranny and treason are attacks, not just on the individual,… Read more »

Patriot Solutions
Patriot Solutions
1 month ago

Yep, we knew it would come to this and that’s why we planned ahead of time.

Ee1eyMIXkAAXQjw.jpg
Deplorable Bill
Deplorable Bill
1 month ago

Yup, that tree that Jefferson talked about is about to be refreshed. It’s likely to happen very soon. If not before the election, surely after it.

Arm up, carry on.

Ansel Hazen
Ansel Hazen
1 month ago

Yup.

I_Am_The_3_Percent.jpg
Ansel Hazen
Ansel Hazen
1 month ago

Something to consider. What if mail in voting becomes such a cluster that it interferes with the results long enough to keep Trump from rightfully being inaugurated in Jan 2021? As far fetched as it sounds no one can deny Dems wouldn’t give this a try. With both Trump and Pence unable to be sworn in the office falls to the speaker of the house. And that right there is some real reason to be ………………..

Arming Up and Carrying On. 🙂

PMinFl
PMinFl
1 month ago
Reply to  Ansel Hazen

Oh shit you have revealed the plan.

Random71
Random71
1 month ago

It is yet again, a dark hour for freedom, a darkness like few souls have seen. There is a threat now like none before. In addition to the old threats, as ageless as the sands, there are newer modern ways to wield power. No longer are the king’s spies needed in every village, for the electric eye has built a panopticon the like of which are unfathomable, even in the greatest dreams Huxley or Orwell; or Bradbury’s deepest nightmares. The pen is now perhaps truly more mighty than the sword. For never before have words spread so fast nor has… Read more »

GUNFUN
GUNFUN
1 month ago

Wait.

So, you are trying to argue that a law that infringes on the second amendment is unconstitutional?

Smells like America.

Random71
Random71
1 month ago
Reply to  GUNFUN

Smells like some tyranny that needs stamped out.

Last edited 1 month ago by Random71