- Messages
- 133
- Reactions
- 216
III. CONCLUSION
Together, the background check requirement for all ammunition purchases in
California and the anti-importation provisions that prohibit direct sales to residents
often effect a complete statutory barrier to the lawful purchase of ammunition.
Moreover, the provisions are interlocking and derive from the same section of
Proposition 63. See §§ 8.1 through 8.16. The anti-importation provisions are not
severable from the ammunition background check requirements. Even if only one
part was unconstitutional both parts would need to be enjoined. But severability
does not matter here, as both parts fail constitutional muster and require injunctive
relief.
The Court does not lightly enjoin a state statute, even on a preliminary basis.
However, just as the Court is mindful that a majority of California voters approved
Proposition 63 and that government has a legitimate interest in protecting the public
from gun violence, it is equally mindful that the Constitution remains a shield from
the tyranny of the majority. As Senator Kennedy said, "[t]he judiciary is – and is
often the only – protector of individual rights that are at the heart of our
Case 3:18-cv-00802-BEN-JLB Document 60 Filed 04/23/20 PageID.2307 Page 117 of 120
democracy."58 Law-abiding citizens are imbued with the unalienable right to keep
and bear firearms along with the ammunition to make their firearms work. That a
majority today may wish it were otherwise, does not change the Constitutional right.
It never has. California has tried its unprecedented experiment. The casualties
suffered by law abiding citizens have been counted. Presently, California and many
other states sit in isolation under pandemic-inspired stay-at-home orders. Schools,
parks, beaches, and countless non-essential businesses are closed. Courts are
limping by while police make arrests for only the more serious crimes. Maintaining
Second Amendment rights are especially important in times like these. Keeping
vigilant is necessary in both bad times and good, for if we let these rights lapse in
the good times, they might never be recovered in time to resist the next appearance
of criminals, terrorists, or tyrants.
Might be a good time to stock up on ammo.It is not the Court's role to dictate to a state how it should go about attempting
to accomplish its goal. If the state objective is to make it extremely difficult, if not
impossible, for its law-abiding citizens to purchase protected ammunition, then this
law appears to be well-drafted. However, if the genuine object is to keep
ammunition out of the hands of those who should not be able to buy it, perhaps the
State could create a database (that would include persons prohibited, i.e., aliens
unlawfully present, felons, and others) and simply make that information available
to sellers by cross-checking with the magnetic strip on a standard driver's license
and by allowing out-of-state vendors the same ability to engage in commerce as it
does California vendors.
SR
