Gun rights advocates sue to block California’s new ammo law requiring background checks
Gun rights advocates are suing to block California’s new ammunition purchasing law, calling it an unconstitutional scheme that violates the Second Amendment.
The preliminary injunction motion filed by the California Rifle & Pistol Association Monday in San Diego federal court names Kim Rhode, the seven-time trap and skeet shooting Olympian and National Rifle Association board member, as lead plaintiff.
“Plaintiffs seek to vindicate their fundamental Second Amendment rights,” plaintiffs’ attorney Sean Brady argued in his 34-page motion. “Not only plaintiffs’ rights are at stake, but so are the rights of any law-abiding Californian who is unduly burdened by the state’s ammunition scheme.”
The new law requires customers to undergo one-time background checks to buy ammunition and limits ammo purchases to those from licensed vendors inside California. The law, activated by 2016’s Proposition 63 – the 2016 gun control initiative mandating the background checks – has rankled California gun owners, gun and ammo sellers and advocacy groups.
Attorneys for the Fullerton-based association argue that state law that went into effect July 1 goes too far and should be shelved while the state and firearms advocates continue to litigate the issue.
Mosquito Creek Outfitters is a family-owned outdoor sports retailer in Placerville, in the Sierra Nevada foothills about 45 miles east of Sacramento. A majority of the shop’s business comes from firearm and ammunition sales. It was one of eight establishments that filed declarations in support of the suit describing the new law’s effect on their business.
In a July 14 declaration to the federal court, Mosquito Creek manager Myra Lowder estimated about 60 percent of attempted ammunition transactions have been rejected since July 1. Other customers, Lowder said, walked out of the business.
Lowder said her shop has been “forced to turn away multiple customers who, after learning of the new requirements to purchase ammunition, did not wish to engage or attempt an ammunition transaction.”
The lawsuit also alleges California unfairly shuts off its market to out-of-state vendors.
“The effect of California’s scheme is to force companies located out-of-state to have a physical in-state presence as a condition to having secure and equal access to its ammunition market,” the motion reads.
“California’s ammunition scheme not only prevents out-of-state vendors from accessing California customers … it renders out-of-state vendors’ ability to do business in California entirely dependent on the discretion of their in-state competitors,” the motion continued.
That directly impacts rural California towns like Needles along the borders of Nevada and Arizona, states with more permissive gun and ammunition laws.
Under Proposition 63, it became illegal in 2018 to import ammunition into California that was purchased out of state. For Needles, more than 100 miles from its closest California neighbors in Barstow and Blythe, but minutes away from Arizona and Nevada, the ammo laws were steps too far.
In June, the remote San Bernardino County desert town stepped into the fray, attracting attention by declaring itself a Second Amendment “sanctuary city.” Needles leaders said the designation was a first step in calling for exemptions to state ammunition laws.
“While we recognize that all lawful gun owners are responsible for ensuring they are compliant with state and federal gun laws, we also recognize that the State of California cannot adopt laws that impair the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment,” Needles Mayor Jeff Williams said in a June statement after City Council members approved the sanctuary city declaration.
Needles’ effort caught the eye of the NRA and sympathetic law firms, Williams said at the time.
“We’re looking for a pragmatic approach. We’re just removing the impediments of these statutes,” Needles City Manager Rick Daniels told The Bee in June. “We’re trying to respectfully request the Legislature recognize the unique situation” of border cities.”
On Wednesday, Daniels said the ammo laws’ “unintended consequences” hurt small, isolated towns like his. Needles officials are talking with state representatives and to law enforcement leaders in the county seat of San Bernardino – 200 miles to the west – to advocate for carve-outs to state law.
“It interferes with interstate commerce and it has unintended consequences for remote towns like Needles,” Daniels said Wednesday. “You want to hunt dove, it’s 100 miles to Blythe to buy a box of shotgun shells. Two hundred yards across the (Colorado) river (in Arizona), you have seven or eight stores within 15 miles.”
“We think it’s flawed policy. We think the implementation of the policy went too far,” Daniels continued. “Intended or otherwise, it doesn’t work.”
This story was originally published July 25, 2019 at 3:09 PM with the headline "Gun rights advocates sue to block California’s new ammo law requiring background checks."
.JPG)