The NRA and an Olympic medal-winning shooter are taking California to federal court over a voter-approved measure that sets tight restrictions on purchases of ammunition, which the pro-gun group says violate the Second Amendment.
The complaint, filed by the NRA on behalf of Kim Rhode and other plaintiffs on Thursday, comes against the backdrop of a national debate over gun control following the deadly mass shooting at a Parkland, Florida, high school in February.
This also marks the fourth lawsuit the NRA has brought up against California, the Los Angeles Times reported. The lawsuit has already spurred strong reactions.
Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, on Thursday said the law was written on “solid legal ground and principle” and that the National Rifle Association “has prioritized gun industry profits over the lives of law-abiding Californians.” On Twitter, the NRA accused California of “infringing upon the rights of its own citizens.”
But to give context to the lawsuit and remarks from both sides, here’s a brief explanation of Proposition 63 and what the lawsuit claims.
What is Proposition 63?
California’s Proposition 63 is a package of reforms that require background checks for those buying ammunition, stronger restrictions on high-capacity magazines and out-of-state purchases and harsher penalties for gun thefts, among other regulations.
Voters in November 2016 approved the initiative with 63 percent voting yes and 36 percent voting no, but portions of the law have been challenged in court.
Among the most contentious parts of the law is a statute that bars the possession of large-capacity magazines, which is at the center of a lawsuit brought on by San Diego County residents, and requires that ammunition purchases be made face-to-face.
Why is Proposition 63 so contentious to the NRA and pro gun-right advocates?
The lawsuit’s main beef with Proposition 63 is the restrictions it sets on purchases made online or those that require transport from out of state. It calls such statutes “unprecedented and overreaching.”
Among the claims, the lawsuit says that California blocks out-of-state ammunition vendors unless they pay an in-state business to broker the sale, which it says violates commerce laws and puts “excessive restraints” on individuals’ right to bear arms.
Who exactly is suing California?
Attorneys for the NRA and the California Rifle and Pistol Association filed the lawsuit on behalf of 10 other plaintiffs. Among the plaintiffs suing California are:
•Kim Rhode, a six-time Olympic medal-winning shooter
•Gary Brennan, a San Diego County firearms instructor
•Cory Henry, an Army veteran in San Diego County
•Edward Allen Johnson, a San Diego County resident and volunteer safety officer at a firing range
•Scott Lindemuth, a Navy veteran in San Diego County
•Richard Randall Ricks, a San Diego County public accountant
•Denise Welvang, a Los Angeles County gun owner
•Able’s Sporting, Inc., a Texas-based ammunition vendor
•AMDEP Holdings, LLC, a Florida-based ammunition vendor
•R&S Firearms, Inc., an Arizona-based ammunition vendor
•California Rifle & Pistol Association, a gun-right advocacy group
How is this debate playing out in public?
As with other debates over gun control, those on both sides have strong opinions about the issue. The lawsuit brought against California’s Proposition 63 laws has already spurred reactions from both sides, including Fred Guttenberg, the father of a Parkland school shooting victim, who on Twitter said the NRA “must be defeated.”
Pro-gun advocates have also pushed back.
The NRA has also filed three other lawsuits on behalf of other plaintiffs as part of what it calls the “Gunmageddon” of bills that set some of the strictest gun regulations in the nation. The defendant named in the lawsuits is state Attorney General Xavier Becerra.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-nra-sues-california-over-ammunition-sales-prop-63-20180427-htmlstory.html
