Applying Bruen’s new lesson, this Court’s conclusion remains the same: the California ammunition background check laws violate a citizen’s right to bear arms. Once it becomes clear that acquiring ammunition is conduct covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, it should be no surprise to discover that the government is unable to do that which it must now do: demonstrate that California’s first-of-its-kind sweeping statewide restriction on buying firearm ammunition is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Because these laws are not consistent with the Nation’s history and tradition, they must yield to the Constitution.
—Rhode v. Becerra, No. 3:18-cv-00802 (S.D. Cal.)
—Rhode v. Becerra, No. 3:18-cv-00802 (S.D. Cal.)
All agree that the ammunition necessary to use a gun is covered by the Second Amendment’s protection for keeping and bearing arms. The Attorney General correctly concedes that, “[e]ven though the Second Amendment does not reference a right to acquire or purchase Arms or mention ammunition, it ‘protects ancillary rights necessary to the realization of the core right to possess a firearm for self-defense.’” The Attorney General agrees that the core right to possess a firearm for self-defense, “would include a ‘corresponding right’ to ‘obtain bullets necessary to use’ firearms for self-defense.”
—id.
—id.
In contrast, the Attorney General makes two arguments to end the case here, at the textual level, before he has to shoulder the burden of demonstrating a history and tradition of constitutional ammunition background checks. First, he retreats and says that purchasing ammunition without a background check is not really covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment or any ancillary right. Second, he says that the background check laws are simply “presumptively lawful regulatory measures.” Neither argument is persuasive. The first argument employs a rhetorical device to over-describe in detail the asserted constitutional wrong. Having over-described the alleged constitutional right, it is then argued that the detailed description of the asserted right is not covered by the plain text of the Constitution.
—id.
—id.
I’m going to end here with the following, it is important to learn the arguments of our enemies. Here the method they are using is “over-describing”.
The right is the right to keep and bear arms. Those words do not include the words “to stop bad guys when they burst into my home.” Yet the state does argue that the plain text does not cover the more descriptive words.
We must remain focused on using the right argument, the right conduct. The conduct we wish to do is to keep and bear arms. That includes the right to acquire arms. It includes the right to acquire the acquirements to outfit and use those arms.
The state can not ban magazines nor can they ban optics. Those are both arms and both are protected.
The state will do whatever it wants to do because there is no meaningful mechanism in place to punish the state for doing whatever it wants to do. It pays lip service only to legal precedents and rulings but if it doesn’t like those precedents and rulings it simply ignores them. The state has unlimited wealth and assets to use in it’s war against our Rights knowing full well that we do NOT have unlimited assets to fight back in court. This is why we can never ever rest in the battle to protect Rights. Because the state never rests in it’s battle to end our Rights.
That is precisely why some of our Founders insisted on a Bill of Rights and made Ammending that document a difficult process. They knew that the natural intention of those in power is to rule, eventually rule absolutely.
Just finished pounding the crap out of a guy who tried to argue the 2A doesn’t cover ‘owning or buying’ a gun, only ‘possessing’. I used the exact same highlighted quotes.