A federal judge ruled that three men who committed nonviolent felonies decades ago are entitled to buy, own, and possess guns.
NYSPRA v. Bruen
Rejecting a challenge to the state's strict gun laws, the court is openly contemptuous of Second Amendment precedents.
The decision likens the federal law to Reconstruction era restrictions on firearms near polling places.
California made carry permits easier to obtain but nearly impossible to use.
The state's law, which a federal judge enjoined last month, prohibits firearms in most public places.
After a federal judge deemed the state's location-specific gun bans unconstitutional, the 9th Circuit stayed his injunction.
The court upheld several other location-specific gun bans, along with the state's "good moral character" requirement for a carry permit.
By banning firearms from a long list of "sensitive places," the state is copying a policy that federal judges have repeatedly rejected.
Before buying a handgun, residents had to obtain a "qualification license," which could take up to 30 days.
He Lost His Gun Rights Because of a Misdemeanor DUI Conviction. That Was Unconstitutional, a Judge Says.
The case highlights the broad reach of a federal law that bans firearm possession by people with nonviolent criminal records.
The appeals court is reviewing an injunction by a judge who concluded that the law is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's Second Amendment precedents.
The decision is another rebuke to states that have imposed broad, location-specific limits on the right to bear arms.
"There is no American tradition of limiting ammunition capacity," U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez says, calling the state's cap "arbitrary," "capricious," and "extreme."
American and English historical precedents show a robust individual right