Proposition 63, otherwise known as “gunmageddon,” is essentially bullet control. It’s regulating what people can do with ammunition, how they can purchase it, and how they can transfer it.
It is unconstitutional. A law cannot put an undue burden on any fundamental right under our Constitution, and that’s exactly what the California regulations are designed to impose.
The Second Amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The people of this nation have the advantage of having a personal right to self-defense.
Under the Constitution, handguns may not be outlawed by states, and by the same logic California should not be putting these undue burdens on this Constitutional right–which is written in the black and white text of the Constitution.
Unlike a lot of other fundamental rights, this was not made up by unelected, unaccountable judges, but it’s right there in the Constitution for everyone to read.
Despite California’s efforts to put these burdens on this fundamental right, they should not be upheld by the Supreme Court if it is challenged and gets to the highest court because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
I was OAN’s Tipping Point with Liz Wheeler to discuss the challenge to bullet control in California.
Additional:
NRA Supporting Federal Lawsuit Challenging California’s Ammunition Sale Restrictions (NRA)
NRA, Olympic shooter sue California over its restrictions on ammunition sales (Los Angeles Times)
Why the NRA, Olympic shooter are suing California over Prop. 63 limits on ammo purchases (San Diego Union-Tribune)
Olympic medalist files lawsuit over California bullet control law (Guns.com)
Olympic shooter joins NRA to sue California: ‘It’s wrong to treat law-abiding gun owners like criminals’ (BizPac Review)
