image description

Frosh Supports California on Ammunition Regs

June 22nd, 2020 by WCBC Radio

Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh today joined a coalition of 16 attorneys general in defending California’s requirement that gun dealers conduct background checks prior to all ammunition sales and that all ammunition sales occur face-to-face.  In an amicus brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, the coalition argues that states have the right to enact reasonable firearm restrictions that protect public safety and reduce the prevalence of gun violence.


The coalition filed the brief in Rhode v. Becerra, a lawsuit challenging two of California’s ammunition sale requirements that were enacted after the state’s voters approved Proposition 63, which prohibited the possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines and required certain individuals to pass a background check in order to purchase ammunition.  In April, a lower court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the state from enforcing the challenged regulations.  That injunction has been stayed pending California’s appeal to the 9th Circuit, where it argues that the requirements are constitutional. 


“States have the constitutional right to enact firearm laws that protect their residents,” said Attorney General Frosh.  “This right is critical to preventing gun violence and has been determined by federal courts not to violate the Second Amendment.”


In the brief, the coalition argues that requiring a background check for ammunition sales and placing restrictions on shipping ammunition directly to purchasers are reasonable requirements that California has the right to adopt because: 


  • The Second Amendment allows states to enact new and varied measures in response to gun violence.  The brief explains that states are entitled to adopt reasonable restrictions to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their residents, including preventing crime and minimizing gun violence.  Background checks and face-to-face sale requirements would prevent prohibited individuals from purchasing ammunition without infringing on law-abiding individuals exercising their Second Amendment rights.  The plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that anyone has been improperly prohibited from, or unduly delayed in, purchasing ammunition as a result of these laws.
  • States have a responsibility to prevent gun violence and protect public safety.  The brief explains that states have primary responsibility for ensuring public safety.  By implementing these new measures to prevent dangerous or other prohibited individuals from obtaining ammunition, California can reduce the likelihood that their residents will become victims of preventable gun violence.


Joining Attorney General Frosh in the brief are the attorneys general of Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington.

7 Responses to “Frosh Supports California on Ammunition Regs”

  1. June 22, 2020 at 6:31 pm, Kathy said:

    Taking your guns will be next


  2. June 22, 2020 at 7:44 pm, Brian said:

    Why doesn’t he concentrate on the crime in Baltimore and other counties around Washington DC in Baltimore I’m sure he has plenty to do there. Instead of going after law-abiding citizens


  3. June 22, 2020 at 9:31 pm, Joe Wellberg said:

    States should lose their loophole when Trump is re-elected when a law is signed that makes shall issue across state lines. States would no longer be able to simply get in the way of gun ownership.


  4. June 22, 2020 at 9:32 pm, Kathy said:



  5. June 22, 2020 at 10:03 pm, John P said:

    Hasn’t the recent news proven we need access to guns & ammo. Or should we just let antifa cook dinner for us?


    • June 23, 2020 at 10:57 am, Jay said:

      Why would you need more access to guns John?


  6. June 23, 2020 at 7:23 am, Ron said:

    Beware law abiding gun owners this guy wants to be our next governor.


Leave a Reply