Source: YouTube
A federal appeals court has ruled that the California ammunition background check law is unconstitutional, striking down a key part of the state’s gun control framework. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a permanent injunction issued by a lower court, declaring that the law violates the Second Amendment and does not align with historical firearm regulations as required by the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision.
How the California Ammunition Background Check Law Operated
Passed by ballot initiative in 2016, the law initially allowed residents to obtain a four-year ammunition permit after a one-time background check. Lawmakers later amended it to require a background check for every ammunition purchase. The system, launched in 2019, required buyers to be registered firearm owners under the state’s Department of Justice.
Officials said the law blocked 191 ammunition purchases in 2024 from individuals who were prohibited from possessing firearms. Critics argued that many denials affected lawful gun owners who were flagged due to outdated or incomplete state records.
Court Rejects the Law’s Historical Basis
Judge Sandra Ikuta, writing for the majority, said the California ammunition background check law imposed a burden on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms and lacked support from historical precedent. Under the Bruen standard, firearm regulations must align with the nation’s historical tradition of gun laws. The court concluded that California had not demonstrated any consistent analogues for ammunition background checks.
Because ammunition is necessary for the use of firearms, the court said it is covered under the Second Amendment. The requirement for a check with every transaction was viewed as excessive and not comparable to early American gun laws.
Dissenting Opinion Calls the Burden Minimal
Judge Jay Bybee dissented and defended the California ammunition background check law as a limited public safety tool. He pointed out that most checks took less than one minute and cost just one dollar. In his view, the process did not meaningfully restrict the core right to bear arms. He warned that the majority’s application of Bruen stretched the standard beyond the Supreme Court’s intent and risked invalidating modest, widely accepted safety laws.
Meanwhile, Governor Gavin Newsom criticized the ruling as a blow to public safety. Attorney General Rob Bonta said the California ammunition background check law helped keep ammunition out of the wrong hands and warned that striking it down could put communities at risk. Additionally, gun control advocates argued that California’s strict firearm laws have contributed to lower rates of gun deaths. They described the background check law as a preventive measure that should be preserved and defended under appeal.
2A and Gun Rights Groups View the Ruling as a Major Win
The plaintiffs who filed against the California ammunition background check law included Olympic gold medalist Kim Rhode and the California Rifle & Pistol Association. Both celebrated the ruling as a major victory for gun owners in a state known for its strict regulations. The association called the decision a pushback against government overreach.
Gun store owners also welcomed the outcome. Some said the system routinely blocked eligible customers due to registration errors or outdated records. The failed transactions created frustration without improving safety. Retailers argued that those seeking ammunition illegally do not go through regulated channels.
The Next Step Could Lead to a Supreme Court Showdown
California may appeal the ruling to a larger 9th Circuit panel or ask the Supreme Court to review the case. Legal experts say the ruling could influence challenges to similar laws in other states and test how broadly the Bruen standard applies to ammunition regulations. For now, the permanent injunction remains in place. California is barred from enforcing background checks on ammunition purchases while the case proceeds.
Do you agree that the California ammunition background check law is unnecessary? Tell us what you think
Survey
Loading ...
