Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down California’s Ammo Background Check Law: ‘Unconstitutional’

A federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that California’s law requiring background checks for ammunition purchases violates the Second Amendment.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, upheld a lower court’s permanent injunction that blocked the state from enforcing the law.

Democrats argue that the law was intended to curb gun violence by regulating ammunition sales.

Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta, writing for the majority, stated that the law “meaningfully constrains” the right to keep and bear arms, pointing out that the state failed to prove the law’s alignment with the country’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The decision was based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which emphasized that any gun regulation must be consistent with historical precedents.

“By subjecting Californians to background checks for all ammunition purchases, California’s ammunition background check regime infringes on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms,” Ikuta wrote in the opinion.

California’s Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom quickly condemned the ruling.

Newsom called the decision a “slap in the face” to efforts to curb gun violence in the state.

He argued that the decision undermines California’s progressive strides to protect citizens from firearms-related harm.

“Strong gun laws save lives – and today’s decision is a slap in the face to the progress California has made in recent years to keep its communities safer from gun violence,” Newsom said in a statement.

“Californians voted to require background checks on ammunition, and their voices should matter.”

The state’s Attorney General Rob Bonta, also a Democrat, vowed to seek further legal action.

Bonta claims that the decision would undermine protections for Californians.

“Our families, schools, and neighborhoods deserve nothing less than the most basic protection against preventable gun violence, and we are looking into our legal options,” Bonta said.

The controversial law was first approved by California voters in 2016.

It required background checks for all ammunition purchases, along with the issuance of four-year ammunition permits.

Later amendments tightened the requirements, making background checks mandatory for each ammunition transaction.

However, like many of the Democrats’ gun-control measures, the law hurts law-abiding citizens.

Gun rights advocates pushed back against the law, arguing that it unduly restricts citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

Plaintiffs in the case included Kim Rhode, a three-time Olympic gold medalist in shooting, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, both of whom celebrated the court’s decision as a victory for gun owners.

“This is a big win for all gun owners in California,” Rhode said in a statement.

“It’s a victory against overreaching government gun control.”

The state can still seek a review of the decision either by a larger panel of judges from the 9th Circuit or by the U.S. Supreme Court.

However, the decision represents a significant setback for California’s efforts to impose stricter gun control measures.

Judge Jay Bybee, who dissented, argued that the law was not overly burdensome and that the majority’s ruling ignored precedent set by previous gun regulations, including historical rules governing firearms and ammunition sales.

The split decision highlights the ongoing tension between gun rights advocates and those seeking tighter controls on firearms in the U.S., and signals that future legal battles over gun regulations in California are far from over.

READ MORE – Gavin Newsom Admits California’s Economy Depends on Cheap Illegal Alien Labor