A federal appeals court on Thursday struck down California’s landmark law requiring background checks for ammunition purchases, ruling that the measure is unconstitutional and infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
In a 2-1 ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s permanent injunction barring California from enforcing its ammunition background check law. Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote that the law “meaningfully constrains” the constitutional right to keep and bear arms and that the state failed to demonstrate the law aligns with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, as required by the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
“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. Needless to say, the decision was criticized by Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is likely to throw his hat in the ring for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination.
“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 office of state Attorney General Rob Bonta, also a Democrat, said “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.”
In 2016, California voters approved a ballot initiative requiring gun owners to pass an initial background check and obtain a four-year permit to purchase ammunition.
Lawmakers later revised the law to mandate a background check for every ammunition purchase. According to state officials, background checks prevented 191 reports of “armed and prohibited individuals” from buying ammunition last year.
The state has the option to request a review of the decision by an 11-judge panel of the appeals court or appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. The plaintiffs in the case included Olympic gold medalist Kim Rhode and the California Rifle & Pistol Association.
