Federal Appeals Court Blocks California’s Ammunition Background Checks
A federal appeals court determined on Thursday that California’s innovative law mandating background checks for ammunition purchases is unconstitutional, asserting that it violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
In a 2-1 ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s permanent injunction that prevents California from enforcing its ammunition background check law.
U.S. District Judge Sandra Ikuta stated that the law “significantly restricts” the constitutional right to keep and bear arms and that the state did not prove it is consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation in the nation, as mandated by the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
“By imposing background checks on all ammunition purchases, California’s ammunition background check system infringes upon the essential right to keep and bear arms,” Ikuta noted.
“Robust gun laws save lives – and today’s ruling is a setback to the advancements California has achieved in recent years to enhance community safety against gun violence,” Newsom expressed in a statement. “Californians voted to mandate background checks on ammunition, and their voices should be respected.”
Unsurprisingly, state Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, opposed the ruling, stating, “Our families, schools, and neighborhoods deserve nothing less than the most fundamental protection against preventable gun violence, and we are exploring our legal options.”
In 2016, California voters endorsed a ballot measure requiring initial background checks for ammunition purchases and mandating gun owners to secure four-year ammunition permits.
Subsequently, lawmakers modified the law to necessitate a background check for each ammunition purchase. According to state officials, 191 background check reports stopped “armed and prohibited individuals” from acquiring ammunition last year.
The state has the option to seek a review of the ruling by an 11-judge panel of the appeals court.
The president and general counsel of the gun group stated in a joint statement that the ruling represents a triumph against “overreaching government gun control,” while Rhode characterized it as “a significant victory for all gun owners in California.”
Judge Jay Bybee, who dissented from the ruling on Thursday, accused the majority of ignoring Supreme Court precedent by effectively determining that any limitations on ammunition sales are unconstitutional, as it is highly improbable that a state could provide precise historical analogues to substantiate such restrictions.
Bybee wrote that the law “is not the type of heavy-handed regulation that significantly limits the right to keep and bear arms.”
All three judges on the panel from Thursday were appointed by Republican presidents, although the 9th Circuit overall remains predominantly controlled by judges appointed by Democratic presidents.
California Governor Gavin Newsom, who is being considered a potential contender for the 2028 presidential election, asserted during a recent podcast with Shawn Ryan that he is not “anti-gun,” yet his legislative history indicates otherwise.
Since assuming office in 2019, Newsom has enacted nearly 70 gun control measures. This includes SB 1327, which permits private citizens to initiate lawsuits regarding illegal firearms and components. In 2023, he supported an 11 percent tax on all gun and ammunition sales, directing the revenue towards school safety and gun violence prevention initiatives. The tax was explicitly intended to deter gun ownership.
This pattern is not new for Newsom. As the mayor of San Francisco in 2005, he endorsed Proposition H, which aimed to prohibit the sale and possession of handguns within the city. Although the courts invalidated it, Newsom defended the proposition at the time by referencing a family tragedy involving his grandfather and expressing his aversion to firearms.
In 2016, while serving as lieutenant governor, he spearheaded the effort for Proposition 63. This measure prohibited high-capacity magazines and mandated background checks for ammunition purchases. He was not merely a supporter; he was the official proponent of the initiative and one of its most vocal advocates.