California Ammunition Background Check Law Ruled Unconstitutional
A federal appeals court announced on Thursday that California’s requirement for ammunition buyers to undergo background checks is unconstitutional, infringing on Second Amendment rights. This ruling came from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which voted 2-1 to maintain a lower court’s permanent injunction against the state’s law.
Judge Sandra Ikta emphasized that the law “confidentially constrains” individuals’ right to bear arms. She argued that it failed to demonstrate that California’s regulations aligned with the historical gun laws referenced in the 2022 Supreme Court case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Ikta stated, “By exposing background checks for Californians to purchase ammunition, this regime violates the fundamental right to maintain and endure weapons.”
California Governor Gavin Newsom reacted strongly, calling the ruling a “face slap” to their efforts to implement firearms restrictions meant to reduce gun violence. He claimed, “Our powerful gun laws are saving lives, and today’s decision undermines progress made in safeguarding communities from gun violence.” Newsom highlighted that Californians had voted for background checks on ammunition and their voices matter.
State Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, supported this sentiment, pointing out that families and schools deserve protection from preventable gun violence and that they are contemplating legal options moving forward.
The push for background checks began in California in 2016 when voters demanded that gun owners obtain permits for ammunition purchases. This has evolved into state measures that now require background checks for every ammunition sale. Last year alone, there were 191 reported instances where prohibited individuals were blocked from buying ammunition through these checks.
The state has the option to appeal the decision to an 11-judge panel or the Supreme Court. Among the plaintiffs were Kim Lord, an Olympic gold medalist in shooting, and members of the California Rifle and Pistol Association. In their joint statement, they celebrated the ruling as a decisive victory over government control of gun rights, with Lord declaring it a significant win for gun owners across California.
The injunction initially came from U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego. Although a panel of the Court of Appeals had temporarily stayed the injunction, California’s appeal proceeded nonetheless.
California argued that historical practices from colonial times, such as licensing for gunpowder production and disarmament required of those opposing the allegiance during the late 18th century, provide justification for modern background checks. The state contended such historical precedences support their current regulatory framework.
Challenging this perspective, Circuit Judge Jay Byby criticized the judicial approach, stating that many Supreme Court guidelines were ignored by declaring ammunition sales too tightly controlled. He asserted, “This law does not represent a strong regulation that meaningfully restricts the right to maintain and endure weapons.”
Interestingly, while all three judges on this Thursday’s panel were appointed by Republican presidents, Democratic appointees hold the majority in the Ninth Circuit. Ikta and Byby were appointed by George W. Bush, while Bridget Bade, who aligned with the majority, was appointed by Donald Trump.
