Split Ruling on California’s Ammo Background Check Law
A divided federal appeals court ruled on Thursday regarding California’s law that mandates background checks for firearm owners purchasing ammunition.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Pasadena, California, upheld a lower court’s permanent injunction against the law with a 2-1 vote.
Circuit Judge Sandra Ikta noted that the law “consensually constrains” the right to keep and bear arms.
Ikta pointed out that California had not demonstrated that the law aligns with the nation’s historical traditions of gun regulation, as outlined in the 2022 Supreme Court case, New York Rifle and Pistol Association vs. Bruen.
“The background-check system for all ammunition purchases imposed on Californians infringes on their fundamental rights to maintain and bear arms,” Ikta stated.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta expressed disappointment over the ruling. “Our families, schools, and neighborhoods deserve better protections against preventable gun violence,” he said, adding that legal options are being explored.
Governor Gavin Newsom’s office, which had previously referred to the injunction as “extremist” and “illogical,” has not yet commented on this latest decision.
Interestingly, all three judges involved in the case were appointed by Republican presidents; however, the majority on the 9th Circuit consists of Democratic appointees.
California can seek review either from an 11-judge panel or the Supreme Court.
Reactions to the Decision
The plaintiffs included Kim Lord, a three-time Olympic gold medalist in shooting, and the California Rifle and Pistol Association. Lord called the ruling a significant victory for gun owners in the state. Chuck Michelle, the group’s president, praised it as a triumph against “government overreach in gun control.”
Many gun rights organizations, along with 24 mostly Republican-led states, have submitted briefs in support of those opposing the law. In contrast, some gun safety groups have backed California’s position. Janet Carter from Everytown argued that the background check requirement is a “minimal burden,” emphasizing that such checks for ammo sales are just common sense.
Voters initially approved California’s law in 2016, which required that gun owners obtain a four-year permit to buy ammunition along with an initial background check. Subsequent amendments mandated checks for every ammunition purchase.
Last year, California reported 191 cases involving “armed, prohibited individuals.”
Legal Background and Historical Analogies
This injunction stems from a ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego. On Thursday, the appellate panel put the injunction on hold during California’s appeal, citing old firearm restrictions that support background checks. Examples included licenses to produce gunpowder and 19th-century requirements for government permission to carry concealed weapons.
One dissenting judge, Jay Beebe, criticized the majority opinion, arguing that it fails to acknowledge existing restrictions on ammunition sales and suggests that the state might struggle to find meaningful historical parallels.
He described the law as “not a strong regulation that meaningfully constrains the right to maintain and bear arms.” The case is known as Lord v. Bonta et al., numbered 24-542 in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
