Federal appeals court rules California ammunition background checks unconstitutional

A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that California’s first-of-its-kind law requiring gun owners to undergo background checks to purchase ammunition is unconstitutional, declaring that it violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

In a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court judge’s permanent injunction blocking the state from enforcing the law.

Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta said the law “meaningfully constrains” the right to keep and bear arms and that the state failed to prove the law was consistent with the country’s historical tradition of firearm regulation as required under a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision, New York State Rifle and 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.

CALIFORNIA JUDGE BLACKS GUN CONTROL LAW REQUIRING BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR AMMO PURCHASES

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, said the ruling was a “slap in the face” to efforts by officials in the Golden State to enact firearm restrictions to curb gun violence.

“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.”

California voters approved a ballot measure in 2016 requiring gun owners to undergo initial background checks to purchase ammunition, as well as buy four-year ammunition permits.

Lawmakers later amended the measure to require background checks for each ammunition purchase.

California officials said they received 191 reports last year of “armed and prohibited individuals” who were blocked through background checks from purchasing ammunition.

The state can ask an 11-judge appeals court panel or the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision.

The plaintiffs included Kim Rhode, who has won three Olympic gold medals in shooting events, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association.

The gun group’s president and general counsel said in a joint statement that the decision was a victory against “overreaching government gun control,” while Rhode described it as “a big win for all gun owners in California.”

The injunction was issued by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego. An appeals court panel placed the injunction on hold while California’s appeal played out.

California argued that several old firearms restrictions supported background checks, including colonial-era rules requiring licenses to produce gunpowder, the disarmament around 1776 of people who refused to take “loyalty oaths” and late-19th century rules requiring government approval to carry concealed weapons.

‘EXCESSIVE’ STATE TAXES ON GUNS, AMMUNITION SALES ARE TARGET OF NEW GOP CRACKDOWN EFFORT

Circuit Judge Jay Bybee, who dissented from Thursday’s decision, accused the majority of ignoring Supreme Court guidance by effectively declaring any limits on ammunition sales unlawful, given the unlikelihood a state could point to identical historical analogues.

The law “is not the kind of heavy-handed regulation that meaningfully constrains the right to keep and bear arms,” Bybee wrote.

All three judges on Thursday’s panel were appointed by Republican presidents, although appointees of Democratic presidents hold a majority in the 9th Circuit.

Ikuta and Bybee were appointed by former President George W. Bush, while Circuit Judge Bridget Bade, who joined Thursday’s majority, was appointed by President Donald Trump.

Reuters contributed to this report.