In a 79-page ruling yesterday, a three-panel 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California, declared by a 2-1 vote that the state’s law requiring background checks for ammo purchases is unconstitutional.
The majority opinion was penned by Judge Sandra S. Ikuta, a George W. Bush nominee who only took her seat following a filibuster by Senate Democrats to block the president’s earlier selection. Her majority opinion concluded that California’s ammunition background check regime violates the Second Amendment “because the regime meaningfully constrains the right to keep operable arms.”
Further, when applying a second legal lens to the law based on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, Ikuta stated, “the government failed to carry its burden of showing that California’s ammunition background check scheme ‘is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.’ The historical analogues proffered by California were not within the relevant time frame, nor were they relevantly similar to California’s ammunition background check regime.”
In 2016, urged on by gun-control advocates and state Democratic legislators, California voters approved a statewide ballot measure, Proposition 63, which created a background check system and a pay-to-play permitting arrangement for the right to purchase ammunition.
These intentionally burdensome restrictions included a ban on online ammo purchases for home delivery, made it illegal to cross into California with ammo purchased out of state, and required time-consuming background checks on every over-the-counter sale of ammunition. That final measure included further red tape intended to functionally restrict gun rights with excessive inconvenience via backlogs, onerous paperwork, expiring permits, and additional fees.
The draconian, one-of-a-kind law was subsequently challenged in Rhode v. Bonta in 2018, which saw famed Olympic shooting sports gold medalist Kim Rhode as the primary plaintiff against the state. A federal judge in early 2024 agreed with Rhode and ruled against the state, which subsequently appealed to the 9th Circuit.
U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez laid out his 2024 findings thusly in his original ruling against California’s law:
Today, a person may choose to submit to a full credit check to buy an automobile. But he is not required to pass the same credit check every time he needs to refill his car with gas or recharge his battery at a charging station. And the Constitution does not mention a right to own automobiles (or carriages or horses). Similarly, when a person chooses to buy a firearm, he is required to undergo a full background check. However, until now, he was not required to also go through a background check every time he needs to refill his gun with ammunition. And the Bill of Rights commands that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom called the court’s latest decision a “slap in the face” for the state’s gun-control efforts. The state now must decide whether it will ask an 11-judge appeals panel or the Supreme Court to review the decision.
