California ammunition background checks declared unconstitutional by US appeals court

Reuters

6 days ago

July 24 (Reuters) - A divided federal appeals court on Thursday said California's first-of-its-kind law requiring firearm owners to undergo background checks to buy ammunition is unconstitutional, violating the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
In a 2-1 vote, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California upheld a lower court judge's permanent injunction against enforcing the law.
Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta said the law "meaningfully constrains" people's right to keep and bear arms.
She also said California failed to show the law was consistent with the country's historical tradition of firearm regulation as required under a 2022 landmark 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.
The office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta, which defended the law, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. California Governor Gavin Newsom's office had no immediate comment.
All three judges on the panel were appointed by Republican presidents, though appointees of Democratic presidents hold a 9th Circuit majority. California can ask an 11-judge appeals court panel or the Supreme Court to review the decision.
The plaintiffs included Kim Rhode, opens new tab, who has won three Olympic gold medals in shooting events, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association.
In a joint statement, the group's president and general counsel Chuck Michel called the decision a victory against "overreaching government gun control," while Rhode called it "a big win for all gun owners in California."
Many gun rights groups and 24 mostly Republican-led U.S. states submitted briefs supporting the law's opponents, while a few gun safety groups sided with California.
Janet Carter, managing director of Second Amendment litigation at Everytown Law, in a statement said California's law imposed a "minimal burden"--a $1 fee and one-minute delay--for most firearms owners seeking ammunition.
"Background checks for ammunition sales are common sense," she said.
Voters had in 2016 approved a California ballot measure requiring gun owners to undergo initial background checks to buy ammunition, and buy four-year ammunition permits.
Legislators later amended the measure to require background checks for each ammunition purchase.
California said it received 191 reports, opens new tab in 2024 of "armed and prohibited individuals" who were blocked through background checks from buying ammunition.
The injunction had been issued in January 2024 by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego, who has ruled in several cases in favor of gun owners.
An appeals court panel put the injunction on hold during California's appeal.
California said several old firearms restrictions supported the background checks.
These included 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 permission to carry concealed weapons.
Circuit Judge Jay Bybee dissented from Thursday's decision.
He accused the majority of flouting Supreme Court guidance by effectively declaring unlawful any limits on ammunition sales, given the unlikelihood a state can 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.
President George W. Bush appointed Ikuta and Bybee to the bench, while President Donald Trump appointed Circuit Judge Bridget Bade, who joined Thursday's majority.
The case is Rhode v Bonta et al, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-542.