Federal court strikes down California ammo background checks, sparking gun safety debate
While some say this is a step back for gun safety, others believe this is part of common-sense gun laws.
The 2015 mass shooting at a San Bernardino County office killed 16 people, including both shooters who carried out the attack. The next year, California voters supported Proposition 63, which required background checks for those buying ammunition.
"To me, it's peculiar," said John Donohue, a Stanford Law Professor. "It really is a peculiar feature that these two federal judges are striking down the will of the people as well as the will of the California legislature."
Professor Donohue feels the law made sense since roughly 400,000 guns were stolen last year.
"Guns are stolen all the time because gun owners leave them in unlocked cars very often," he said. "So, if you can at least pose a restraint when the bad guy goes to get the ammunition, you're screening out people who the law says should not be having access to firearms."
Gun owner Bradley Stolfi from Cloverdale disagrees. He says he supports common-sense gun laws. He shared his thoughts with us when background checks on ammunition were first signed into law.
"I think every firearm should require a background check, and it should be thorough," Stolfi said.
Stolfi equates a background check for a firearm to getting a driver's license. He says once people pass that process, drivers are no longer required to get background checks every time they fuel up. He does, though, advocate for stricter training to become a gun owner since guns and ammunition have evolved since the 2nd Amendment was drafted more than 230 years ago.
"I don't see any need for any magazine to be able to hold more than 10," he said. "That's going to get me in a lot of trouble with guys I know, but that's what I think."
While the 9th Circuit Court's decision will most likely be appealed, Professor Donohue wonders about the broader impact the decision will have on gun ownership. He says this might give gun lobbyists ammunition to attack background checks for firearm purchases.
"Certainly, there has been an effort that has gotten support from the US Supreme Court to be very, very aggressive in implementing the Second Amendment in these types of challenges," said Professor Donohue. "Many things that I thought would not have been struck down have in fact been struck down."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
11 hours ago
- Forbes
Federal Court Strikes Down California's Ammo Background Check Law
In a major victory for the Second Amendment, on Thursday, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals struck down a first-of-its-kind law that required a background check before every purchase of ammunition in California. 'By subjecting Californians to background checks for all ammunition purchases,' Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote for the majority in Rhode v. Bonta, 'California's ammunition background check regime infringes on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.' PETALUMA, CA - APRIL 02: Rounds of .223 rifle ammuntion sits on the counter at Sportsmans Arms on ... More April 2, 2013 in Petaluma, California. (Photo Illustration by) California's regime dates back to 2016, when California voters approved Proposition 63 by a margin of almost 2:1. Under the proposition, residents would pass an initial background check and then receive a four-year permit to purchase ammunition. However, California lawmakers amended the law to only allow ammunition purchases in-person and after a background check each time. By requiring face-to-face transactions, California also banned both online sales and prohibited Californians from buying ammunition out-of-state. Prior to California's regime taking effect in July 2019, multiple plaintiffs, including Olympic gold medalist Kim Rhode and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, sued the state in 2018. To determine if California's law was constitutional under the Second Amendment, the Ninth Circuit relied on a two-step test set by the Supreme Court in its 2022 landmark ruling, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. Under that decision's framework, 'when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.' If so, the government must then show that 'the regulation is consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.' In the California case, the Ninth Circuit determined that the Second Amendment protects 'operable' arms, and 'because arms are inoperable without ammunition, the right to keep and bear arms necessarily encompasses the right to have ammunition.' As a result, the court concluded that 'California's ammunition background check meaningfully constrains the right to keep operable arms.' To survive the second step of the Bruen test, California attempted to compare its background check system to a wide range of historical analogues, including loyalty oaths and disarmament provisions from the American Revolution and Reconstruction. But the Ninth Circuit was left unconvinced. 'None of the historical analogues proffered by California is within the relevant time frame, or is relevantly similar to California's ammunition background check regime,' Ikuta found, and so, 'California's ammunition background check regime does not survive scrutiny under the two-step Bruen analysis.' In a sharply worded dissent, Judge Jay Bybee blasted the majority's analysis as 'twice-flawed.' Noting that 'the vast majority of its checks cost one dollar and impose less than one minute of delay,' Judge Bybee asserted that California's background check system is 'not the kind of heavy-handed regulation that meaningfully constrains the right to keep and bear arms.' Notably, the California Department of Justice in 2024 received 191 reports of ammunition purchases from 'armed and prohibited individuals' who were denied by background check. In dueling statements, the California Rifle & Pistol Association praised Thursday's ruling against the state's background check law as a 'massive victory for gun owners in California,' while Gov. Gavin Newsom called the decision a 'slap in the face.'
The Hill
2 days ago
- The Hill
Silence kills: Now is the time to speak up against deadly gun silencers
In 2019, a gunman shot and killed 12 people in a Virginia Beach municipal building. His semiautomatic weapon was fitted with a silencer, making the gunshots sound, to one survivor, 'like a nail gun.' If the shots had been louder — if the people inside had been given even 30 more seconds of warning — lives could have perhaps been saved. But muffled sounds from the silencer created confusion and, ultimately, death. Silencers are dangerous. Now, they're more accessible than ever. Within President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act was a little-noticed but dangerous provision eliminating the $200 federal tax requirement on firearm silencers. Sold as a win for freedom and self-defense, this repeal does nothing to make ordinary Americans safer. Instead, it makes it easier to acquire deadly tools that muffle the sound of gunfire, and can make shootings harder to detect and survive. On July 4, Trump signed the so-called 'big beautiful bill,' a 1,200-page piece of legislation that overhauled taxes, took down social programs, and included a long list of far-right priorities. Buried within it was a provision that eliminated the federal tax on gun silencers, and stripped away regulations under the National Firearms Act. For nearly a century, silencers, also called suppressors, were subject to a $200 tax and required a federal registration process with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The goal wasn't to ban them outright, but to treat them with caution and scrutiny. By removing the tax, the bill treats them like ordinary firearm accessories. With the federal tax removed, the financial and procedural barriers that once slowed down silencer purchases are gone, making it easier and potentially faster to obtain them. In effect, this policy turns silencers into impulse buys available with minimal oversight, even in states with already loose gun laws. Supporters of the provision framed it as an effort to cut red tape, and to fully express Second Amendment freedoms. But in reality, it was a quiet win for the gun lobby — one that came at the cost of long-standing public safety protections. Silencers don't make guns completely silent, but they do make shootings harder to hear. That extra delay of seconds of confusion, lost sound or disbelief can cost lives. Proponents of silencer deregulation argue that suppressors reduce hearing damage for recreational shooters and make gun ranges less disruptive to neighbors. They frame the tax and registration process as bureaucratic overreach that burdens lawful gun owners. But these talking points ignore the ultimate threat to public safety that silencers carry: people have, and will continue to, die because of easy access to silencers. Further, with the removal of federal tax on silencers, the gun lobby is better equipped to argue in court against any and all government regulation of silencers. Even if silencers have some legitimate uses, removing the federal tax and treating them like common firearm accessories opens the door to widespread abuse. Responsible gun owners can still protect their hearing with earmuffs. Communities can't protect themselves from gunfire they never hear coming. This repeal didn't happen by accident. It slipped through quietly, buried in a massive bill, with little debate and even less public awareness. But that doesn't mean the story ends here. What happens when silencers become easier to buy than ever before? What role can we play in making sure our communities stay safe, and our voices stay heard? Maybe it starts with a message to a senator, a petition, or a post. Maybe it's showing up at a town hall, or supporting groups already doing the work: groups like Brady United Against Gun Violence, Everytown, Moms Demand Action, Giffords, and Sandy Hook Promise. We don't all have the same tools. But we all have a voice. And in the face of policies that turn down the volume on violence, maybe the most powerful thing we can do is refuse to stay quiet. If our leaders won't raise the alarm, we have to. Because the more we let silence spread, the more dangerous this country becomes. It's time to make some noise and address this hidden upheaval of public safety.
CNN
2 days ago
- CNN
See where gender identity care is restricted and where it's protected
The US Supreme Court's decision to uphold Tennessee's ban on gender identity care for transgender minors earlier this summer has fueled ongoing polarization around LGBTQ issues and controversial policies across the nation. The high court has also agreed to take on more cases dealing with trans rights in its next session that begins in October. Twenty-seven states have passed laws limiting access to gender identity health care for transgender children and teenagers, according to KFF, a nonpartisan health policy think tank. An estimated 40% of trans youth ages 13 to 17 live in these states. There have already been more anti-LGBTQ bills introduced in state legislatures so far this year than in any full year since at least 2020, a CNN analysis of American Civil Liberties Union data found. These bills span various aspects of everyday life, including bathroom access, school sports and identification documents. CNN is tracking where these laws are being passed and where these bills are being introduced. This story will be updated. Gender identity care includes medically necessary, evidence-based care that uses a multidisciplinary approach to help a person transition from their assigned sex— the one the person was designated at birth — to their affirmed gender, the gender by which one wants to be known. Most of the states limiting gender identity care for trans minors adopted their bans in 2023, a record-breaking year for such laws. So far this year, one state — Kansas — has passed a ban, prohibiting the use of state funds to provide or subsidize health care for transgender youth. Not all laws are currently being enforced, however. The ban in Arkansas has been permanently blocked by a federal court, though the state said it would appeal the ruling. Montana's ban is also permanently blocked, according to KFF. Though Arizona has a 2022 law on the books banning surgical care for transgender minors, Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs signed an executive order in 2023 ensuring access to gender identity health care. Nearly 600 anti-LGBTQ bills have been introduced into state legislatures as of July 11, which is already more than any other year on record, according to the ACLU. Education and health care continue to be key targets. There were more bills restricting student and educator rights — enforcing school sports bans and targeting students' access to facilities consistent with their gender identities, for example — than any other category of bills, according to a CNN analysis of ACLU data. Legislators in Texas have introduced 88 anti-LGBTQ bills so far this year, more than double the number of bills being considered in any other state. Four of those — including one that limits changes to gender markers on state medical records — have been passed into law. In late July, Texas lawmakers are reconvening for a 30-day special session. On the agenda is a transgender bathroom bill. Lawmakers in every state, except for Vermont, have filed at least one anti-LGBTQ bill in 2025, according to a CNN analysis. Twenty-two states have signed those bills into law.
