US appeals court makes decision on landmark California ammunition background checks case

New York Post

6 days ago

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 US 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.
Advertisement
The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, Calif. declared a law that requires gun owners to undergo background checks to buy ammunition in California unconstitutional.
Getty Images
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 US 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.
Advertisement
The office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat who defended the law, was disappointed by the decision.
'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,' a spokesperson said.
The office of California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who has called the January 2024 injunction 'extremist, illogical, and incoherent,' had no immediate comment.
Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta said hte law 'meaningfully constrains' citizens' right to bear arms.
REUTERS
Advertisement
All three judges on Thursday's 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.
'Overreaching
The plaintiffs included Kim Rhode, 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.'
Advertisement
Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here!
Many gun rights groups and 24 mostly Republican-led US 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 in 2024 of 'armed and prohibited individuals' who were blocked through background checks from buying ammunition.
Law not 'Heavy-Handed,' dissent says
Advertisement
The injunction was issued by US 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.
Advertisement
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.
Advertisement
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 US Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-542.