U.S. Appeals Court Rules California Cannot Conduct Background Checks for Ammo Purchases

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a 2-1 decision Thursday that California’s law requiring firearm owners to undergo background checks when buying ammunition goes against the second amendment and is unconstitutional.

In the majority opinion, Judge Sandra Ikuta said that the ammunition law goes against the second amendment, as the right to bear arms also includes the right to buy ammunition for them.

“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.”

In addition, the opinion noted that California’s law “meaningfully constrains” the second amendment and did not show how the law went with firearm regulation history. According to the court’s decision, California’s ammunition law also goes against the 2022 landmark decision New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which holds that most laws regulating firearm ownership are legitimate only if they are firmly rooted in American history or analogous to some historical rule.

The decision was celebrated by many, with many firearms groups in California approving of the move following the case being in the legal system for nearly a decade. Supporters also noted the high likelihood that the state will appeal the case yet again.

“This is a huge win,” said California Rifle & Pistol Association (CPRA) President Chuck Michel on Thursday. “The state will likely appeal en banc, so we have to keep fighting, but this law will fall!”

“California gun owners just secured a huge win! The Ninth Circuit upheld our challenge in Rhode v. Bonta to the state’s unconstitutional restrictions on ammunition purchases—a case CRPA has been fighting since 2017.,” said the CPRA in another statement. “Today’s ruling is what plaintiffs and many in the 2A community, like the National Rifle Association, who supported the many appeals in this case, have been waiting almost a decade to receive. But the fight isn’t over. California won’t back down, and neither can we.

“Make no mistake: the state will try to reinstate the ammo ban. We don’t yet know what their next move will be, but we do know their commitment to gun control policies.”

The latest ruling

Judge Jay S. Bybee was the lone dissenter, arguing that California’s background check law doesn’t constrain the second amendment, nor is it expensive.

“The background check law does not constrain the right to keep and bear arms, like a law imposing a blanket ban might,” explained Bybee. “The vast majority of California’s checks cost one dollar and impose less than one minute of delay.”

Both Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta also spoke out against the decision, vowing to appeal the case yet again.

“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,” said Newsom in a statement. “Californians voted to require background checks on ammunition and their voices should matter.”

“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,” added Bonta’s office.

The legal challenge of the required background check for ammunition purposes dates back to November 2016, when California voters passed Proposition 63 in response to the 2015 San Bernardino terrorism incident. The law was almost immediately challenged by gun rights supporters, who said that such a ban violated the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Rhode v. Becerra (later changed to Rhode v. Bonta because of a change in the state Attorney General) was the main such suit, backed by the California Rifle & Pistol Association. In April 2020, Judge Benitez ruled that the background check law was unconstitutional, saying that “California’s new ammunition background check law misfires and the Second Amendment rights of California citizens have been gravely injured.”

Then-Attorney General Xavier Becerra, however appealed the decision, getting the case kicked up to the U.S. Court of Appeals and getting an injunction to keep the law in place as it was being heard by the court. While it was being considered by the court, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which greatly expanded gun rights. With a new law in place in 2022, the Rhode case was brought back down to the U.S. District Court in San Diego and Judge Benitez. The case was then subsequently reheard in July 2023.

Last year, the District Court ruled that California’s law was unconstitutional, causing Bonta and the state to bring it to the Appellate Court. This led to Thursday’s decision.

Despite the state losing yet again, it is expected that Bonta is to file for a larger en banc Appellate hearing soon. Should the state lose there, the only other option California would have would be to try and have the U.S. Supreme Court rule on the matter, as the state has exhausted virtually all other options following nearly a decade in the courts.