Federal Court Strikes Down California's Ammo Background Check as Unconstitutional

In a major Second Amendment victory, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down California's controversial ammunition background check law Thursday, declaring it an unconstitutional infringement on gun owners’ rights.

By a decisive 2-1 ruling, the appeals court upheld a lower court’s permanent injunction blocking enforcement of the ammunition law. U.S. District Judge Sandra Ikuta sharply criticized California’s measure, stating it “meaningfully constrains” citizens' constitutional rights and fails to align with America’s established historical traditions of firearm regulation, referencing the Supreme Court’s pivotal 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & 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.

Governor Gavin Newsom, predictably, expressed outrage. “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,” Newsom complained. “Californians voted to require background checks on ammunition and their voices should matter.”

State Attorney General Rob Bonta echoed Newsom’s sentiments, arguing Californians “deserve nothing less than the most basic protection against preventable gun violence,” and vowed to explore legal options to overturn the decision.

California's restrictive ammunition regulations began in 2016 with a voter-approved initiative, which lawmakers later intensified by mandating checks for every ammo purchase. According to state officials, the law prevented 191 "armed and prohibited individuals" from purchasing ammunition in the past year alone.

Olympic champion Kim Rhode and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, who filed the lawsuit against the state, celebrated the ruling. The Association hailed it as a crucial victory against "overreaching government gun control," while Rhode declared it "a big win for all gun owners in California."

In dissent, Judge Jay Bybee accused his colleagues of ignoring Supreme Court guidelines, arguing the majority essentially labeled any ammunition restrictions unconstitutional, as it’s unlikely states can match historical precedents exactly. “The law is not the kind of heavy-handed regulation that meaningfully constrains the right to keep and bear arms,” Bybee argued.

All three judges involved in Thursday’s ruling were appointed by Republican presidents, although Democrats still hold a majority in the broader 9th Circuit.

Governor Newsom’s anti-gun record continues to raise questions despite his claims otherwise. Since 2019, Newsom has signed nearly 70 firearm restrictions into law, including SB 1327, which empowers private citizens to sue over illegal firearms. Recently, he pushed through an 11% tax on gun and ammo sales intended explicitly to discourage firearm ownership, funneling revenues into gun control initiatives.

This pattern isn't new. Newsom previously supported Proposition H in 2005 as mayor of San Francisco, seeking to ban handgun sales entirely, though courts blocked the measure. Later, as lieutenant governor in 2016, Newsom championed Proposition 63, aggressively pushing through restrictions on magazine capacities and instituting the very ammunition checks now rejected by the courts.