A federal appeals court has judged California’s pioneering law requiring background checks for ammunition purchases as unconstitutional, asserting that it infringes upon the Second Amendment right to bear arms. In a 2-1 ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed an earlier decision that prevented the enforcement of this law. Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta emphasized that the law significantly limits the right to keep and bear arms, failing to meet the historical test for firearm regulation established by a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. The decision reflects a commitment to protecting constitutional rights, making a clear statement against what is seen as governmental overreach in regulating firearm access.
California Governor Gavin Newsom denounced the court’s decision as a setback for public safety efforts aimed at reducing gun violence. He reiterated that strong gun laws are essential for saving lives and accused the ruling of disregarding the voice of California voters, who had mandated background checks on ammunition through a ballot measure in 2016. The state’s Attorney General, Rob Bonta, conveyed disappointment, stressing that communities deserve robust protections against gun violence and indicating that they are exploring further legal options to challenge the ruling.
The law originated from a 2016 initiative that required background checks for ammunition purchases, which was later modified to enforce checks on each purchase. California officials argued that the law was crucial, citing instances when individuals prohibited from owning firearms were prevented from acquiring ammunition through these checks. Supporters of the law viewed it as an important step in curbing gun violence and enhancing public safety, highlighting the responsibility of gun ownership and the need for regulation.
Among the plaintiffs challenging the law was Olympic shooter Kim Rhode, whose experience and standing in the gun community lent significant weight to the case against the law. The California Rifle & Pistol Association also played a key role in the legal proceedings, declaring the court’s decision a victory against what they termed excessive governmental control over gun ownership. Rhode characterized the ruling as a win for gun owners and a reaffirmation of the importance of Second Amendment rights in California.
The injunction preventing California from enforcing the law was originally issued by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, and the appeals court had temporarily stayed the injunction during the appellate process. California’s legal arguments included references to colonial-era firearm regulations, aiming to show that historical laws supported their case for background checks, although the court ultimately found these arguments unconvincing in light of the modern constitutional framework.
In a dissenting opinion, Circuit Judge Jay Bybee criticized the majority ruling, arguing that it misapplied Supreme Court precedent by deeming any restrictions on ammunition purchases unconstitutional. He contended that the law in question did not substantially hinder the right to bear arms and suggested that the majority’s decision might set a dangerous precedent affecting public safety. The appeal process remains open, as California can seek further review from an en banc panel or the U.S. Supreme Court, indicating ongoing legal and political battles over gun control in the state.
