A federal appeals court struck down California’s law requiring background checks for ammunition purchases, ruling it violates the Second Amendment. The decision deals a blow to one of the state’s most aggressive gun control efforts.
Key Facts:
- The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 against California’s ammunition background check law on July 25, 2024.
- Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote the majority opinion, citing violations of the Second Amendment and lack of historical precedent.
- The ruling upheld a permanent injunction originally issued by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego.
- California officials may appeal to a larger panel or the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Plaintiffs included Olympian Kim Rhode and the California Rifle & Pistol Association.
The Rest of The Story:
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that California’s ammunition background check law violates the constitutional right to bear arms.
The decision upheld a lower court’s permanent block on the law, which had been in place since voters approved it in 2016.
Originally, the measure allowed gun owners to obtain a four-year permit for buying ammunition.
But lawmakers later amended it to require a background check with every purchase.
Judge Sandra Ikuta, writing for the majority, declared that the law “meaningfully constrains” the right to keep and bear arms and that California failed to provide historical precedent justifying such restrictions.
“By subjecting Californians to background checks for all ammunition purchases,” she wrote, “California’s ammunition background check regime infringes on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.”
The ruling cited the 2022 Supreme Court decision New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which demands gun laws align with historical practices.
The decision contrasted sharply with the view of Circuit Judge Jay Bybee, who dissented, arguing the law was a modest measure consistent with the right to bear arms and did not meet the threshold for an unconstitutional burden.
California officials argued that similar historical regulations—such as gunpowder licensing and disarming those who refused loyalty oaths in the 1700s—supported their approach.
However, the court found those examples lacking as relevant precedent.
Governor Gavin Newsom called the decision “a slap in the face” to public safety efforts, while Attorney General Rob Bonta vowed to consider further legal steps.
Supporters of the ruling, including gold medalist Kim Rhode and gun rights groups, celebrated the outcome as a major win for lawful gun owners.
Rhode called it “a big win for all gun owners in California,” and the California Rifle & Pistol Association labeled the decision a blow to “overreaching government gun control.”
Commentary:
This outcome should surprise no one who respects the Constitution. The Second Amendment is not a suggestion—it’s a guaranteed right.
California’s scheme to background-check every single bullet sale was always an outrageous overreach and directly at odds with both the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
The state’s justification crumbled under the weight of the Bruen decision, which rightly restored originalist principles to gun rights interpretation.
No historical analogs exist for such an intrusive, repeated background check system—because our Founders would never have tolerated it.
Judge Ikuta and her colleagues saw through the legal gymnastics and returned to bedrock constitutional logic.
Meanwhile, Democrat leaders like Newsom and Bonta continue to treat lawful gun owners like criminals, even when they follow the rules.
They pretend public safety demands constant encroachment on freedoms while ignoring their failure to address actual crime.
What’s worse is the arrogance on display.
Newsom openly derided the ruling as an insult to the state’s “progress.”
But stripping citizens of their rights is not progress—it’s regression.
It’s exactly the kind of soft tyranny that our constitutional system is meant to prevent.
The deeper issue is that Democrats like Newsom don’t seem to care about the Constitution unless it serves their political goals.
They push laws they know are unconstitutional, hoping courts or voters won’t push back.
And when courts step in, they play the victim. It’s a dishonest and dangerous game.
Thankfully, the judicial system—at least in this case—did its job.
But it shouldn’t take years of litigation to reaffirm what should be obvious.
The real question is why anyone would continue to vote for leaders so eager to deny basic rights to their own citizens.
Only those fully detached from constitutional values could support this kind of governance.
The Bottom Line:
A federal court struck down California’s ammunition background check law, declaring it a violation of the Second Amendment.
The ruling affirms that states must respect historical constitutional protections, even when pursuing public safety goals.
This case is a major victory for gun rights and a clear message to lawmakers: the Constitution is not optional.
The state can appeal, but the outcome is a warning shot against future overreach.
Read Next
– Gavin Newsom, California Democrats Plot Illegal Gerrymander To Increase Number of Dem House Seats
– Soros-Funded Groups Throw Support Behind GOP Bill Offering Legal Status to Millions