California Ammunition Background Checks Ruled Unconstitutional: What It Means for Gun Owners

Online   Aug 01, 2025

Second Amendment California gun laws ammunition background checks Ninth Circuit unconstitutional ruling gun owners Proposition Gavin Newsom Kim Rhode California Rifle Pistol Association Bruen decision gun control public safety historical tradition firea

California Ammunition Background Checks Ruled Unconstitutional: What It Means for Gun Owners

On July 24, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit delivered a landmark 2-1 decision, declaring California’s law requiring background checks for ammunition purchases unconstitutional. This ruling, which upholds a 2024 lower court decision, marks a significant victory for Second Amendment advocates and a blow to California’s stringent gun control framework. The decision has sparked heated debate, with implications for gun owners, policymakers, and public safety across the state. Let’s dive into the details of the ruling, its background, and what it means for the future.

The Law in Question

California’s ammunition background check law, enacted in 2019 following voter approval of Proposition 63 in 2016, required gun owners to undergo a background check for every ammunition purchase. Championed by then-Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, the law aimed to prevent prohibited individuals—such as convicted felons, those with certain mental health issues, or individuals under restraining orders—from acquiring ammunition. The checks, costing $1 for those already in the state’s Automated Firearms System (AFS) or $19 for others, were intended to mirror the background checks required for firearm purchases. The law also prohibited Californians from purchasing ammunition out-of-state unless it was shipped to a licensed in-state vendor for a background check, a restriction that frustrated many gun owners.

However, the system wasn’t without flaws. According to U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who initially struck down the law in 2020 and again in 2024, the state’s automated background check system rejected approximately 11% of applicants—around 58,087 requests—in the first half of 2023 alone, often due to technical issues like outdated records or mismatches in identification. For example, out-of-state residents or Californians with older firearms not registered in the AFS were frequently unable to purchase ammunition legally. Critics, including plaintiffs like Olympic medalist shooter Kim Rhode and the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA), argued that the law imposed an undue burden on law-abiding gun owners, effectively restricting their Second Amendment rights.

The Ninth Circuit’s Ruling

The Ninth Circuit’s decision, penned by Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta and joined by Judge Bridget S. Bade, both Republican-appointed judges, centered on the Second Amendment. The majority opinion stated that “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.” The court reasoned that the right to bear arms inherently includes the right to operate them, which requires access to ammunition. The law’s requirements, including fees and delays, were deemed to “meaningfully constrain” this right.

The ruling leaned heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which established that gun regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. California argued that its law was supported by historical analogues, such as colonial-era rules requiring licenses to produce gunpowder or post-Civil War restrictions on concealed carry. However, the court dismissed these as insufficient, noting that they did not resemble the recurring background checks imposed on all ammunition purchases. Judge Ikuta specifically rejected comparisons to one-time loyalty oaths or racially discriminatory laws cited by the state, calling them irrelevant or “reprehensible.”

In dissent, Judge Jay Bybee, also a Republican appointee, argued that the law imposed minimal burdens, with most checks costing $1 and taking less than a minute. He contended that the regulation did not meaningfully restrict Second Amendment rights and accused the majority of ignoring Supreme Court guidance by effectively barring any limits on ammunition sales. Bybee’s dissent highlighted the state’s claim that the law had blocked 191 “armed and prohibited individuals” from purchasing ammunition in 2024, suggesting it served a public safety purpose.

Reactions and Implications

The ruling elicited strong reactions from both sides. Governor Gavin Newsom called it “a slap in the face to the progress California has made in recent years to keep its communities safer from gun violence,” emphasizing that voters had supported the law in 2016. The California Department of Justice echoed this sentiment, describing the law as a “critical and lifesaving measure” and signaling plans to explore legal options, potentially including an appeal to an 11-judge Ninth Circuit panel or the U.S. Supreme Court.

On the other hand, gun rights advocates celebrated the decision. Kim Rhode called it a “big win for all gun owners in California,” while CRPA president Chuck Michel described it as a victory against “overreaching government gun control.” Dan Wolgin, CEO of Ammunition Depot, one of the plaintiffs, hailed it as a “major step forward for the 2nd Amendment.” The ruling was also supported by 24 mostly Republican-led states and groups like the National Rifle Association, who argued that the law unfairly burdened law-abiding citizens.

The decision has broader implications for California’s gun control framework, already one of the nation’s strictest. Recent years have seen other state laws, such as bans on high-capacity magazines and assault-style weapons, struck down under the Bruen standard, though those cases remain under appeal. The ammunition background check ruling could further embolden challenges to California’s regulations, particularly those lacking clear historical precedent.

What’s Next?

For now, the ruling allows California gun owners to purchase ammunition without undergoing background checks, easing access for hunters, sport shooters, and those exercising their self-defense rights. However, the legal battle is far from over. California may seek a rehearing or appeal to the Supreme Court, though the Bruen decision’s strict historical test could make it difficult for the state to prevail. Meanwhile, gun control advocates worry that the ruling could undermine efforts to curb gun violence, while Second Amendment supporters see it as a step toward dismantling what they view as overly restrictive laws.

As the debate continues, this ruling underscores the tension between public safety and constitutional rights, a divide that shows no signs of narrowing. For California’s gun owners, it’s a moment of relief—but for how long remains to be seen.

- Cory Gautereaux

More Information