California's ammunition background check law deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL
By bellecarter // 2025-08-05
Copy
 
  • The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down California's law requiring background checks for ammunition purchases, deeming it unconstitutional and upholding a previous injunction by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez.
  • The decision reflects a growing trend in federal courts to evaluate gun control measures based on historical firearm regulations.
  • The ruling has sparked a debate over the balance between gun rights and public safety. California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta expressed disappointment, viewing the decision as a setback for community safety, while the California Rifle & Pistol Association celebrated it as a victory for constitutional rights.
  • The decision highlights the tension between state and federal courts in interpreting the Second Amendment. As states like California push for stricter gun laws, federal courts are increasingly overturning such measures, citing constitutional grounds.
  • The ruling intensifies the discussion on whether individual rights to bear arms can be limited without probable cause and how to balance these rights with public safety concerns.
In a significant blow to California's stringent gun control measures, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that the state's law requiring background checks for ammunition purchases is unconstitutional. The decision upholds a permanent injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who had previously struck down the law, arguing that it violated the Second Amendment rights of Californians. The background check law for ammunition was born out of a 2016 ballot measure aimed at tightening California's already strict gun regulations. The measure was part of a broader effort to close loopholes in the state's gun laws and prevent firearms and ammunition from falling into the wrong hands. However, the law has faced consistent legal challenges since its inception. The 9th Circuit's ruling reflects a growing trend in federal courts to scrutinize gun control measures based on historical precedent. In a landmark 2022 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that firearm cases should be evaluated by how they align with the country's historical traditions of firearm regulation. Judge Sandra Ikuta, writing for the majority, cited this precedent in her opinion, stating that California's ammunition background check regime infringes on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Judge Ikuta's opinion emphasized the inconsistency of the law with historical firearm regulations. "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," she wrote. In contrast, Judge Jay S. Bybee, who dissented, argued that the law did not impose a significant burden on gun owners. "The vast majority of (California's) checks cost one dollar and impose less than one minute of delay," Bybee noted. He contended that the law was a reasonable measure to prevent firearms and ammunition from being obtained by individuals who should not have them. The ruling has been met with mixed reactions. Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association and one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, celebrated the decision. "This is a huge win," Michel posted on social media. "The state will likely appeal en banc, so we have to keep fighting, but this law will fall!" California Gov. Gavin Newsom expressed his disappointment with the ruling, framing it as a setback for public safety. "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 said in a statement. "Californians voted to require background checks on ammunition and their voices should matter."

The broader debate on gun control

The 9th Circuit's decision is part of a larger national conversation about the balance between gun rights and public safety. According to the Los Angeles Times, both the 9th Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court have significantly restricted gun control measures in recent years. This trend has intensified the debate over whether the inherent right to defend one's life can be abridged without probable cause or whether those rights are protected from the will of the majority. The ruling also highlights the ongoing tension between state and federal courts in interpreting the Second Amendment. As states like California continue to push for stricter gun laws, federal courts are increasingly stepping in to overturn such measures, citing constitutional grounds. (Related: ATF on the chopping block: Trump's DOGE team moves to gut gun regulations, restore Second Amendment rights.) The 9th Circuit's decision to strike down California's ammunition background check law underscores the complexities of gun control in America. While proponents argue that such measures are necessary to prevent gun violence, opponents contend that they infringe on constitutional rights. As the legal battle continues, the ruling serves as a reminder of the enduring debate over how to balance individual liberties with public safety. Watch the video below that talks about balancing rights and safety with second amendment. This video is from the Proforce channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

Senate bill targets Al Capone-era taxes on firearms as 2nd Amendment battle intensifies. Citigroup drops firearms policy, vows political neutrality amid debanking backlash. DOJ launches Second Amendment Task Force amid federal rollback of gun control measures.

Sources include:

ZeroHedge.com AmGreatness.com LATimes.com Brighteon.com
Copy