Appeals Court Upholds Block On California’s Background Check To Buy Ammunition

Authored by Michael Clements via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled July 24 that a California law requiring background checks to buy ammunition violated the Second Amendment.

A three-judge panel ruled 2–1 that the background check requirement failed to meet the standard set by the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

According to Bruen, a law must comply with the plain language of the Constitution and be analogous to laws at the time the Second Amendment was ratified.

Appeals Court Judges Sandra S. Ikuta and Bridget S. Bade upheld a permanent injunction issued by District Court Judge Roger T. Benetiz of the Southern District Court of California in 2020.

Judge Jay S. Bybee dissented.

The court ruled that the law regulates activity protected by the text of the Second Amendment because ammunition is necessary for the use of firearms.

“California’s ammunition background check regime implicates the plain text of the Second Amendment because the regime meaningfully constrains the right to keep operable arms,” Ikuta wrote.

The court also held that “the government failed to carry its burden of showing that California’s ammunition background check regime is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

While the Supreme Court stated in Bruen that some regulation in shall-issue carry regimes may be constitutional, the Ninth Circuit ruled that this did not cover ammunition purchases.

The Appeals Court ruled that ammunition purchases are distinct from concealed carry permits for firearms. The court stated that the California law was especially burdensome because it required a background check for each ammunition purchase, regardless of when the last purchase was made.

“Because California’s ammunition background check regime violates the Second Amendment, the panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a permanent injunction,” the ruling reads.

In his dissent, Bybee wrote that the delay and expense imposed by the background check did not impede the exercise of the Second Amendment right enough to be considered an infringement.

He added that the law’s requirement of face-to-face ammunition transactions, combined with the state’s prohibition on individuals carrying ammunition across state lines, did not violate the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

“In addition, the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that objective, ‘shall-issue’ licensing regimes—like California’s—are presumptively lawful, and plaintiffs have failed to rebut that presumption,” the dissent reads.

Plaintiffs celebrated the victory, but said they are not done.

“Today’s ruling represents continued affirmation that the Bruen decision, and Heller before represent a sea change in the way courts must look at these absurdly restrictive laws,” California Rifle and Pistol Association President and General Counsel Chuck Michel said in an email to The Epoch Times.

“The state of California continues to try to strip our rights, and we continue to prove their actions are unconstitutional.”

Lead plaintiff Kim Rhode—a member of the U.S. Olympic skeet and trap shooting team and six-time medalist—touted the ruling on X.

“As lead plaintiff in Rhode v. Bonta, I just defeated @CAgovernor Newsom’s ammo law… again … at the 9th Circuit. I’ve represented this country for 30 years,” she wrote.

Other plaintiffs were individuals Gary Brennan, Cory Henry, Edward Johnson, Scott Lindemuth, Richard Ricks, Denise Welvang, and businesses Able’s Sporting Inc. of Texas, AmDep Holdings LLC of Florida, and R&S Firearms Inc. of Arizona.

Attorney General Rob Bonta, in his official capacity, was the only defendant. His office did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.

In 2016, California voters approved Proposition 63. That law required a point-of-sale background check for every ammunition purchase. Buyers already in California’s firearms database paid $5 for each check; those not in the system paid $19 for a more comprehensive, one-time background check.

The law also banned individuals from buying ammunition in other states. It required all such transfers to be handled by a licensed dealer.

Benetiz found the law unconstitutional in 2020 and issued an injunction to block its enforcement. Bonta was granted a stay from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, pausing the injunction during the appeal.

The U.S. Supreme Court vacated that decision, sending the case back to the lower courts for reconsideration under the Bruen standard.