California’s ammunition background check law—once hailed as a pioneering effort to slow the flow of bullets—has just been declared unconstitutional by a sharply divided federal appeals court. The ruling delivers a jolt to the state’s gun control regime and hands a high-powered win to Second Amendment advocates.
In a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals out of Pasadena shot down the state’s requirement that firearm owners undergo a background check each time they purchase ammunition. The court said the rule ran afoul of the Constitution’s right to bear arms—and couldn’t be justified under the legal lens shaped by a landmark 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
“The state’s background check regime for ammo purchases isn’t just flawed,” wrote Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta, “it collides head-on with the Second Amendment.” Ikuta, joined by Circuit Judge Bridget Bade, concluded the law placed an impermissible burden on lawful gun owners and lacked historical precedent.
California officials weren’t pleased.
Governor Gavin Newsom blasted the ruling, calling it a dangerous blow to public safety. The state’s attorney general, Rob Bonta, said they’re exploring their legal options, signaling a possible appeal to a larger panel—or even the Supreme Court.
The now-suspended law emerged from a 2016 ballot measure approved by voters. Initially, it allowed for four-year ammunition permits. But the legislature later tightened the screws, mandating a background check every time a box of bullets was bought. That meant delays, ID verifications, and for many, denials—even those legally eligible to own guns.
The court case was led by Olympic gold medalist Kim Rhode and the California Rifle & Pistol Association. Together, they argued the system wrongly barred thousands of lawful gun owners from accessing ammunition and did little to deter crime.
Chuck Michel, who leads the gun group, framed the ruling as a rebuke of government overreach. Rhode called it “a big win for all gun owners in California.”
Not everyone agreed. Judge Jay Bybee, dissenting, argued that the court’s majority was rewriting the Constitution in gunpowder and ignoring real historical parallels. “The law isn’t some sweeping gun grab,” he wrote. “It’s a modest guardrail.”
Supporters of the law, including gun safety groups and several Democratic-led states, said the background checks prevented potentially dangerous individuals from loading up. California, for instance, reported nearly 200 instances this year where flagged individuals were blocked from buying ammunition.
But the court wasn’t swayed. Without a deep historical lineage to back the law—no 18th-century ammo permits, no colonial powder checks that fully match—the judges found California’s policy lacking.
This ruling marks another chapter in the ongoing legal arms race between state-level gun safety efforts and an increasingly muscular interpretation of the Second Amendment. Where California sees sensible precautions, the court saw constitutional overreach.
The legal battle isn’t over. California could seek a rehearing from a larger group of 9th Circuit judges, or ask the Supreme Court to take aim. Either way, the future of ammunition control laws is now in the crosshairs.
