In a groundbreaking decision unveiled on Wednesday, a federal judge in San Diego, Roger Benitez, ruled that California’s mandate for background checks when purchasing ammunition is unconstitutional, arguing that it infringes upon the Second Amendment right to bear arms. The judge, appointed by Republican President George W. Bush, expressed that the background checks lack historical precedence and treat all citizens as if they have no inherent right to buy ammunition.
In a scathing critique of California’s approach, Benitez highlighted the “no historical pedigree” of the background checks, deeming them an outlier that our ancestors would have never accepted. He particularly criticized the state’s handling of the more than 1 million annual ammunition background checks, deeming the 11% rejection rate as “too high.”
California swiftly appealed the decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but Benitez denied its request for a stay, preventing background checks from being enforced during the appeal process.
State Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, defended the background checks as life-saving measures, emphasizing their role in protecting the people of California. Governor Gavin Newsom, also a Democrat, condemned Judge Benitez for favoring firearms owners in multiple decisions, including one that nullified the state’s ban on high-capacity gun magazines.
The case, featuring plaintiffs such as three-time Olympic gold medalist Kim Rhode and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, marks a significant victory for those challenging ammunition purchase restrictions. Chuck Michel, the association’s president and general counsel, hailed the decision as a “big win” against laws that he believes block eligible individuals from obtaining necessary ammunition.
The background check law, initially approved by California voters in 2016, mandated gun owners to undergo checks for ammunition purchases and pay $50 for a four-year ammunition permit. Legislators later amended the measure to require background checks for each ammunition purchase, starting in 2019.
Judge Benitez rejected California’s reliance on historical analogues dating back to 1789, arguing that it made little sense to justify restrictions against current citizens based on “repugnant historical examples of prejudice and bigotry.”
While stopping short of endorsing the four-year ammunition permit, Benitez suggested it could be a more reasonable constitutional approach than the current scheme. This decision follows the judge’s previous block on the background checks requirement in April 2020, prompted by a federal appeals court’s request to revisit the ruling in light of a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision expanding the right to bear arms. Shira Feldman, director of constitutional litigation at the gun control advocacy group Brady, criticized Benitez’s decision as an attack on life-saving background check systems, setting the stage for ongoing legal battles over gun control measures.
