On Thursday, July 24, 2025, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a significant ruling striking down California's pioneering law requiring background checks for ammunition purchases, declaring it unconstitutional and a violation of the Second Amendment. This decision upholds a permanent injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego, who had previously ruled against the law in 2024. The ruling marks a critical juncture in the ongoing national debate over gun control and constitutional rights.
The law, which took effect in July 2019 following a 2016 voter-approved ballot initiative and subsequent legislative amendments, mandated that all purchasers of ammunition in California undergo background checks similar to those required for buying firearms. The background checks, which cost either $1 or $19 depending on eligibility, were designed to prevent individuals with criminal records, restraining orders, or certain mental health adjudications from acquiring ammunition. The law also included provisions for a four-year ammunition purchase permit, initially set at a $50 fee.
At the core of the appeals court's decision was the interpretation of the Second Amendment's protection of the right to keep and bear arms. Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta, writing for the two-judge majority, emphasized that the law "meaningfully constrains" this constitutional right by forcing gun owners to undergo repeated background checks before each ammunition purchase. She stated, "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."
Judge Ikuta further criticized the state for failing to demonstrate that the law aligns with the "historical tradition of firearm regulation," a standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. This ruling requires modern gun laws to be assessed based on their consistency with historical precedents rather than contemporary policy goals. California's attempts to justify its law by citing colonial-era regulations on gunpowder licenses, disarmament practices around the Revolutionary War, and late-19th century concealed weapons rules were deemed insufficient by the court.
The decision was not unanimous. Circuit Judge Jay Bybee dissented, arguing that California's background check system imposed only a minimal burden on gun owners, typically costing one dollar and causing less than a one-minute delay per transaction. He contended that the law did not "meaningfully constrain" the right to keep and bear arms and criticized the majority for misapplying the Bruen precedent. Bybee warned that the ruling effectively declares any limits on ammunition sales unlawful, given the difficulty of finding exact historical analogues.
The legal battle over California's ammunition background check law has been long and contentious. It began in 2018 when a coalition of gun owners and rights groups, including the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) and Olympic skeet shooter Kim Rhode, filed a lawsuit against then-Attorney General Xavier Becerra. They argued the law infringed on constitutional rights and imposed unnecessary hurdles for law-abiding gun owners. The CRPA hailed Thursday's decision as a "huge win" after nearly a decade of legal challenges, with its president Chuck Michel calling it a victory against "overreaching government gun control." Rhode echoed this sentiment, describing the ruling as "a big win for all gun owners in California."
California officials, including Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, expressed strong disappointment. Newsom called the ruling "a slap in the face to the progress California has made in recent years to keep its communities safer from gun violence," emphasizing that Californians voted in favor of background checks on ammunition and that their voices should be respected. The Attorney General's office stated it was reviewing legal options, underscoring the administration's commitment to maintaining firearm safety measures.
The background check system had reportedly blocked 191 "armed and prohibited individuals" from purchasing ammunition in 2024 alone, according to the California Department of Justice's Armed and Prohibited Persons System Report. Advocates for gun control, such as Janet Carter of Everytown Law, defended the law as a "common sense" measure that imposed only a "minimal burden" on gun owners while enhancing public safety.
Thursday's ruling is part of a broader national trend of legal challenges to gun regulations following the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen decision, which has prompted over 2,000 gun law challenges across the country. Many of these challenges have centered on the tension between modern gun control efforts and the constitutional protections of the Second Amendment.
While the 9th Circuit's decision blocks enforcement of California's ammunition background check law for now, the state retains options to seek further review. It can petition for a rehearing by an 11-judge panel within the appellate court or appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Given the contentious nature of gun legislation and the evolving legal landscape, the case is likely far from over.
The ruling also highlights the complex interplay of judicial philosophy and political appointments. All three judges on the panel were appointed by Republican presidents—Sandra Ikuta and Jay Bybee by George W. Bush, and Bridget Bade by Donald Trump—though Democratic appointees hold the majority in the 9th Circuit overall.
As California grapples with this setback, the debate over how best to balance gun rights with public safety continues to rage nationwide. The state's efforts to curb gun violence through stringent ammunition regulations now face a significant legal hurdle, underscoring the challenges of enacting and defending gun control measures in an era of heightened constitutional scrutiny.
