Ninth Circuit Declares California's Background Checks on Ammo Purchases Unconstitutional

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals gave Second Amendment advocates a huge 
win on Thursday by upholding a lower court decision that held California's 
background check requirement on sales of ammunition (and prohibiting 
residents from ordering ammunition online or bringing ammunition purchased 
out-of-state back into California) was unconstitutional. 

In a 2-1 decision, the three judge panel concluded that the law is 
facially unconstitutional, meaning there's no circumstance where it can be 
lawfully applied. As such, the panel endorsed the permanent injunction 
first delivered by U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez in Rhode v. 
Bonta early last year. 

Writing for the majority, Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta declared the background 
scheme "meaningfully constrains the right to keep operable arms."

California’s ammunition background check regime regulates all ammunition 
acquisitions by California residents; the regime applies not only to every 
transaction in California but also to ammunition purchases by California 
residents outside the state. It requires California residents to pay for 
and complete an in-person background check before each ammunition 
acquisition. Though not all the rules comprising California’s ammunition 
background check regime impose delays on their face, they do not require 
California to approve checks within a certain timeframe. Requirements 
prior to various types of background checks, such as fingerprinting, 
inherently cause some amount of delay. After approval, moreover, a 
California resident may be required to purchase ammunition during a 
specified period of time—e.g., 18 hours—after passing a background check. 
The regime applies to all types of ammunition, and California residents 
cannot avoid the background check requirements by taking advantage of 
internet or out-of-state sales. Rather, out-of-state purchases are subject 
to additional delays and fees. Given the fees and delays associated with 
California’s ammunition background check regime, and the wide range of 
transactions to which it applies, we conclude that, in all applications, 
the regime meaningfully constrains California residents’ right to keepand 
bear arms. Thus, it is not a “presumptively lawful regulatory measure[].”

California offered four different historical analogues in their defense of 
the background check law: loyalty oath requirements and loyalist 
disarmament provisions at the founding and during Reconstruction, 19th 
century concealed carry permitting requirements, surety laws imposed at 
the founding on persons who presented a danger to the community, and 
licensing and recordkeeping requirements imposed on vendors of gunpowder 
and firearms."

The only argument that might even remotely apply are those 19th century 
concealed carry permitting requirements, but Ikuta pointed out that those 
laws all required a one-time check to ensure "that those bearing arms in 
the jurisdiction are, in fact, 'law abiding, responsible citizens'. 

"This 'how' is unlike the burden imposed by the challenged restrictions on 
California residents, who must undergo checks prior to each ammunition 
purchase," Ikuta opined. 

Writing in dissent, Judge Jay Bybee argued that before the panel 
considered whether the law comports with the Second Amendment and the 
national tradition of gun ownership, it should have considered whether or 
not the law is a "presumptively lawful" regime like the shall issue 
concealed carry laws the Supreme Court pointed to in Bruen. Ikuta 
rightfully brushed off that argument, declaring Bybee's "approach gets the 
two step Bruen inquiry backwards."

Under Bruen, “[when] the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an 
individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that 
conduct.” Only after making the determination that the Constitution 
presumptively protects the individual’s conduct do we consider whether the 
government can “justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is 
consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulations.” 
Thus, Bruen first concluded that the proposed course of conduct of 
“carrying handguns publicly for self-defense” was protected by the plain 
text of the Second Amendment. Only then did Bruen turn to the 
consideration of historical evidence and address, in a footnote, the 
lawfulness of shall-issue licensing regimes and its determination that a 
shall-issue licensing regime is not per se unconstitutional. Our order of 
analysis is therefore consistent with Bruen.

As Ikuda had already pointed out, California's background check scheme 
isn't really comparable to "shall issue" concealed carry licenes to begin 
with, which makes Bybee's contention even more untenable. 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals got this one right. California Attorney 
General Rob Bonta is almost certain to appeal this en banc, as well as 
request that the panel's decision be stayed while the appeal is underway, 
which would keep the challenged restrictions in place and enforceable. I 
honestly don't know if he's going to be successful with either request, 
but we probably won't have to wait long to find out. 

Congratulations to Kim Rhode and the other named plaintiffs, as well as 
the California Rifle & Pistol Association, whose attorneys did an 
outstanding job in this case. This is a huge win for gun owners; not just 
in California, but in any other blue state where Democrats might be 
thinking about imposing similar restrictions on ammo sales. 

https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2025/07/24/ninth-circuit-declares-
californias-background-checks-on-ammo-purchases-unconstitutional-n1229380