9th Circuit Declares California Ammunition Background Checks Unconstitutional

News Summary

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that California’s law requiring background checks for ammunition purchases is unconstitutional. This decision reinforces previous court findings and argues that such checks infringe upon Second Amendment rights. Dissenting opinions suggested the checks are not overly burdensome, while proponents view the ruling as a win for gun rights. Critics warn that the decision may enable prohibited individuals to obtain ammunition. The ruling is a significant moment in the ongoing debate over gun control and constitutional rights in California.

San Diego, California – The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has declared California’s law mandating background checks for ammunition purchases unconstitutional. This ruling confirms the earlier decision by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who had previously invalidated the law twice, and stems from a lawsuit initiated by a coalition of gun owners and rights advocates arguing that the law infringes on Second Amendment rights.

The ruling emphasizes that the requirement for background checks does not conform to historical firearm regulations in the United States. During the court’s decision, Judge Sandra Ikuta stated that such checks infringe upon the fundamental right to possess arms. The ruling mirrors a 2022 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which established that firearm cases should be analyzed with respect to historical regulations. Judge Ikuta articulated that the law imposes a burden by requiring background checks for every ammunition purchase, which significantly constrains the right to keep and bear arms.

Judge Jay S. Bybee provided a dissenting opinion, contending that the background check system does not pose a significant limitation on the right to bear arms. He indicated that the majority’s interpretation diverges from established precedents and overlooks the relatively minimal time and cost associated with the checks.

Supporters of the ruling, including Chuck Michel, the president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association and one of the plaintiffs, regard it as a substantial victory for gun rights advocates. Olympic medal-winning skeet shooter Kim Rhode, who is also a plaintiff, expressed that the decision benefits all gun owners in California. Furthermore, Dan Wolgin, CEO of Ammunition Depot, welcomed the ruling as a reinforcement of constitutional rights.

Contrarily, gun violence prevention organization Everytown Law criticized the decision, asserting that the ruling permits prohibited individuals to acquire ammunition, citing data showing that 191 such individuals were denied purchases due to the checks last year. California’s Attorney General’s Office defended the law, emphasizing its role as a crucial safety measure designed to prevent firearms from falling into the hands of prohibited persons.

Governor Gavin Newsom responded to the ruling by characterizing it as a “slap in the face” to California’s gun control initiatives, reiterating the necessity of background checks to ensure community safety. The ruling can potentially be appealed either to an 11-judge panel or the U.S. Supreme Court for further examination.

California’s 2016 ballot measure, which mandated background checks for ammunition purchases, was subsequently revised to require checks for each individual purchase. The court’s majority opinion highlighted that this legislation “meaningfully constrains” the right to keep arms by necessitating continual reauthorization for each ammunition transaction. The court scrutinized historical legal references provided by California, which cited colonial-era regulations, ultimately determining that these were not directly relevant to the contemporary background check law.

In summary, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling against California’s ammunition background checks raises significant implications for gun rights and regulatory efforts in the state. The legal battle reflects a broader ongoing national conversation regarding the balance between public safety and Second Amendment protections, with varying perspectives from advocates on both sides. As litigation progresses, the decision remains pivotal in shaping California’s approach to firearm regulation and safety measures.

Deeper Dive: News & Info About This Topic

HERE Resources

Additional Resources

• The New York Times
• Wikipedia: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
• Fox News
• Google Search: California ammunition background check
• KTLA
• Google Scholar: California ammunition law
• Los Angeles Times
• Encyclopedia Britannica: Firearm
• Reuters
• Google News: California ammunition background check news