A law requiring background checks on all ammunition purchases in California was overturned this week by a federal appeals court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down the law, calling the provision unconstitutional. This decision marks a huge victory for gun owners and 2A advocates in the state.
Olympic medalist skeet shooter Kim Rhode, a plaintiff in the case, called it a “big win” while the California Rifle and Pistol Association applauded the Court’s decision.
“This case has been a long hard fight against overreaching government gun control, but a firearm cannot be effective without the ammunition to make it operable,” Chuck Michel, the group’s president, said in a news release. “The state of California continues to try to strip our rights, and we continue to prove their actions are unconstitutional.”
Table of Contents
Loading…
What This Means for California Gun Owners
Though the law has been barred from enforcement for now, there’s still confusion about whether residents can go ahead and stock up on ammo. CRPA says their attorneys are actively working to get clarification from the court on whether Californians can start stocking up on ammo, but as it stands, it’s likely the law will remain in effect until the case goes back to the trial court.
“Understandably, everyone wants to know whether or not the law is still in effect right now, or whether the injunction from the trial court goes back into effect immediately so they can buy ammo now,” CRPA posted on Facebook. “We are working to try and get a definitive answer to that, but it appears that the law will remain in effect until the case gets back to the trial court, or we get a ruling from the court of appeals that the stay of the trial court’s injunction is lifted.”
The state can request a rehearing by a larger panel of judges in the Ninth Circuit, called an en banc review, and request that the law stay in place until that hearing. CRPA says that’s exactly what they expect the state to do.
“It is almost certain that the state will ask the Ninth Circuit to keep the stay on Judge Benitez’s injunction in place so the law stays in place while they ask for en banc review from the Ninth Circuit. Please stand by while we try to nail this down. We are working hard to try and get the law knocked out immediately.”
Proposition 63
The law in question took effect in July 2019 after voters approved a ballot measure on the issue of ammunition purchases in the state in 2016. At its heart, the law required that ammo purchasers pass a background check – paying a $1 fee for the check — before they could actually purchase any ammunition.
Further, it prevented residents of California from purchasing ammo from out-of-state retailers – meaning no online purchases.
In 2018, Olympic medalist skeet shooter Kim Rhode filed a lawsuit against the state, alongside other gun owners, challenging the law. Two years later, a lower court prohibited enforcement of the law, but the state quickly appealed that decision.
The case ended up in front of the Ninth Circuit, which promptly kicked it back down to the lower court after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Bruen decision. At that point, the lower court placed a permanent block on the measure in 2024, preventing the state from enforcing it at all.
But California’s attorney general did not back down and, once again, appealed the ruling, putting the case back on the Ninth Circuit’s docket. Ultimately, in a 2-1 decision on Thursday, the Ninth Circuit ruled that background checks on ammunition are a clear violation of the Second Amendment, siding with Rhode and the other plaintiffs.
“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 Sandra S. Ikuta wrote for the majority.
Circuit Judge Jay Bybee, the lone dissenter, argued that ammunition is an “ancillary right” and does not impede firearm access; therefore, the law is not in violation of the Second Amendment.
“California’s law — which, on its face, imposes no delay, and a mere one-dollar fee — is not the kind of heavy-handed regulation that meaningfully constrains the right to keep and bear arms. The law does not categorically limit the amount of ammunition that Californians may purchase, akin to the law that we recently found unconstitutional in Nguyen,” Bybee wrote in his dissenting opinion.
Reactions to the News
While gun rights advocates were excited about the decision, proponents of the ammo restrictions were noticeably displeased with the court’s opinion.
A California Department of Justice spokesperson said the ruling opens “a dangerous loophole,” while Gov. Gavin Newsom said the decision was a “slap in the face” to voters.
“Strong gun laws save lives — and today’s decision is a slap in the face to the progress California has made in recent years to keep its communities safer from gun violence. Californians voted to require background checks on ammunition and their voices should matter,” Newsom said in a press release.
Rhode, a six-time Olympian, said this ruling is proof that Americans deserve access to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
“This ruling affirms the strength of our Constitution and the enduring rights of responsible citizens. The Second Amendment guarantees more than just access—it guarantees trust, freedom, and the ability to participate fully in the traditions that define our nation,” Rhode said in a statement.
“I’m honored to have played a role in securing this important victory for all Americans who value liberty and lawful ownership, and I’m grateful to the California Rifle & Pistol Association, the NRA, and everyone who stood shoulder to shoulder in this effort.”
We’ll keep you updated as this story develops.
What do you think of this ruling? Let us know in the comments below. For more news, check out the News Section.
Leave a Reply